Summary
The Supreme Court acquitted a man sentenced to death for killing his mother, wife and two-year-old daughter. The sole alleged eyewitness, an injured neighbour, was found unreliable: his statement was recorded six days late although he was conscious on admission, it was uncorroborated, and it was given after the police told him the accused was the culprit. The remaining circumstances (recoveries of a hammer, clothes and jewellery, and motive) did not form a complete chain.
Issues
- Whether the testimony of the injured neighbour (PW-12), whose statement was recorded six days after the incident, was reliable enough to sustain a conviction for murder.
- Whether, without that testimony, the circumstantial evidence of recoveries under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and motive proved the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
- Whether the conviction under Sections 302, 307 and 201 IPC and the death sentence could be sustained.
Provisions considered
- Section 27, Indian Evidence Act, 1872The Court disbelieved the recovery of the hammer from a flowing canal at the appellant's instance: the place was open to all, swimmers were already searching there when the police and appellant arrived (showing prior police knowledge), and blood-stains were unlikely to survive three days in water. The recoveries of clothes and jewellery were also found unreliable. (¶¶ 25, 26)
- Sections 302, 307 and 201, Indian Penal Code, 1860The convictions and death sentence under these provisions were set aside because the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (¶¶ 1, 27, 28)
- Sections 161 and 164, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The Court relied on the six-day delay in recording PW-12's police statement, and on the fact that his claim of seeing the appellant with a hammer did not appear in his statement before the Magistrate, to doubt his testimony. (¶¶ 11, 17, 18)
Held
- A conviction may rest on a solitary witness, but only if the testimony is credible and trustworthy after critical scrutiny (Chuhar Singh v State of Haryana). (¶ 17)
- PW-12's testimony did not inspire confidence. The investigating officer knew on the day of the incident that he was the key witness but recorded his statement only six days later, although the medical evidence showed he was conscious and oriented on admission and had given a history of assault. No neighbour who came to his flat was examined. His evidence did not show he witnessed the killings, his statement before the Magistrate omitted the appellant holding a hammer, and he admitted speaking only after the police told him the appellant was the culprit. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18)
- With the eyewitness testimony discarded, the case rested on circumstantial evidence, which must satisfy the five principles in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda: the circumstances must be fully established, consistent only with guilt, conclusive, exclusive of every other hypothesis, and form a complete chain. Suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt. (¶¶ 19, 20, 21, 22)
- The hammer recovery was not proved, as set out above. Blood on the appellant's clothes was not unnatural because he reported the crime and was present at the scene, the clothes were recovered from an open place and were not shown to have been sealed, and the mangalsutra was never identified by the deceased's relatives. (¶¶ 25, 26)
- Motive alone cannot found a conviction. Since the prosecution failed to exclude every hypothesis other than guilt, the concurrent findings of conviction were unsustainable. (¶ 27)
Result
Appeal allowed; the High Court's judgment confirming the death sentence and the trial court's judgment of conviction and sentence quashed and set aside; appellant directed to be set at liberty if not required in any other case.