Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Multiple Murder Case Due to Lack of Evidence: Digamber Vaishnav & Anr. vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2019) INSC 164 (5 March 2019)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 5 March 2019

Citation: (2019) INSC 164

Judges: A.K. Sikri, J., S. Abdul Nazeer, J., M.R. Shah, J. (authored by S. Abdul Nazeer, J.)

Can a conviction for murder be upheld solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence, especially when key witnesses are unreliable and the evidence is inconsistent? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving the murder of five women. The court ultimately overturned the conviction, emphasizing the necessity of concrete evidence over mere suspicion in criminal trials. The bench comprised Justices A.K. Sikri, S. Abdul Nazeer, and M.R. Shah, with Justice S. Abdul Nazeer authoring the judgment.

Case Background

The case revolves around the deaths of five women—Shri Bai, Subhadra Bai, Kondi, Mala Bai, and Amrika Bai—who were found dead in the house of Bhuneshwar Das in village Khapridih. The complainant, Badridas Vaishnav, the brother of the deceased Bhuneshwar, was informed by Chandni, a young girl, about the deaths on December 17, 2012, at around 4 p.m. Upon reaching the scene, Badridas found the women dead with injuries on their necks and bleeding from their noses and mouths.

The police investigation began with the lodging of the First Information Report (FIR) by Badridas. The post-mortem reports confirmed that the cause of death for all the women was asphyxia due to strangulation, and the deaths were deemed homicidal. The police seized several items from the scene, including a whiskey bottle, a plastic torch, hair strands, buttons, blood-stained soil, and a woolen shawl. The accused, Digamber Vaishnav and Girdhari Vaishnav, were later arrested, and certain items were recovered from them, including cash and anklets.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Sessions Court, after examining 14 witnesses, concluded that the prosecution had successfully proven beyond doubt that the appellants had committed robbery and murder. The court sentenced each of the appellants to ten years of rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) and a fine of Rs. 500 for the offence under Section 394 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and capital punishment for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

The case was then referred to the High Court of Chhattisgarh for confirmation of the death sentence. The appellants also filed separate appeals in the High Court. The High Court affirmed the judgment of the Sessions Court, upholding the conviction and death sentence. The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily discusses the following legal provisions:

• Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. It states that 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.
• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section defines the punishment for murder. It states that whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.
• Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery. It states that if any person, in committing or in attempting to commit robbery, voluntarily causes hurt, such person, and any other person jointly concerned in committing or attempting to commit such robbery, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
• Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This section deals with how much of information received from the accused may be proved. It states that when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.
• Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This section deals with who may testify. It states that all persons shall be competent to testify unless the Court considers that they are prevented from understanding the questions put to them, or from giving rational answers to those questions, by tender years, extreme old age, disease, whether of body or mind, or any other cause of the same kind.
• Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC): This section deals with the power to examine the accused. It states that in every inquiry or trial, for the purpose of enabling the accused personally to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him, the Court may, at any stage of the inquiry or trial, put such questions to him as the Court considers necessary.
• Section 366(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC): This section deals with the procedure when a Sessions Court passes a death sentence. It states that when the Court of Session passes a sentence of death, the proceedings shall be submitted to the High Court, and the sentence shall not be executed unless it is confirmed by the High Court.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• Delay in Reporting: There was an unexplained delay in reporting the offense, which raises doubts about the veracity of the prosecution’s case.
• Unreliable Child Witness: The courts below heavily relied on the testimony of PW-8, a child witness, whose testimony was inconsistent, uncorroborated, and did not identify the appellants at the first instance.
• Unreliable Recoveries: The evidence of recoveries made under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act was unreliable. The recovered motorcycle was not proven to belong to the appellants, and the recovered articles were not connected to the crime.
• Hearsay Evidence: The testimony of PW-9 was hearsay and should not have been relied upon.
• Fingerprint Report: The fingerprint report was unreliable, and the expert who examined the articles was not examined.
• Last Seen Evidence: The evidence of the appellants being last seen with the deceased was insufficient to establish guilt.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondent supported the judgments of the lower courts and argued that the evidence was sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellants.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the evidence of the child witness (PW-8) was reliable and sufficiently corroborated.
2. Whether the recoveries made under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act were reliable and connected to the crime.
3. Whether the fingerprint report was reliable and admissible as evidence.
4. Whether the evidence of the appellants being last seen with the deceased was sufficient to establish guilt.
5. Whether the prosecution had proven the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the judgments of the High Court and the Sessions Court. The appellants were acquitted of all charges.

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• The Court relied on Jaharlal Das v. State of Orissa [(1991) 3 SCC 27]* to emphasize that the gravity of the offense cannot outweigh the need for legal proof.
• The Court cited Varkey Joseph v. State of Kerala [1993 Suppl (3) SCC 745]* to highlight that suspicion is not a substitute for proof.
• The Court referred to Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam [(2013) 12 SCC 406]* to emphasize the distinction between ‘proof beyond reasonable doubt’ and ‘suspicion’.
• The Court used Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh [(1973) 2 SCC 808]* to reiterate that if two views are possible on the evidence, the view favorable to the accused should be adopted.
• The Court referred to Panchhi and others v. State of U.P [(1998) 7 SCC 177]*, State of U.P. v. Ashok Dixit and another [(2000) 3 SCC 70]*, and State of Rajasthan v. Om Prakash [(2002) 5 SCC 745]* to highlight the need for corroboration of child witness testimony.
• The Court relied on Alagupandi alias Alagupandian v. State of Tamil Nadu [(2012) 10 SCC 451]* to emphasize the need to accept the testimony of a child with caution and after substantial corroboration.
• The Court cited Arjun Marik & Ors. v. State of Bihar [1994 Supp (2) SCC 372]* to emphasize that the circumstance of last seen together cannot by itself form the basis of holding the accused guilty.
• The Court referred to Kanhaiya Lal v. State of Rajasthan [(2014) 4 SCC 715]* to reiterate that last seen together does not necessarily lead to the inference that the accused committed the crime.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the lack of concrete evidence and the inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case. The Court emphasized the following points:

• Unreliable Witness Testimony: The testimony of the child witness (PW-8) was deemed unreliable due to inconsistencies and lack of corroboration. The court noted that she did not disclose the identity of the appellants at the first instance.
• Lack of Corroboration: The prosecution failed to provide sufficient corroborating evidence to support the child witness’s testimony or the alleged recoveries.
• Inconsistencies in Evidence: There were significant inconsistencies in the testimonies of various witnesses, which raised doubts about their credibility.
• Unexplained Delay: The unexplained delay in reporting the crime raised questions about the veracity of the prosecution’s case.
• Insufficient Forensic Evidence: The forensic evidence, including the fingerprint report and hair analysis, was deemed insufficient to establish the appellants’ presence at the scene of the crime.
• Lack of Motive: The prosecution’s claim of robbery as the motive was negated by the fact that expensive ornaments were left behind at the scene.
• Benefit of Doubt: The Court reiterated the principle that if two views are possible on the evidence, the view favorable to the accused should be adopted.

The ratio of fact to law indicates that while the court considered the factual aspects of the case, the legal principles and the need for concrete evidence played a more significant role in the final decision.

The Supreme Court’s reasoning was based on the principle that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace legal proof. The Court emphasized that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused. The Court also highlighted the importance of reliable witness testimony, proper forensic evidence, and a clear connection between the accused and the crime.

The Court rejected the prosecution’s arguments, stating that the circumstantial evidence presented was not sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused. The Court noted that the evidence was fraught with inconsistencies, and there was a lack of concrete proof linking the appellants to the crime.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“Suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot take the place of proof, and there is a large difference between something that ‘may be’ proved, and something that ‘will be proved’.”

“The circumstance of last seen together does not by itself and necessarily lead to the inference that it was the accused who committed the crime. There must be something more establishing connectivity between the accused and the crime.”

“The onus of the prosecution cannot be discharged by referring to very strong suspicion and existence of highly suspicious factors to inculpate the accused nor falsity of defence could take the place of proof which the prosecution has to establish in order to succeed.”

Key Takeaways

• Importance of Concrete Evidence: The judgment underscores the critical importance of concrete evidence in criminal trials. Mere suspicion,however strong, cannot substitute for proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Reliability of Witness Testimony: The court emphasized the need for reliable and consistent witness testimony. Child witness testimonies, in particular, require careful scrutiny and corroboration.
• Admissibility of Forensic Evidence: Forensic evidence, such as fingerprint reports and hair analysis, must be collected and presented in a reliable manner. The expert who examined the forensic evidence must be examined in court.
• Burden of Proof: The prosecution bears the burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The accused is not required to prove their innocence.
• Benefit of Doubt: If two views are possible on the evidence, the view favorable to the accused should be adopted.
• Last Seen Evidence: The circumstance of last seen together cannot by itself form the basis of holding the accused guilty. There must be something more establishing connectivity between the accused and the crime.