Summary
The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant of murder and causing disappearance of evidence, holding that once the High Court discarded the extra-judicial confessions as inadmissible, the chain of circumstantial evidence was broken; the remaining circumstances of last seen together and recovery of the body at his instance were themselves not proved, and the absence of motive and non-examination of material witnesses further weakened the prosecution.
Issues
- Whether the conviction under Sections 302/201/34 IPC could rest on the circumstances of last seen together and discovery once the extra-judicial confessions were discarded.
- Whether the last-seen circumstance was proved and reliable given the gap between the victim being seen with the appellant and the recovery of her body.
- Whether recovery of the body was proved to be at the appellant's instance so as to be admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
- What weight absence of motive carries in a case of circumstantial evidence.
Provisions considered
- Sections 302, 201 and 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860The concurrent conviction for murder and causing disappearance of evidence was set aside because none of the incriminating circumstances was proved beyond reasonable doubt. (¶¶ 2, 4, 52, 53)
- Sections 25 and 26, Indian Evidence Act, 1872Confessions made by the appellant in the police station before villagers in the presence of police were inadmissible, as held by the High Court; Section 26 bars proof of a confession made in police custody unless made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate. (¶¶ 23, 35, 35.1)
- Section 27, Indian Evidence Act, 1872Read with Pulukuri Kottaya and later decisions, Section 27 admits only so much of custodial information as distinctly relates to the fact discovered; the discovery evidence here was intertwined with the rejected confessions and riddled with inconsistencies, so it could not aid the prosecution. (¶¶ 35, 35.2, 36, 37, 38, 39, 42, 44, 46)
Held
- In a case resting on circumstantial evidence each circumstance must be proved, the chain must be complete and consistent only with guilt, and where the evidence admits of two inferences the one favourable to the accused must be accepted. (¶ 22)
- Once the High Court discarded one of the three circumstances relied on by the prosecution (the extra-judicial confessions), the chain could not be treated as complete, and it erred in convicting on the remaining two. (¶¶ 23, 24, 25)
- Last seen together ordinarily supports guilt only where the time gap is so small that the presence of anyone else is ruled out or other evidence excludes that possibility; by itself, without other links, it cannot sustain a conviction. Given the discrepancies between the two last-seen witnesses, evidence that the girl went willingly, and the considerable gap before recovery of the body, it could not be said that the appellant alone committed the offence. (¶¶ 26, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33)
- Under Section 27 the fact discovered includes the place from which an object is produced and the accused's knowledge of it. The recovery evidence was not proved: most witnesses saw the body only in the police station, one witness said the co-accused led the police to the body while the appellant was in jail, and the versions conflicted with each other and with the Investigating Officer. (¶¶ 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44)
- The blood-stained vest was never sent for forensic examination, the Investigating Officer did not seek recording of confessions before a Magistrate, and the appellant's mother and brother-in-law, who allegedly knew where the girl was, were not examined, which dented the prosecution case. (¶¶ 45, 47)
- Absence of motive weighs in favour of the accused in a case of circumstantial evidence; here the appellant and the deceased were in love, marriage had been proposed, the post-mortem ruled out recent sexual activity and the cash allegedly taken by the deceased was never recovered. (¶¶ 48, 49, 50, 51)
Result
Appeal allowed; judgments of the High Court and the Sessions Court set aside; the appellant acquitted and directed to be released forthwith unless required in another case.