Summary
Conviction under Sections 302 and 201 IPC resting solely on evidence that the accused was last seen with the deceased, with no recovery at his instance, no memorandum statement, an inconclusive chemical report and an unreliable motive, was set aside: 'last seen together' alone cannot sustain a murder conviction and suspicion cannot substitute for proof.
Issues
- Whether the chain of circumstantial evidence was complete enough to sustain the appellant's conviction for murder and for causing disappearance of evidence.
- Whether a conviction under Section 302 IPC can rest solely on evidence of the accused having been last seen with the deceased, without other corroborative circumstances.
- Whether motive deposed to by a witness whose statement was never recorded by the police under Section 161 CrPC could be relied upon.
- Whether recovery of a blood-stained stone near the dead body and an inconclusive chemical examination report connected the appellant to the crime.
Provisions considered
- Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860The appellant had been sentenced to life imprisonment for murder. The Court held that the only circumstance against him was 'last seen together', which is a weak piece of evidence insufficient on its own to convict for an offence under Section 302, and acquitted him. (¶¶ 2, 20, 23, 25)
- Section 201, Indian Penal Code, 1860The conviction for causing disappearance of evidence (allegedly throwing the body in the river) rested on the same incomplete chain of circumstances and was set aside along with the conviction for murder. (¶¶ 2, 7, 25)
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973PW-13, the only witness who deposed to a motive (the appellant's suspicion about his wife), admitted in cross-examination that the police had not recorded his statement under Section 161; the motive, narrated for the first time in court, could not be relied upon. (¶ 17)
- Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973In his examination under Section 313 the appellant pleaded false implication. Counsel's submission that all relevant circumstances had not been put to him in that examination was recorded, but the Court decided the appeal on the insufficiency of the circumstantial evidence. (¶¶ 5, 8)
Held
- In a case based on circumstantial evidence the prosecution must prove each circumstance, and the circumstances taken cumulatively must form a chain so complete that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; the golden rules in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda require the circumstances to be conclusive, consistent only with guilt and to exclude every other hypothesis. (¶¶ 10, 12)
- 'Last seen together' is a weak piece of evidence; a conviction under Section 302 IPC cannot be based on that circumstance alone without other corroborative evidence connecting the accused with the crime, and mere non-explanation by the accused cannot by itself prove guilt. The theory ordinarily applies where the time gap between the last sighting and the discovery of the body is so small that any other perpetrator is impossible. (¶¶ 19, 20, 21, 22)
- The appellant's conduct, in neither fleeing the village nor admitting guilt when confronted and in accompanying the deceased's father in the search, suggested that he probably had nothing to hide. (¶ 15)
- Motive stated for the first time in court by a witness whose statement was not recorded under Section 161 CrPC cannot be relied upon, and the deceased's father said nothing about motive in his chief examination; in any event, a man doubting his wife's chastity would be expected to harm his wife rather than her cousin with whom he had no animosity. (¶¶ 17, 22)
- The stone said to be the weapon was recovered near the body and not in consequence of any memorandum statement of the appellant, no such statement was recorded, nothing was recovered at his instance, and the chemical examination was inconclusive because the blood group was not matched; these circumstances did not corroborate the last-seen evidence. (¶¶ 18, 22)
- Suspicion, however grave, cannot take the place of proof; the circumstantial evidence, though raising a doubt that the appellant may have committed the murder, was not so conclusive that he could be convicted on the basis of 'last seen together' alone. (¶¶ 23, 24)
Result
Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence under Sections 302 and 201 IPC recorded by the Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court set aside; appellant acquitted and to be set at liberty if not required in any other case.