Summary
The Supreme Court acquitted two appellants convicted of murder on circumstantial evidence. The last-seen theory failed for want of proximity between the sighting and the death, the alleged extra-judicial confession was unproved, exculpatory and made under mob pressure, the recoveries did not qualify under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, and the remaining witnesses were unreliable; legal aid was directed for the non-appealing co-accused.
Issues
- Whether the last-seen-together circumstance was incriminating when the time of death was elastic and the gap from the last sighting was large.
- Whether the alleged extra-judicial confession made while the accused were detained by a mob was proved and could be used.
- Whether the recoveries of the alleged weapons and the motorcycle qualified under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
- Whether the circumstances proved formed a complete chain establishing guilt.
Provisions considered
- Section 27, Indian Evidence Act, 1872The crucial ingredient is concealment and its knowledge revealed by the accused's statement leading to discovery. No statement of concealment was recorded, the seizure list merely recited the objects were 'shown' by A1 and A2 at an open-access field, it was not shown which accused revealed what, and the objects were not produced or shown to the doctor; the recoveries did not qualify under Section 27. (¶¶ 12, 13, 14, 15, 16)
Held
- For the last-seen-together circumstance to incriminate, death must have occurred within a short time of the accused and deceased being seen together; a large time gap allows intervening circumstances and prevents an adverse inference from the accused's failure to explain when he parted company. Since the post-mortem placed death only within 24 hours and the deceased was last seen at 5 PM the previous day, no conviction could rest on that theory, which at most is a weak link. (¶¶ 7, 8, 9)
- The testimony of a witness who claimed to have seen the accused and the deceased drinking in a thickly populated area, and who could not identify her place of work or employer, did not inspire confidence, and its supposed corroboration by alcohol in the stomach could not save it. (¶ 6)
- An exculpatory statement by an accused blaming the co-accused is by nature unreliable; it cannot be used against the co-accused, who had no opportunity to cross-examine its maker, nor against its maker since it contains no confession. A statement made while detained by a mob on a murder accusation, with injuries later found on the accused, is also suspect for duress. (¶¶ 10, 11)
- Recoveries from an open field, without a recorded statement of concealment by the accused leading the police to the place, do not qualify under Section 27; blood-stains on such objects and the serology report are then of no consequence, and the motorcycle recovery suffered from the same defects and was not even proved to belong to the deceased. (¶¶ 12, 13, 14, 15, 16)
- Testimony elicited by the prosecution in re-examination about statements to the police is impermissible, and a witness who first denied and then admitted the fact, after alleging threats by the complainant, deserves no credence. Motive is not imperative where the chain is complete, but its absence in a brutal murder adds to reasonable doubt. (¶ 17)
- As none of the circumstances qualified as incriminating, the conviction could not stand; and since the co-accused who had not appealed was similarly placed, legal services authorities were directed to assist him to file an appeal. (¶¶ 18, 20)
Result
Appeals allowed; conviction and sentence set aside and the appellants (A1 and A2) to be released forthwith unless required in another case, bail bonds cancelled; NALSA, through the West Bengal SLSA and the local legal services authority, directed to help A3 file an appeal within two months, with compliance listed on 20.07.2026.