Summary
A young couple from different castes in a Chhattisgarh village disappeared in December 1994 and were found nine days later hanging from a cashew tree, their bodies decomposed. The post-mortem doctor found death by asphyxia due to hanging and recorded its nature as suicidal, saying he could not opine on homicide. The prosecution alleged that the girl's uncle, father and two others strangled the pair and staged the hanging, relying on an extra-judicial confession by the co-accused Videshi and on a witness who had seen the uncle call the boy to his house some ten days before the bodies were found. The trial court convicted all four; the High Court acquitted three of murder, disbelieving the confession, but confirmed the uncle's conviction under Sections 302 and 201 read with 34 IPC. The Supreme Court acquitted him.
Issues
- Whether a conviction for murder can be sustained on circumstantial evidence when the medical evidence records the deaths as suicidal by hanging and the prosecution has not proved homicidal death.
- Whether an extra-judicial confession by a co-accused, disbelieved by the High Court as against the other accused, can be used as an incriminating circumstance against the appellant alone.
- Whether the 'last seen together' theory can found a conviction when the deceased was seen with the accused about ten days before the body was found and no other link in the chain exists.
Provisions considered
- Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860To convict under Section 302 the prosecution must establish homicidal death as a primary fact; where the possibility of suicide is not ruled out, conviction cannot rest on the last-seen theory, and the conviction for murder and for causing disappearance of evidence was set aside. (¶¶ 8, 9, 18, 19, 20)
- Section 30, Indian Evidence Act, 1872A co-accused's confession may be taken into consideration against others but an extra-judicial confession is a weak kind of evidence, admissible only as corroboration and requiring clinching independent evidence (Paltan Mallah, Sahadevan); having found Videshi's confession unsafe against the other accused, the High Court could not use it to convict the appellant. (¶¶ 10, 11, 12)
Held
- The circumstances must be fully established and consistent only with guilt (Sharad Birdhichand Sarda); the doctor who conducted the post-mortems found ligature marks, no fractures, clots or injuries, opined that the deaths were suicidal and admitted he could not say they were homicidal. Neither the High Court nor the trial court considered this evidence, though proof of homicidal death was imperative when the defence was suicide. (¶¶ 7, 8, 9)
- The co-accused Videshi's inconsistent extra-judicial confessions were found unsafe to convict Bhagirathi, Mangal Singh and Videshi himself of murder; such weak evidence, not duly proved or trustworthy against them, could not be used against the appellant to hold him guilty. (¶¶ 10, 11, 12)
- The last-seen theory applies only where the gap between the accused and deceased being last seen together and the discovery of the body is so small that any other author of the crime is impossible (Bodhraj); here the witness gave no date or time, the event was about ten days before the bodies were found, and there was no other cogent evidence, nor any evidence at all of how the girl was killed. Suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof. (¶¶ 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19)
Result
Appeal allowed; the Chhattisgarh High Court's judgment of 25.03.2014 in Criminal Appeal No. 1812 of 1998 confirming the appellant's conviction under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 IPC set aside; the appellant acquitted and directed to be set free forthwith.