Summary
The Supreme Court reversed a murder conviction because the circumstantial chain did not exclude the supported possibility of suicide by poison. The medical opinion favouring strangulation had to be assessed with the earlier complaint, prosecution witnesses supporting the defence, inquest evidence, non-examination of the treating doctor and failure to preserve viscera. On the peculiar evidence, guilt was unsafe to infer beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant received benefit of doubt and was ordered released unless required in another case.
Issues
- Whether the prosecution proved a complete circumstantial chain excluding innocence.
- How the conflicting medical and other evidence, including failure to preserve viscera, affected reasonable doubt.
Held
- Circumstantial conviction requires fully established circumstances consistent only with guilt and a chain excluding a reasonable innocent explanation. Concurrent findings did not prevent correction where the lower courts failed properly to assess the evidentiary gaps and competing explanation. (¶¶ 10, 17, 18)
- Several prosecution witnesses, not declared hostile, supported the account that the deceased had consumed poison. The investigating officer acknowledged information from the treating doctor to the same effect. The brother was not an eyewitness, his claimed extra-judicial confession was disbelieved, and his participation in the inquest contradicted the trial court’s premise. These matters materially weakened the chain. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18)
- Although the postmortem opinion supported strangulation, the prior poisoning complaint and supporting circumstances required preservation of viscera for chemical analysis in this case. The doctor’s contrary explanation did not suffice in that setting. Together with non-examination of the treating doctor and the other evidence, the omission created reasonable doubt; the decision did not establish that every failure to preserve viscera necessarily defeats a murder prosecution. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16, 17, 18)
- Where two reasonable views of the evidence remain, the view favourable to the accused should normally prevail. On the peculiar circumstances conviction under section 302 was unsafe, warranting benefit of doubt and release subject to any other case. (¶¶ 18, 19, 20)
Result
Appeal allowed and conviction set aside on benefit of doubt; appellant to be released forthwith unless required in another case. Pending applications disposed of.