Summary
The Supreme Court set aside the appellant's conviction for murder, which rested wholly on circumstantial evidence: the recovery from him of a pistol ballistically matched to the fatal bullet, made on the disclosure statement of a deceased co-accused. Without other evidence linking him to the killing, the chain of circumstances was incomplete and did not exclude every hypothesis other than guilt.
Issues
- Whether the recovery of the weapon of offence from the appellant, made on a co-accused's disclosure and supported by a ballistic report, was sufficient by itself to sustain his conviction for murder on circumstantial evidence.
Provisions considered
- Section 27, Indian Evidence Act, 1872Only the part of an accused's statement that distinctly relates to the discovery of a physical object is admissible; the Court noted the alternative hypotheses arising from a discovery (the accused concealed the object, saw it concealed, or was told of it) and that the pistol's location was disclosed by the co-accused, not the appellant. (¶¶ 11, 12, 14, 15)
- Section 8, Indian Evidence Act, 1872Since the co-accused's disclosure statement led to the appellant's arrest, the prosecution could rely on it as conduct under Section 8, but even so the absence of corroboration directly linking the appellant to the crime left a gap in the chain. (¶¶ 11, 13)
- Sections 302, 34 and 120B, Indian Penal Code, 1860The prosecution failed to prove that the appellant committed the murder individually, with common intention or in conspiracy with the deceased co-accused; the conviction was set aside. (¶¶ 1, 15, 16)
Held
- Where a case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence, guilt is established only if the proved circumstances form a chain so complete that every hypothesis except guilt is excluded, applying the five principles in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda. (¶¶ 9, 10)
- Under Section 27 of the Evidence Act only the portion of the statement that distinctly relates to the discovered physical object is admissible, and the facts proved may support either the inference that the accused concealed the item or the innocent inference that he merely knew where it lay; the court must decide which hypothesis to accept, and a fact already known to the police is not admissible. (¶¶ 12, 14)
- The ballistic report connecting the pistol recovered from the appellant with the bullet taken from the victim was an inculpatory fact, but in the absence of other corroborative material directly linking the appellant to the killing it did not conclusively exclude other reasonable possibilities. (¶¶ 7, 11, 13)
- Although the appellant might be guilty of an offence under Section 201 IPC, the evidence was insufficient to convict him of the murder, whether individually, with common intention or in conspiracy. (¶ 15)
Result
Appeal allowed; the High Court judgment and the appellant's conviction set aside; bail bonds and sureties cancelled.