Summary
The Court acquitted two appellants of murder and disappearance of evidence because the circumstantial links did not establish their involvement. No witness had last seen them with the deceased alive; the alleged motive and extrajudicial confession lacked reliable support, and recovery evidence was inconsequential on the facts. The concurrent findings were against the weight of evidence, although homicidal death itself was established.
Issues
- Whether an inferred presence could substitute for actual last-seen evidence.
- Whether the proposed motive, confession and recoveries formed a complete incriminating chain.
- Whether the courts had improperly shifted the prosecution’s evidentiary burden.
Provisions considered
- Section 60, Indian Evidence Act, 1872Proof that the deceased made a statement about a proposed meeting did not by itself establish the truth of the relationship or that the meeting occurred. (¶¶ 22, 23, 24, 25)
- Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860The circumstantial evidence did not connect the appellants to the proved murder or disposal of the body beyond reasonable doubt. (¶¶ 6, 7, 8, 15, 18, 42)
Held
- The last-seen theory required positive evidence that the deceased and accused were together alive, with the necessary temporal proximity and appropriate corroboration. None of the witnesses supplied that evidence. The trial court could not acknowledge its absence and then reconstruct a last-seen link from other speculative circumstances. (¶¶ 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 20, 21)
- A witness’s account that the deceased described a relationship and proposed meeting could establish the fact that the statement was made, but not automatically its truth or that the meeting occurred. Material omissions and contradictions further undermined the witnesses relied on to place the accused at the alleged scene. (¶¶ 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29)
- The prosecution failed to prove the asserted relationship and motive, and withheld the person best placed to address the supposed meeting. It could not fault the defence for not examining her to disprove its case. Absence of motive is not invariably fatal to circumstantial proof, but the motive actually asserted and the remaining evidence required careful scrutiny. (¶¶ 30, 31, 32, 33)
- An extrajudicial confession can support conviction if voluntary, clear and credible; verbatim repetition is not invariably required. Here the recipient’s testimony and surrounding circumstances failed that credibility assessment, so the alleged confession could not supply the missing links. (¶¶ 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40)
- The articles were commonplace, the recovery site was open and accessible according to police witnesses, and the independent recovery witness was not examined. Together these circumstances made recovery inconsequential. Neither individual links nor their combined effect established guilt; the contrary concurrent findings were perverse. (¶¶ 41, 42)
Result
Appeals allowed; convictions and sentences set aside and appellants acquitted with benefit of doubt. As they were already on bail, their bail bonds were discharged.