Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Due to Insufficient Circumstantial Evidence: Md. Younus Ali Tarafdar vs. The State of West Bengal (20 February 2020)

Date of the Judgment: 20 February 2020
Citation: Not Available
Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J. and Deepak Gupta, J.
Can a person be convicted of murder based solely on circumstantial evidence? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case where the accused was convicted by lower courts based on circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court overturned the conviction, emphasizing the need for a complete chain of evidence that excludes any reasonable doubt. This judgment highlights the importance of stringent standards of proof in criminal cases, especially when relying on circumstantial evidence.

Case Background

On March 20, 1984, the Rajarhat Police Station received a phone call from Bhaskar Gupta (PW 6) about a dead body found in a well within a garden. The Investigating Officer (PW 20) arrived at the scene at 6:05 p.m. and observed a body floating in the well. Due to darkness, the body was retrieved the following day. A First Information Report (FIR) was registered, and a sketch map of the incident site was prepared.

Dr. Santosh Kumar Biswas (PW 18) conducted the post-mortem on March 21, 1984. He noted a circular ligature mark on the neck, two ligature marks on both wrists, and two circular ligature marks on both ankles. The cause of death was determined to be asphyxia due to strangulation, which was ante-mortem and homicidal in nature. The doctor also noted that the larynx and trachea were highly congested, and the hyoid bone was fractured.

During the investigation, the victim’s clothing was seized. The body was photographed and then cremated due to its decomposed state. On March 25, 1984, Kenaram Dhara and his mother reported that Becharam Dhara (also known as Ashok) had been missing since March 16, 1984. Upon viewing the photographs and clothing, they identified the body as that of Becharam Dhara.

The appellant was arrested following information received during the investigation. Based on the appellant’s confession, an Anglo-Swiss watch was recovered from A.C. Watch Company. Kenaram Dhara (PW 12), the deceased’s brother, testified that he had given the watch to his brother when he left home on March 15, 1984.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court convicted the Appellant under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The other accused were acquitted. The Appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment for the offense under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and nine months rigorous imprisonment for the offense under Section 201 read with Section 34 IPC. The High Court of Calcutta upheld the trial court’s conviction.

Legal Framework

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

• Section 302, IPC: This section defines the punishment for murder.
  
  “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.
  
  “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 201, IPC: This section deals with causing disappearance of evidence of an offence, or giving false information to screen offender.
  
  “Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; or, if the offence which he knows or believes to have been committed is punishable with death, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

The Supreme Court also referred to Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which deals with the burden of proving facts especially within knowledge.

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The appellant contended that the dead body recovered from the well was severely mutilated and beyond recognition. The family members of the deceased were not shown the body, and identification was based solely on photographs and clothing, which was unreliable due to the body’s decomposed state.
• The appellant argued that the recovery of the watch was not reliable as the receipt was not seized from the appellant’s house and the signature on the counterfoil was taken forcibly by the police.
• The appellant contended that the evidence of PWs 11, 12 and 16 was inconsistent and unreliable, as they had made improvements in their statements during the trial.
• The appellant argued that there is no direct evidence to show that the appellant was last seen with the deceased.

Prosecution’s Submissions:

• The prosecution argued that the body was identifiable, and the deceased’s family members correctly identified it through photographs and clothing.
• The prosecution relied on the recovery of the watch from A.C. Watch Company, which was given by the appellant for repair, as strong evidence linking the appellant to the crime.
• The prosecution argued that the deceased was last seen going to meet the appellant, and the appellant’s failure to explain what happened after that indicates his involvement in the crime.

Innovativeness of the argument: The appellant’s argument focused on the inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence, particularly the improvements made by witnesses during the trial and the lack of direct evidence linking the appellant to the crime. This approach highlighted the weaknesses in the circumstantial evidence and raised doubts about the appellant’s guilt.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the main issue before the Court was:

1. Whether the conviction of the Appellant based on circumstantial evidence was justified.

The sub-issues that the court dealt with were:

• Whether the body was identified correctly.
• Whether the recovery of the watch was reliable.
• Whether the appellant was last seen with the deceased.

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:

• Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116: The Court referred to this case to emphasize the principles for adjudicating cases based on circumstantial evidence. The court held that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established, and the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused.
• M.G. Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1963 SC 200: The Court also referred to this case to reiterate the principles for adjudicating cases based on circumstantial evidence.

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 the principles for adjudicating cases based on circumstantial evidence. The court held that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established, and the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused.
• The Court also relied on M.G. Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1963 SC 200* to reiterate the principles for adjudicating cases based on circumstantial evidence.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to acquit the appellant was primarily influenced by the lack of a complete chain of evidence and inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case. The court emphasized that in cases of circumstantial evidence, the circumstances relied upon must be fully established and must lead to the conclusion that the accused committed the crime. The court found that the evidence presented by the prosecution did not meet this standard.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the argument that the deceased was last seen going to meet the appellant but rejected it as there was no evidence to show that the appellant and the deceased were last seen together. The court also considered the argument that the appellant failed to explain what happened after the deceased was last seen going to meet him but rejected it as there was no evidence to show that the appellant and the deceased were last seen together.

The Supreme Court held that the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution were not complete and did not lead to the conclusion that in all human probability the murder must have been committed by the Appellant. The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of evidence that excluded every possible hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. The court stated that, “On an overall consideration of the evidence on record, especially the evidence of PWs 11, 12 and 16 would not lead us to believe that the Appellant and the deceased were last seen together.”

The Court also noted that, “The manner in which the confessional statement of the Appellant was recorded and the seizure of the receipt of the watch was made is not free from doubt.”

The Court further stated that, “A close scrutiny of the material on record would disclose that the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the Appellant were not complete and do not lead to the conclusion that in all human probability the murder must have been committed by the Appellant.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case.

Key Takeaways

• In cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of evidence that excludes every reasonable doubt.
• Inconsistencies in witness statements and unreliable recovery of evidence can weaken the prosecution’s case.
• The “last seen” theory is not applicable if there is no evidence to show that the accused and the deceased were last seen together.
• The burden of proof lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and acquitted the Appellant of the charges under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

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 evidence that excludes every reasonable doubt. This case reinforces the principles laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116* and M.G. Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1963 SC 200* regarding the standard of proof required in cases of circumstantial evidence.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Md. Younus Ali Tarafdar vs. The State of West Bengal highlights the importance of a complete chain of evidence in cases based on circumstantial evidence. The court acquitted the appellant, emphasizing that the prosecution failed to meet the required standard of proof. This judgment serves as a reminder of the stringent standards that must be met in criminal cases, especially when relying on circumstantial evidence.

Category

Parent Category: Criminal Law
Child Categories: Murder, Circumstantial Evidence, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 201, Indian Penal Code, 1860

FAQ

Q: What is circumstantial evidence?
A: Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence that implies a fact but does not directly prove it. It relies on a series of circumstances that, when considered together, suggest a particular conclusion.

Q: What is the “last seen” theory?
A: The “last seen” theory suggests that if an accused person was the last person seen with the victim, it can be used as circumstantial evidence to link the accused to the crime. However, this theory requires proof that the accused and the victim were last seen together.

Q: What does it mean to be acquitted?
A: To be acquitted means to be found not guilty of a crime. In this case, the Supreme Court acquitted the appellant, meaning they found that the evidence was insufficient to prove his guilt.

Q: What is the significance of this judgment?
A: This judgment reinforces the importance of stringent standards of proof in criminal cases, especially when relying on circumstantial evidence. It highlights that the prosecution must establish a complete chain of evidence that excludes every reasonable doubt.