The Bombay High Court has emphasised that in a case resting entirely on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances that unequivocally points to the guilt of the accused and is inconsistent with any other possible hypothesis. The Court reasoned that the “last seen together” circumstance is not a strong piece of evidence when there is a considerable and unexplained time gap between the point when the accused and deceased were last seen together and the discovery of the body, as this allows for the possibility of intervention by a third party.
Furthermore, the Court held that the burden of explanation under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act does not shift to the accused unless the prosecution has first successfully established the foundational incriminating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. Evidence of recovery based on a disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is inadmissible if the statement is vague and does not meet the legal requirements of specificity regarding the article, the place, and the authorship of concealment.
The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt against the Appellant. Consequently, the Court set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Judge, Daman, and acquitted the Appellant of all charges under Section 302 of the IPC, for causing death by strangulation.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Sarang V. Kotwal and Justice Sandesh D. Patil found the evidence of the primary witness to be vague and unreliable, noting his admission that he was under the influence of alcohol and did not know what had transpired. The Bench observed a significant time gap of 15 to 16 hours between the deceased being last seen with the Appellant and the discovery of the body, which weakened the “last seen together” theory, especially since the approximate time of death was not properly established.
The Bench concurred with the trial judge in disbelieving the recovery of clothes, stating the memorandum statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was vague and failed to mention authorship or place of concealment. The presence of similar soil on the Appellant’s clothes was deemed ‘hardly incriminating’ as all three individuals were together at the same spot.
Further, the Bench found the seizure of the shirt used as a weapon to be doubtful, as it was seized six days after the body’s discovery, and the doctor who produced it was not examined, and it was never shown to the prosecution witness for identification. The Bench also noted a contradiction in the prosecution’s case, questioning why the Appellant would take the deceased’s Aadhaar card to hide his identity but leave a photograph showing his own presence with the body.
Briefly, the prosecution’s case is that on 2 October 2018, the Appellant, his cousin (the deceased), and a witness, went for an outing to the seashore at Daman, where they consumed beer and took photographs. A quarrel allegedly occurred between the Appellant and the deceased, following which the Appellant was accused of strangulating the deceased with his own shirt. The witness who had fallen asleep under the influence of alcohol, woke up to find the deceased missing and the Appellant without his shirt. Later, the Appellant informed witness that the deceased had left, and they both returned to the Appellant’s room.
On 3 October 2018, a dead body, later identified as Ramlakhan, was found in a muddy area near the polytechnic at Daman with a shirt tied around the neck. A photograph recovered from the deceased led the police to identify and arrest the Appellant. The postmortem, conducted on 9 October 2018, also confirmed the cause of death as strangulation.
During the investigation, a statement from the Appellant allegedly led to the recovery of his pant and banian, along with the deceased’s Aadhaar card, from his residence. A chemical analysis report indicated that mud on the Appellant’s clothes was similar to the soil from the crime scene, and an expert opined that the shirt used for strangulation was similar to the one worn by the Appellant in the recovered photograph.
Appearances:
Advocates Aashish Satpute and Chaitanya Purankar, for the Appellant
SPP Ashwin Thool, APP Supriya Kak, along with Advocates Ayush Singh, and Archishmati Chandramore, for the Respondent
