Summary
The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant of murder because the prosecution’s circumstantial evidence did not establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The alleged extra-judicial confession and sighting witnesses were unreliable, while discrepancies in the recovered clothing and the unexplained sharp-weapon injury further undermined the prosecution case.
Issues
- Whether the alleged extra-judicial confession, sighting evidence, recoveries and forensic report formed a complete chain establishing the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Provisions considered
- Section 302 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860The concurrent conviction for murder in furtherance of common intention was set aside because the circumstantial evidence did not prove the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court did not separately construe the ingredients of common intention. (¶¶ 1, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32)
Held
- A conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires fully established circumstances that are conclusive, consistent only with guilt, exclude other hypotheses and form a complete chain leaving no reasonable ground consistent with innocence. Strong suspicion cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt. Here the evidence instead disclosed doubts, improbabilities and inconsistencies. (¶¶ 28, 29, 30)
- The former sarpanch’s account of an extra-judicial confession was not trustworthy. His denial of having met the deceased conflicted with other evidence, and the prosecution’s own sighting witness placed the accused with police before the alleged subsequent confession and surrender. These contradictions were sufficient to reject his version. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16, 17)
- The two principal sighting witnesses were unreliable on this record. The first gave an unexplained travel chronology and an improbable account of observing bloodstains and a registration number while changing a tyre at night where there was no lighting. The second’s account of distant observations in an unlit area, delayed reporting and choice of police station likewise did not inspire confidence. The additional purported last-seen witness’s account was also found improbable and unreliable. (¶¶ 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24)
- The prosecution described and recovered sticks, but did not explain or recover the sharp-edged weapon implicated by the medical evidence. The recovered trousers were described as jeans, whereas the forensic laboratory received a different description of trousers. The matching blood group did not establish guilt in these circumstances; the Court also noted that recoveries lacked independent witnesses and the investigating officer had not tried to associate any private person. These deficiencies further undermined the circumstantial case. (¶¶ 25, 26, 27, 29, 30)
Result
Appeal allowed. The trial court and High Court judgments convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC were set aside. The appellant was acquitted of all charges and any bail bonds discharged. Pending applications disposed of; parties to bear their own costs.