Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Due to Lack of Conclusive Circumstantial Evidence: Uppala Bixam vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2018) INSC 894 (11 October 2018)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 11 October 2018
Citation: (2018) INSC 894
Judges: Justice R. Banumathi and Justice Indira Banerjee

Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence, especially when the alleged motive is theft and the accused is acquitted of the theft charge? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in the case of Uppala Bixam @ Bixmaiah vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh. The Court overturned the conviction of the accused, emphasizing that circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain that unerringly points towards the guilt of the accused. The bench comprised Justice R. Banumathi and Justice Indira Banerjee, who delivered the judgment.

Case Background

On 27th January 2000, Ramesh, a shepherd, went missing after taking his 19 sheep for grazing near Beebigudem village. The next day, on 28th January 2000, his family, while searching for him, found three of his sheep in the possession of Shaik Naseem (PW-9). Shaik Naseem informed them that he had purchased the sheep from Lingaiah (PW-5). Upon inquiry, Lingaiah stated that he had bought the sheep from the appellant, Uppala Bixam, for an advance of Rs. 100. Subsequently, on 29th January 2000, the appellant was arrested and initially charged under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for theft. During the investigation, the appellant allegedly confessed to murdering Ramesh, leading to the registration of a case against him under Sections 302 (murder) and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence of offence) of the IPC. The prosecution claimed that based on the appellant’s confessional statement, the deceased’s body was recovered from under a culvert.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for murder and Section 201 of the IPC for causing disappearance of evidence, sentencing him to life imprisonment and six months imprisonment, respectively. The conviction was primarily based on the recovery of the sheep and the recovery of the deceased’s body following the appellant’s alleged confessional statement. The High Court upheld the Trial Court’s decision.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the application of the following legal provisions:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section defines the punishment for murder.
• Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with causing the disappearance of evidence of an offence or giving false information to screen an offender.

The Supreme Court also considered the well-established principles regarding circumstantial evidence, which state that:

✓ The circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established.
✓ These circumstances should definitively point towards the guilt of the accused.
✓ The circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a complete chain with no other reasonable conclusion than that the crime was committed by the accused.

Arguments

Prosecution’s Arguments:

• The prosecution contended that the recovery of the deceased’s body was based on the confessional statement of the appellant.
• The prosecution argued that the appellant’s sale of the deceased’s sheep to Lingaiah (PW-5), who then sold them to Shaik Naseem (PW-9), linked the appellant to the crime.
• The prosecution also pointed out that some of the sheep were recovered from the house of the appellant’s sister (PW-8).

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant denied making any confessional statement and denied leading to the recovery of the dead body.
• The appellant argued that the recovered sheep did not have any specific identification marks to link them to the deceased.
• The appellant contended that the recovery of the dead body after two days of the incident raised doubts about the prosecution’s case.
• The appellant was acquitted of the charge of theft of the sheep, which was the alleged motive for the murder.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The main issue framed by the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offences under Section 302 and Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• S.D. Soni v. State of Gujarat, (1992) Supp 1 SCC 567 – Supreme Court of India: This case laid down the principles for evaluating circumstantial evidence, emphasizing the need for a complete chain of circumstances pointing towards the guilt of the accused.
• Venkatesan v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2008) 8 SCC 456 – Supreme Court of India: This case reiterated the principles of circumstantial evidence, highlighting that the circumstances must unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused.
• Raj Kumar Singh alias Raju Alias Batya v. State of Rajasthan, (2013) 5 SCC 722 – Supreme Court of India: This case emphasized that suspicion, however grave, cannot take the place of proof. There is a wide gap between “may be” and “must be”.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• S.D. Soni v. State of Gujarat, (1992) Supp 1 SCC 567:* The court followed the principles laid down in this case regarding the evaluation of circumstantial evidence, emphasizing the need for a complete chain of circumstances pointing towards the guilt of the accused.
• Venkatesan v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2008) 8 SCC 456:* The court reiterated the principles of circumstantial evidence as established in this case, highlighting that the circumstances must unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused.
• Raj Kumar Singh alias Raju Alias Batya v. State of Rajasthan, (2013) 5 SCC 722:* The court emphasized that suspicion, however grave, cannot take the place of proof, as highlighted in this case. The court stated that there is a wide gap between “may be” and “must be”.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the lack of a complete chain of circumstantial evidence. The Court emphasized that mere suspicion, even if grave, cannot substitute for concrete proof. The following points weighed heavily in the court’s mind:

• The absence of specific identification marks on the recovered sheep made it difficult to conclusively link them to the deceased.
• The appellant’s denial of making a confessional statement and the recovery of the body after two days raised doubts about the prosecution’s case.
• The acquittal of the appellant on the charge of theft, which was the alleged motive for the murder, weakened the prosecution’s case.
• The court reiterated that the circumstances must form a complete chain with no other reasonable conclusion than that the crime was committed by the accused.

The court quoted from Raj Kumar Singh alias Raju Alias Batya v. State of Rajasthan, (2013) 5 SCC 722, “that suspicion however grave but cannot take the place of the proof. There is a wide gap between “may be” and “must be”.”

The court also observed that, “In the present case, the circumstance of recovery of the dead body allegedly based on the alleged confessional statement may raise a suspicion against the appellant-accused that he might be involved in the incident but mere suspicion itself cannot take itself the evidence of proof.”

The court further stated that, “In our view conviction under Section 302/201 I.P.C. cannot be sustained, more so, when the motive attributed for the murder has been theft of the sheep, and the accused-appellant has been acquitted of the charge of theft.”

Key Takeaways

• Circumstantial evidence must form a complete and unbroken chain that unerringly points towards the guilt of the accused.
• Mere suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute for proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
• The prosecution must establish a clear link between the accused and the crime through concrete evidence.
• If the alleged motive for a crime is not proven, it weakens the prosecution’s case.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order of the High Court and acquitted the appellant of all charges. The Court ordered that the appellant be released forthwith unless his presence is required in any other case.

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 leads unerringly to the guilt of the accused. This case reinforces the principle that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It also highlights that if the alleged motive for the crime is not proven, it weakens the prosecution’s case. There is no change in the previous position of law, but it reiterates the importance of adhering to the established principles of circumstantial evidence.

Conclusion

In Uppala Bixam @ Bixmaiah vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh, the Supreme Court acquitted the appellant, emphasizing that the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution was insufficient to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court reiterated the importance of establishing a complete chain of circumstances and that mere suspicion cannot substitute for concrete evidence. This judgment underscores the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the principles of justice and ensuring that convictions are based on solid proof, not conjecture.