Summary
The Supreme Court acquitted a man convicted of murder and causing disappearance of evidence on purely circumstantial evidence, holding that the prosecution failed to prove that he and the deceased were present together in the house where the murder allegedly occurred, and that the recoveries of the weapon and blood-stained articles were unreliable, leaving gaps in the chain of circumstances.
Issues
- Whether the prosecution, relying solely on circumstantial evidence, established a complete chain of circumstances pointing only to the appellant's guilt for murder under Section 302 IPC and disappearance of evidence under Section 201 IPC.
- Whether the presence of the appellant and the deceased together at the house of the co-accused at the relevant time was proved.
- Whether the recoveries of the weapon and of a bag containing blood-stained clothes at the appellant's instance were reliable.
Provisions considered
- Sections 302 and 201, Indian Penal Code, 1860The appellant's conviction for murder and causing disappearance of evidence, affirmed by the High Court, was set aside because the circumstantial evidence did not establish his involvement beyond reasonable doubt. (¶¶ 1, 28, 29)
- Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860Noted that both accused were acquitted by the courts below of the charge read with Section 34, as no prior common intention was established. (¶ 12)
Held
- In a case resting solely on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution bears an enhanced burden to prove each incriminating circumstance by reliable evidence forming a chain that admits of no conclusion other than the accused's guilt; suspicion, however strong, is no substitute for proof, any missing link entitles the accused to the benefit of doubt, and the last-seen theory applies only where the time gap makes the involvement of anyone else impossible, and even then corroboration should be sought. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11)
- The unchallenged evidence of the co-accused's children showed that the deceased left the house at about 9:00 PM, while the only witness to the appellant's arrival saw him enter at 11:30 PM, saw only his back and assumed his identity. The essential fact that the appellant and the deceased were in the house at the same time was not proved. (¶¶ 15, 16, 21, 22)
- The recovery of the weapon and blood-stained articles from the co-accused's house could not be relied on, as the attesting witnesses deposed that they were not taken to the spot and were merely shown the articles. (¶¶ 19, 23)
- The recovery of a bag with the appellant's blood-stained clothes was not borne out, since the recovery witness deposed that police had taken the bag from him days before the date of the recorded recovery at the appellant's instance; the possibility of planting could not be ruled out. (¶¶ 18, 24)
- Further doubts arose because the witness who saw the appellant at the bus stand next morning did not establish where he was coming from, the clothes he was said to have worn were never shown to the witnesses for identification, and it was improbable that the body was carried about a kilometre past a 24-hour sawmill without being noticed. The chain of circumstances had glaring gaps and the guilt was not proved. (¶¶ 25, 26, 27, 28)
Result
Appeal allowed; the judgments of the Sessions Court and High Court set aside as regards the appellant, who was acquitted of all charges; bail bonds and sureties discharged and the appellant directed to be set free forthwith.