The Supreme Court has set aside the conviction of two co-accused in a murder case arising from Karnataka, holding that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence against them. The Court emphasised that the “last seen together” theory and alleged discovery statements, without corroboration, cannot by themselves sustain a conviction for a serious offence like murder.
The Bench comprising of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan, was dealing with appeals challenging a Karnataka High Court judgment which had affirmed the conviction of the appellants under Sections 302, 364, 404 and 201 read with Section 34 IPC. The case pertained to the alleged abduction, murder and burning of the body of a woman, primarily based on circumstantial evidence including last seen theory, recovery of material objects, and motive.
The Court noted that while there was material indicating motive against the principal accused (the deceased’s brother), no such motive was attributable to the appellants, who were sought to be roped in as accomplices. It held that mere presence or association is insufficient to establish culpability without clear evidence of participation or shared intent.
On the “last seen” circumstance, the Court reiterated that it is a weak piece of evidence unless supported by other incriminating circumstances. It observed that even if the prosecution version is accepted, relying solely on a witness who allegedly saw the accused with the deceased shortly before the incident would be unsafe to base a conviction, particularly where the time gap and surrounding circumstances do not conclusively rule out alternative hypotheses.
The Court also expressed serious reservations regarding the manner in which disclosure statements were recorded and relied upon. It observed that confessional statements made in police custody are inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act, and the alleged discoveries did not sufficiently connect the appellants with the crime.
Reiterating settled principles on circumstantial evidence, the Court held that the prosecution must establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances pointing only to the guilt of the accused. Where alternative explanations remain plausible, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused.
Finding that the prosecution failed to meet this threshold insofar as the appellants were concerned, the Court allowed the appeals and set aside their conviction, noting that suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Appearances:
Mr. Gurudatta Ankolekar, Advocate for the Appellant (Accused No. 2).
Mr. Charudatta Mahindrakar, Advocate for the Appellant (Accused No. 4).
Mr. Avishkar Singhvi, Additional Advocate General, with Mr. Himanshu Mishra, Advocate-on-Record for the State of Karnataka.
