The Supreme Court has asserted that in a case resting entirely on circumstantial evidence, each incriminating circumstance must be proved with clarity and reliability, and the circumstances must together form a complete chain leading only to the hypothesis of guilt. A conviction cannot be sustained where the last seen circumstance lacks temporal proximity to the death, where the extra-judicial confession is inconsistent, exculpatory, or made under coercive circumstances, and where the alleged recoveries do not meet the statutory threshold of Section 27 Indian Evidence Act, because concealment and discovery are not properly established.
Where none of the projected circumstances independently or cumulatively qualifies as a reliable incriminating link, the accused is entitled to acquittal. Applying this principle, the Supreme Court reversed the conviction and allowed the appeals.
A Two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran observed that the circumstance of last seen together was weak in the present case because the time gap between the deceased being seen with the accused and the probable time of death was not sufficiently proximate. PW1 spoke of the deceased leaving with the accused at 4 PM, and PW14 saw them together at about 5 PM, but the post-mortem only stated that “24 hours had not passed” at the time of autopsy, leaving a wide and elastic time frame within which death could have occurred. The Bench therefore held that the gap was too large to permit conviction on that circumstance alone. It also found PW11’s testimony about seeing the four men drinking in a field behind the BDO office unreliable, since her cross-examination raised serious doubts about her presence and version.
On the alleged extra-judicial confession, the Bench found material inconsistency in the prosecution evidence. PW8 spoke of first accused confessing that all three accused had killed the deceased, whereas PW3, PW12 and PW14 spoke only of an exculpatory statement by first accused shifting blame to second and third accused. The Bench held that such an exculpatory statement was inherently unreliable, could not be used against co-accused, and did not amount to a true confession against the maker in the form spoken of by the majority of witnesses.
The Bench further noted that the statement was allegedly made when first and second accused had been detained by a mob, under circumstances carrying evident pressure, threat or duress, and this was reinforced by the fact that injuries were found on first and second accused during medical examination after arrest. The Bench therefore held that the alleged extra-judicial confession was a weak piece of evidence and had not been proved.
As to recoveries, the Bench found that the alleged seizure of the stone and glass piece did not satisfy the requirements of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act because there was no clear statement of concealment by the accused, no specific identification of the place of concealment, and no clarity as to which accused disclosed what. The field was an open place with free access, the seizure record merely stated that the objects were recovered on being shown by A1 and A2, and PW5’s evidence did not clearly distinguish what was seized at the time of inquest from what was later recovered. The alleged weapons were also not shown to the doctor for opinion as to whether they could have caused the injuries.
Similarly, the Bench found that the recovery of the motorcycle suffered from evidentiary defects, including failure of identification and failure to produce registration details. The Bench also discarded PW4’s testimony as unreliable, particularly in light of her statement that PW1 had threatened her to depose falsely. The absence of motive was treated as an additional factor raising reasonable doubt in a case where the chain of circumstances was otherwise incomplete.
Briefly, the prosecution case arose from the disappearance of the son of the de-facto complainant on the evening of Oct 30, 2012. According to prosecution, the deceased left home at about 4 PM on a motorbike, accompanying the three accused who had come to his house. On the following morning, the deceased was found dead in a field, with his head in a ditch.
The prosecution relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, namely: the “last seen together” theory based principally on the testimonies of PW1 and PW14; an alleged extra-judicial confession said to have been made by first accused before certain villagers after he and second accused had been detained by a mob; recovery of a stone, broken glass and a motorcycle allegedly at the instance of the accused; testimony of PW4 regarding third accused’s s conduct on the night of the incident; and the serological and post-mortem materials. The trial court held that these circumstances formed a complete chain pointing to guilt, and the High Court affirmed the conviction.
