Summary
Three men were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for the 2001 murder of a man found with twenty-two injuries on a roadside near Bhandara an hour after he allegedly left a house with them on motorcycles; there was no eyewitness, the trial court found the alleged motive unproved, and the Bombay High Court affirmed on the last-seen circumstance resting on two witnesses. The Supreme Court acquitted them: failure to prove an alleged motive weakens a circumstantial case, the two witnesses were at variance on time and on who was present, one did not even place the deceased in the house and the other had only nodding acquaintance with the accused, the High Court ignored the motive finding, and the recovery of a weapon and clothes was inconclusive as the panch witnesses did not support it.
Issues
- Whether a conviction for murder resting on circumstantial evidence can be sustained where the alleged motive was found unproved, the last-seen circumstance depended on two witnesses whose accounts were at variance, and the recovery witnesses did not support the prosecution.
Provisions considered
- Section 302 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860Conviction and life sentence set aside on benefit of doubt because the proved circumstances did not form a complete chain unerringly pointing to the guilt of the accused. (¶¶ 1, 29, 30)
- Article 136, Constitution of IndiaConcurrent findings are ordinarily not disturbed, but where doubt lingers on the probability or conclusiveness of any circumstance forming a link in the chain, the Court will scrutinise the evidence to ensure the totality of circumstances excludes every hypothesis other than guilt. (¶¶ 11, 13)
Held
- The five conditions in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda govern circumstantial cases; motive assumes great significance in such cases, and just as complete absence of motive weighs in favour of the accused, failure to establish a motive after attributing one gives a different complexion and enfeebles the prosecution. The trial court positively found the motive unproved, yet the High Court did not consider that aspect though specifically raised. (¶¶ 8, 13, 18, 19, 20, 21)
- Where last seen is relied on, the time at which the deceased was last with the accused must be proved conclusively. One witness deposed the deceased came at 5 pm and left with the accused at 6 pm, while the other placed the accused there at 4 pm, did not mention the deceased at all, and spoke of an inquiry about a pregnant girl that the first never mentioned; the first witness had not stated the alleged abuses in his police statement, did not mention the presence of the second witness, and had only nodding acquaintance with the accused. His sole testimony is unsafe to apply the last-seen theory, and the recovery of a weapon and clothes is inconclusive since the panch witnesses turned hostile. (¶¶ 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29)
Result
Appeals allowed; judgments of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench dated 12.08.2009 and of the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara in Sessions Trial No. 80 of 2002 set aside; appellants acquitted on benefit of doubt and their bail bonds discharged.