Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Abduction and Murder Case Due to Lack of Evidence: Umesh Tukaram Padwal vs. State of Maharashtra (2019)

Date of the Judgment: September 3, 2019
Citation: Umesh Tukaram Padwal & Anr. vs. The State of Maharashtra (2019) INSC 793
Judges: N.V. Ramana, J., Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J., Ajay Rastogi, J.
Can a conviction for serious crimes like abduction and murder be upheld solely on circumstantial evidence, especially when the prosecution’s case is riddled with inconsistencies? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case where the accused were convicted based on circumstantial evidence. The Court ultimately overturned the convictions, highlighting the importance of a strong, reliable chain of evidence in criminal cases. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Justices N.V. Ramana, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, and Ajay Rastogi, with the majority opinion authored by Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar.

Case Background

The case revolves around the disappearance and subsequent death of Dnyaneshwar, who was seeking employment. About a month before the incident, Jayram Dhum (PW-1), the maternal uncle of the deceased, learned that Umesh Padwal (Accused No. 1) arranged jobs at the Jindal plant in Vasind for a fee. On July 1, 2002, PW-1 approached Accused No. 1 to secure a job for Dnyaneshwar. Accused No. 1 demanded Rs. 60,000 for the job. On July 7, 2002, PW-1 paid Rs. 10,000 to Accused No. 1 at a juice shop in Kalyan.

On July 10, 2002, Dnyaneshwar arrived in Kalyan with Rs. 45,000. PW-1 deducted the initial Rs. 10,000, leaving Rs. 35,000. The next day, July 11, 2002, at around 11:30 a.m., PW-1 and Dnyaneshwar met Accused No. 1 at the same juice shop and handed over the remaining Rs. 35,000. Accused No. 1 was accompanied by Pravin Godse (Accused No. 2), who was introduced as his neighbor. Accused No. 1, Accused No. 2, and Dnyaneshwar left for the Jindal plant, telling PW-1 not to come along. When Dnyaneshwar did not return, PW-1 went to Accused No. 1’s house at 8 p.m. and found that he too was not home. A missing person report was filed on July 13, 2002.

The body of Dnyaneshwar was found on July 14, 2002, in a valley at Goraksha Gad, based on information provided by Accused No. 1. Clothes and personal documents of the deceased were also recovered. Accused No. 1 also led to the recovery of Rs. 10,000, a nylon rope, and an electric wire. Accused No. 2 led to the recovery of Rs. 800. The police filed a charge sheet against four individuals, alleging that they had strangled Dnyaneshwar and thrown his body into the valley. The Trial Court convicted Accused Nos. 1 and 2, while acquitting the other two.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted Accused Nos. 1 and 2 for offenses under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for cheating, and Sections 364 and 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC for abduction and murder. The other two accused were acquitted. The High Court of Judicature at Bombay upheld the Trial Court’s judgment. The Supreme Court heard the appeal against the High Court’s decision.

Legal Framework

The case involves the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

• Section 420, IPC: This section deals with cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. It states, “Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 364, IPC: This section addresses kidnapping or abduction in order to murder. It states, “Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person in order that such person may be murdered or may be so disposed of as to be put in danger of being murdered, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 302, IPC: This section defines the punishment for murder. It states, “Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 34, IPC: This section deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. It states, “When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.”

These provisions are part of the Indian Penal Code, which is the primary code defining criminal offenses in India. The application of these sections must be consistent with the principles of natural justice and the constitutional rights of the accused.

Arguments

Prosecution’s Arguments:

• The prosecution argued that Accused No. 1 had a motive to cheat the deceased and PW-1 by taking money under the false pretense of securing a job. The prosecution contended that Accused No. 1 never intended to arrange a job for the deceased.
• The prosecution argued that the deceased was last seen with Accused Nos. 1 and 2, which was a crucial piece of circumstantial evidence.
• The prosecution relied heavily on the recovery of the deceased’s body and other incriminating articles at the instance of Accused Nos. 1 and 2. They argued that this proved their involvement in the abduction and murder.
• The prosecution also presented a hotel register seized from Goraksha Gad, where the names of the accused and the deceased were allegedly mentioned, suggesting they were together at the location where the body was found.

Defense’s Arguments:

• The defense argued that there was no evidence to prove that Accused No. 1 had any intention to cheat the deceased. They pointed out that Accused No. 1 used to arrange jobs at the Jindal plant and there was no evidence to suggest that he did not intend to do so in this case.
• The defense argued that the circumstance of the deceased being last seen with the accused was not sufficient to prove their guilt, as Accused No. 1 had informed PW-1 on the same day that the deceased had disappeared from Vasind Railway Station.
• The defense contested the recovery of the body, arguing that the prosecution had manipulated the records and that the evidence of the panchas was inconsistent. They also pointed out that the body was found hanging on a tree, suggesting a possibility of suicide.
• The defense also contested the hotel register entry, stating that the owner of the hotel did not support the prosecution’s case and that there was no evidence to prove that the handwriting in the register was that of Accused No. 1.
• The defense further argued that the prosecution failed to establish the cause of death, as the post-mortem report was inconclusive due to the decomposed state of the body.

Innovativeness of the argument: The defense innovatively pointed out the inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence, particularly regarding the recovery of the body and the hotel register entry. They also raised the possibility of suicide, which was not explored by the prosecution.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the conviction of Accused No. 1 under Section 420, IPC, for cheating was justified?
2. Whether the circumstances of the deceased being last seen with the accused, the recovery of the body, and other incriminating articles were proved beyond reasonable doubt to establish the guilt of Accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the offences of abduction and murder?
3. Whether the prosecution had proved the motive for the offence of abduction and murder?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Pertaining to cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.
• Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Pertaining to kidnapping or abduction in order to murder.
• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Pertaining to punishment for murder.
• Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Pertaining to acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
• Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Pertaining to how much of information received from accused may be proved.

Authorities Table

Judgment

Treatment of Submissions

Treatment of Authorities

The Court’s view on the authorities:

• Section 420, IPC: The Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the essential elements of cheating under this section.
• Section 364, IPC: The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the charges of abduction for murder under this section beyond reasonable doubt.
• Section 302, IPC: The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the charges of murder under this section beyond reasonable doubt.
• Section 34, IPC: The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the charges of acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention under this section beyond reasonable doubt.
• Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: The Court considered the disclosure statement of Accused No. 1 under this section but found the evidence of recovery unreliable due to inconsistencies.

What Weighed in the Mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to acquit the accused was primarily influenced by the lack of credible evidence and the inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case. The Court emphasized that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt and form a complete chain pointing towards the guilt of the accused. The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish the following:

• Lack of Intent to Cheat: The Court was not convinced that Accused No. 1 had the intention to cheat the deceased.
• Doubtful Last Seen Circumstance: The fact that the deceased was last seen with the accused was not conclusive, as Accused No. 1 had informed PW-1 about the deceased’s disappearance.
• Manipulated Recovery of Body: The Court found the evidence regarding the recovery of the body to be manipulated and unreliable.
• Inconsistent Witness Testimony: The testimony of key witnesses, particularly the panchas, was inconsistent.
• Failure to Establish Cause of Death: The post-mortem report was inconclusive, and the prosecution failed to establish the cause of death.

The Court’s reasoning was also influenced by the principle that the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused if the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Sentiment Analysis Table

Fact:Law Ratio Table

Logical Reasoning

The Supreme Court meticulously analyzed the evidence presented by the prosecution, finding it to be insufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court highlighted the importance of a complete and reliable chain of circumstances in cases based on circumstantial evidence. The Court noted that the prosecution’s case was riddled with inconsistencies and that the evidence was manipulated to improve the case from stage to stage.

The Supreme Court observed, “In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution should be proved beyond reasonable doubt, and such proved circumstances should form a complete chain so as not to leave any doubt in the mind of the Court about the complicity of the accused.”

The Court also stated, “In our considered opinion, the benefit of doubt should therefore be granted in their favour. We are accordingly of the opinion that the Courts below erred in convicting Accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the offences of the abduction and murder of the deceased.”

Regarding the inconsistencies in the evidence, the Court noted, “Thus, the evidence relied upon by the prosecution is full of irreconcilable inconsistencies which cast serious doubt on the presence of the panchas during the recording of the disclosure statement and the recovery of the body of the deceased.”

Key Takeaways

• Importance of Evidence: Convictions in criminal cases, especially those based on circumstantial evidence, must be supported by a strong, reliable chain of evidence.
• Benefit of Doubt: If the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused.
• Reliability of Witnesses: The testimony of witnesses must be consistent and reliable. Inconsistencies can cast serious doubt on the prosecution’s case.
• Scrutiny of Recovery Evidence: Evidence related to the recovery of bodies or incriminating articles must be thoroughly scrutinized, and any manipulation of records will be viewed unfavorably.
• Proof of Intent: In cases of cheating, the prosecution must prove that the accused had the intent to deceive at the time of the transaction.
• Motive Alone is Not Sufficient: Even if a motive is established, it cannot be the sole basis for a conviction.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the High Court and the Trial Court. Accused No. 1 was acquitted of the offense under Section 420, IPC, and Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were acquitted of the offenses under Sections 364 and 302 read with Section 34, IPC. The bail bonds of the appellants were discharged.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove each circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt, and these circumstances must form a complete chain that points unequivocally towards the guilt of the accused. The Court reiterated that the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused if the prosecution fails to meet this standard. This judgment reinforces the existing legal principles regarding the burden of proof in criminal cases and emphasizes the need for meticulous scrutiny of evidence, especially in cases where there is no direct witness.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Umesh Tukaram Padwal vs. State of Maharashtra highlights the critical importance of a robust and reliable chain of evidence in criminal cases, especially those based on circumstantial evidence. The Court acquitted the accused, emphasizing that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. This judgment serves as a reminder that convictions must be based on solid evidence and not on mere suspicion or conjecture. The judgment reinforces the principle that the benefit of doubt must always be given to the accused.