The Supreme Court has set aside the conviction in murder case, holding that the prosecution had failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances as required in a case based purely on circumstantial evidence.
The case arose out of a missing person complaint which culminated into the allegations of ransom calls, murder and burial of the body. The trial court, after examining the evidence found it to not sufficient to enter a finding of guilt and acquitted the accused. However, the High Court has reversed the acquittal on the ground that the five golden principles as enunciated in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116, is adequately satisfied. This led to present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Allowing the criminal appeals, a Bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran held that the prosecution had failed to establish any circumstance on record from which a hypothesis of guilt could be drawn. The court held that the High Court erred in reversing the Trial Court’s acquittal by proceeding on the premise that the Trial Court had lost sight of the “larger picture” and focused excessively on minor details. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court’s conclusion rested primarily on the confessional statements, which merely indicated that the death occurred in the presence of the accused on the day the deceased went missing, an admission the Court found unworthy of acceptance.
Examining the prosecution evidence, the court held that the “Last seen together” theory was not proved as no witness established that the deceased was seen with the accused proximate to the death. The medical evidence was found inconclusive, with the possibility of death by hanging not ruled out.
The court further held that the alleged recoveries and the ransom call theory were riddled with inconsistencies and failed to satisfy the requirements of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The confessional statements under Section 164 CrPC were found to be inconsistent and non-inculpatory, with the Court reiterating that a confession, even if voluntary, cannot by itself sustain a conviction without independent corroboration.
Reiterating settled principles governing cases based on circumstantial evidence, the Supreme Court restored the Trial Court’s acquittal and directed the release of the accused, if not required in any other case.
Appearance:
AOR Subhro Sanyal and Advocate Ajay Sabharwal for the appellants.
AOR Avijit Mani Tripathi for the State.
