The Bombay High Court has set aside the conviction of the appellant for offences under Sections 363 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code in a prosecution resting entirely on circumstantial evidence, holding that the chain of incriminating circumstances was incomplete and did not exclude hypotheses consistent with innocence. The Court clarified that in a criminal case resting entirely on circumstantial evidence, conviction can be sustained only if each circumstance is fully and independently proved, the circumstances cumulatively form a complete and unbroken chain, and that chain is consistent only with the guilt of the accused while excluding every possible hypothesis of innocence.
The Court asserted that Section 106 of the Evidence Act cannot be used to cure deficiencies in the prosecution case and can operate only after the prosecution has first discharged its primary burden beyond reasonable doubt. Where motive is not proved, key witnesses are doubtful, recovery evidence is unreliable, and the chain of circumstances contains material contradictions and missing links, the accused must receive the benefit of doubt.
The Division Bench comprising Justice A. S. Gadkari and Justice Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale emphasised that in a case resting on circumstantial evidence, every incriminating circumstance must be independently proved, all proved facts must form a complete and unbroken chain, and the chain must point only to the guilt of the accused while excluding every hypothesis of innocence. The Bench reiterated that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof, and that Section 106 of the Evidence Act can be invoked only after the prosecution has first established a complete chain of circumstances beyond reasonable doubt. The Bench also observed that in cases based solely on circumstantial evidence, motive assumes significance as a connecting link, and complete absence of motive is a factor that weighs in favour of the accused.
On the evidence, the Bench found that the prosecution had failed to prove motive. The alleged quarrel regarding damage to the rickshaw cover was a general dispute with society members and not a concrete motive attributable specifically to the appellant. The Bench also noted contradiction in the prosecution case itself because PW-1 stated that the appellant used to talk to the deceased and had even given him coloured beads for his cycle, which undermined the case that the families were not on talking terms. The attempt to ascribe motive on such contradictory facts was held to be fatal to the prosecution case.
The Bench found the circumstance of PW-4 allegedly seeing the appellant and his father pushing the rickshaw at about 4:30 a.m. to be insufficient and doubtful. There was no evidence that any heavy parcel or gunny bag was loaded into the rickshaw, no blood or hair was found in the rickshaw to indicate transport of the dead body, and PW-4 had not seen the appellant or his father descending the staircase. The Bench further found material contradiction between PW-1 and PW-4 as to the layout of the building, entrances, road orientation and location of windows, which undermined the possibility of PW-4 actually seeing the rickshaw in the manner alleged.
The Bench also disbelieved the evidence of PW-5, the supposed independent witness, who claimed to have seen the rickshaw near Bopdev Ghat and noted its registration number. The Bench held this testimony to be doubtful because he claimed he could not see the faces of the occupants as the rickshaw sped away, yet claimed to have noted the full registration number; he delayed informing the police until 1 September 2014 despite seeing repeated news reports; the number had already appeared in the news; and the person accompanying him on the walk was not examined. The Bench held that this evidence did not inspire confidence.
The recoveries and discovery evidence were also found unreliable. The Bench noted that PW-6 stated the key to the flat was procured from somebody and that the police had visited the accused’s house earlier, making the alleged recovery doubtful. It also found the recovery of the body questionable because PW-3 admitted that when he reached the spot, the police were already present there, along with photographer or videographer, suggesting the place was already known. As regards medical evidence, the post-mortem doctor stated that the body was fully decomposed and the cause of death could not be definitely given, though homicidal death could not be ruled out. The Bench further noted inconsistencies in PW-9’s evidence regarding blood and hair in the rickshaw and the failure to produce CCTV footage that could have shown movement of the rickshaw.
On that basis, the Bench concluded that the prosecution case suffered from material gaps, contradictions, doubts and missing links. It held that the circumstances were not fully established, were not consistent only with the guilt of the accused, and did not exclude other hypotheses. The chain of circumstantial evidence was therefore incomplete, and the accused was entitled to the benefit of doubt.
Also Read Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas Advises Tata Capital on INR 1,250 Crore Financing to Inox Clean Energy
Briefly, the appeal arose from the conviction of the appellant, original accused no. 2, by which the trial court had convicted him under Sections 363 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for five years for kidnapping and imprisonment for life with fine for murder, in a prosecution founded entirely on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution case was that the 9-year-old son of the complainant, Ajit Bankar, went missing from his house on 27 August 2014 after returning from school. The appellant and his parents lived in the same society and were known to the complainant’s family.
The prosecution alleged that suspicion arose because of the conduct of the accused family, including the appellant’s mother not participating in the search, and because PW-4 claimed to have seen the appellant and his father pushing their rickshaw early the next morning. The prosecution further relied on disclosure statements leading to recovery of the dead body at Bopdeo Ghat and recovery of certain articles from the accused’s flat, along with forensic material and witness testimony, to allege kidnapping, sexual assault, murder and disposal of the body. The appellant denied the allegations in his statement under Section 313 CrPC and claimed false implication. He alone appealed; accused no. 1 did not challenge his conviction under Section 201 IPC, and accused no. 3 had already been acquitted.
