Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Kidnapping and Murder Case: Yogesh vs. State of Haryana (2021)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: April 6, 2021
Citation: 2021 INSC 185
Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, J. and Indira Banerjee, J.

Can a conviction for a heinous crime like kidnapping and murder be sustained solely on circumstantial evidence, especially when key eyewitnesses turn hostile? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in the case of *Yogesh vs. State of Haryana*. The Court examined whether the prosecution had sufficiently established a chain of circumstances to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court overturned the conviction of the accused, emphasizing the importance of conclusive evidence in criminal cases.

The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench consisting of Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice Indira Banerjee. The opinion was authored by Justice Uday Umesh Lalit.

Case Background

On August 18, 2004, a young girl was kidnapped in broad daylight near her school bus stop in Bahadurgarh, Haryana. According to the complaint filed by her father, Manoj Kumar (PW10), two young men on a red motorcycle forcibly took his daughter while she was returning from school. The incident occurred around 12:45 PM. Despite attempts by the father and other bystanders to intervene, the perpetrators escaped with the child.

Following the kidnapping, a police investigation was launched. During the investigation, the police conducted a raid at the house of one of the accused, Diwan Singh, who allegedly disclosed that his son Anuj, along with three others, had kidnapped the victim. The police was also informed that the victim had been murdered and the body was thrown in the fields of village Paparwat. The body was recovered in the intervening night of August 19 and 20, 2004.

The prosecution’s case relied on the testimony of the victim’s father, Manoj Kumar (PW10), and the circumstantial evidence, such as the recovery of the victim’s clothing and tiffin box, based on the disclosure statements of the accused. The post-mortem report confirmed that the child had been sexually assaulted and strangled. However, the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report did not find any semen in the vaginal swabs, and also found traces of Aluminium Phosphide (Celphos) in the viscera.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar, Haryana, convicted Yogesh, Sumit, Pardeep, and Anuj under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, sentencing them to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 20,000. The court acquitted the remaining four accused. The convicted accused appealed to the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana upheld the conviction and sentence of the four accused, relying heavily on the testimony of the victim’s father, Manoj Kumar (PW10), who claimed to have witnessed the kidnapping. The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the convicted accused. The High Court held that the testimony of PW10 was crucial in proving the prosecution’s case.

Yogesh, Anuj, and Pardeep then appealed to the Supreme Court of India, challenging their conviction. Sumit did not appeal and was reported to be absconding after his appeal was dismissed by the High Court.

Legal Framework

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

• Section 302: This section of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, deals with 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 120-B: This section of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, deals with the punishment for criminal conspiracy. It states, “(1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence. (2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.”

The Supreme Court also considered the principles of circumstantial evidence as laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116, which requires that the circumstances must be fully established, consistent only with the guilt of the accused, conclusive, and exclude every other possible hypothesis.

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellants (Yogesh, Anuj, and Pardeep):

• The appellants argued that the prosecution’s case was based on weak circumstantial evidence.
• They contended that the eyewitness testimony of PW10 was unreliable as the witness was not an eye-witness to the occurrence.
• The appellants pointed out that other alleged eyewitnesses, PW12 and PW15, had turned hostile, further weakening the prosecution’s case.
• They submitted that the recoveries made based on their disclosure statements were not sufficient to establish their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Arguments by the Respondent (State of Haryana):

• The State argued that the High Court had correctly upheld the conviction based on the evidence on record.
• The prosecution emphasized the testimony of PW10, the victim’s father, as a key witness who had identified the accused.
• The State contended that the recovery of the victim’s belongings based on the accused’s disclosure statements was sufficient to establish their involvement in the crime.
• The prosecution relied on the circumstantial evidence to establish the chain of events leading to the crime.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following key issue:

1. Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, was justified based on the evidence on record, particularly the circumstantial evidence and the testimony of the witnesses.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116* to emphasize that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must be fully established, consistent only with the guilt of the accused, conclusive, and exclude every other possible hypothesis.
• The Court cited Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC 793* to reiterate that the accused must be “must be” guilty and not “may be” guilty.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to acquit the accused was primarily influenced by the lack of conclusive evidence and the failure of the prosecution to establish a complete chain of circumstances. The Court emphasized that the prosecution’s case was weak due to the following reasons:

• The testimony of the key witness, PW10, was unreliable as he was not an eyewitness to the kidnapping.
• Other alleged eyewitnesses turned hostile, further weakening the prosecution’s case.
• The circumstantial evidence, such as the recovery of the victim’s belongings, was not conclusive and did not form a cogent and consistent chain.
• The FSL report did not establish any connection of the accused with the sexual assault on the victim.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the principles of criminal jurisprudence, which require that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court held that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must be fully established and must exclude every other possible hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. The Court found that the prosecution failed to meet this standard in the present case.

The Court observed that the prosecution’s case was primarily based on the testimony of PW10, who was not an eye-witness to the occurrence. The Court also noted that other key witnesses had turned hostile. The Court further observed that the circumstantial evidence was not conclusive and did not form a complete chain of evidence. The Court held that in such circumstances, the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused. The Court stated, “Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’ is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.” The Court also noted, “the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.” The court also stated “Not only those circumstances are not conclusive in nature but they also do not form a cogent and consistent chain so as to exclude every other hypothesis except the guilt of the appellants.”

Key Takeaways

• Circumstantial evidence must be conclusive and exclude all other possibilities to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
• The testimony of eyewitnesses must be reliable and consistent to be considered valid evidence.
• The prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances to prove the guilt of the accused in cases based on circumstantial evidence.
• The benefit of doubt must be given to the accused if the prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellants be set at liberty forthwith, unless their custody is required in connection with any other crime.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances that conclusively points to the guilt of the accused, excluding all other reasonable hypotheses. The Court reiterated that the accused “must be” guilty and not “may be” guilty. This decision reinforces the principles laid down in earlier cases like Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116. There was no change in the previous position of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in *Yogesh vs. State of Haryana* highlights the importance of conclusive evidence in criminal cases, particularly those based on circumstantial evidence. The Court emphasized that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused if the evidence is not sufficient to establish guilt. The acquittal of the accused underscores the significance of a robust and reliable prosecution case.