Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Due to Lack of Direct Evidence: Santosh @ Rajesh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2024)

Date of the Judgment: September 19, 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 723

Judges: Sanjiv Khanna, J., Sanjay Kumar, J., R. Mahadevan, J.

Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence, particularly when the key evidence is a weapon recovered based on a co-accused’s statement? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case where the accused was convicted based on the recovery of a pistol linked to the crime, but without direct eyewitness testimony. The court, in its judgment, emphasized the stringent requirements for establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt in cases relying on circumstantial evidence. The bench comprised Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Sanjay Kumar, and R. Mahadevan, with the judgment authored by Justice Sanjiv Khanna.

Case Background

The case revolves around the murder of Narayan Singh, who was shot at his residence in Village Binjana, District Dewas, Madhya Pradesh, on November 13, 2011, at approximately 9:30 p.m. According to the testimony of Rachna Bai (PW-2), Narayan Singh’s mother, someone called out Narayan Singh’s name from outside, prompting him to open the door. Immediately, a gunshot was heard, followed by a second shot that fatally struck Narayan Singh in the chest. Rachna Bai also reported seeing Laadkunwar Bai (Narayan Singh’s wife) and Jitendra Singh (Narayan Singh’s son) standing nearby, as well as two individuals fleeing the scene on a motorcycle with their faces covered.

Five individuals were initially charged in connection with the murder: Laadkunwar Bai, Jitendra Singh, Nirbhay Singh @ Rajesh Mama, Meharban Singh, and the appellant, Santosh @ Rajesh @ Gopal. Laadkunwar Bai and Jitendra Singh were the wife and son of the victim, Narayan Singh, and Meharban Singh was the father-in-law of Jitendra Singh. Nirbhay Singh and Santosh @ Rajesh @ Gopal were alleged to be hired killers.

The trial court acquitted Laadkunwar Bai and Meharban Singh, but convicted Nirbhay Singh, Jitendra Singh, and Santosh @ Rajesh @ Gopal. Nirbhay Singh passed away during the appeal process, and Jitendra Singh was acquitted by the High Court. The present appeal before the Supreme Court was filed by Santosh @ Rajesh @ Gopal, challenging his conviction which was upheld by the High Court.

Timeline

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the interpretation and application of the following legal provisions:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the punishment for murder.
• Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
• Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the punishment for criminal conspiracy.
• Section 25(1-B)(A) of the Arms Act, 1959: This section relates to the possession of illegal arms.
• Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This section addresses the relevance of motive, preparation, and previous or subsequent conduct. It states:
  
  “8. Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct. — Any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact. The conduct of any party, or of any agent to any party, to any suit or proceeding, in reference to such suit or proceeding, or in reference to any fact in issue therein or relevant thereto, and the conduct of any person an offence against whom is the subject of any proceeding, is relevant, if such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact, and whether it was previous or subsequent thereto.”
• Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This section allows for the admissibility of information received from an accused that leads to the discovery of a fact. It states:
  
  “27. How much of information received from accused may be proved. — Provided 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 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender.

The Supreme Court’s analysis focused on the application of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, in conjunction with the principles governing circumstantial evidence.

Arguments

Prosecution’s Arguments:

• The prosecution argued that the recovery of the pistol (Exhibit P-6) from the appellant, Santosh @ Rajesh @ Gopal, and the ballistic report (Exhibit P-57), which confirmed that the bullet (Exhibit B-1) recovered from the victim’s body was fired from the recovered pistol, were crucial pieces of evidence.
• They contended that the disclosure statement (Exhibit P-35) made by the co-accused, Nirbhay Singh (since deceased), led to the recovery of the pistol, which is admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
• The prosecution sought to establish a chain of circumstances linking the appellant to the crime, arguing that the recovery of the murder weapon from the appellant was a key piece of evidence.
• The prosecution also relied on Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, arguing that the disclosure statement leading to the arrest of the appellant was relevant.

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that the case against him rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, and there were no direct eyewitnesses to the crime implicating him.
• The appellant contended that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances that conclusively pointed to his guilt, excluding all other reasonable possibilities.
• The appellant pointed out that the disclosure statement (Exhibit P-35) was made by the co-accused, Nirbhay Singh, and not by him.
• The appellant argued that the recovery of the pistol, while incriminating, did not conclusively prove his involvement in the murder, as it could be interpreted in multiple ways.
• The appellant argued that the prosecution failed to provide further evidence linking him to the actual crime.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
2. Whether the recovery of the pistol based on the disclosure statement of the co-accused was sufficient to link the appellant to the murder.
3. Whether the prosecution had established a complete chain of circumstances that excluded all other reasonable possibilities except the guilt of the accused.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1952) 2 SCC 71, to emphasize the necessity of a complete chain of evidence in circumstantial cases, excluding all hypotheses except guilt.
• The Court applied the “golden rules” outlined in Sharad Birdhichand Sharda v. State of Maharasthra, (1984) 4 SCC 116, to assess the sufficiency of the circumstantial evidence.
• The Court used Mohmed Inayatullah v. State of Maharashtra, (1976) 1 SCC 828, and Perumal Raja v. State, Represented By Inspector of Police, [2024] 1 SCR 87, to interpret Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, emphasizing that only the portion of the statement leading to the discovery is admissible.
• The Court referred to State of Maharashtra v. Suresh, (2000) 1 SCC 471, to highlight the multiple possibilities that arise when an accused points out a place where incriminating material was concealed.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the lack of direct evidence linking the appellant, Santosh @ Rajesh @ Gopal, to the murder of Narayan Singh. The Court emphasized that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances that excludes all other reasonable possibilities. The recovery of the pistol, while an important piece of evidence, was not sufficient to prove the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt, especially since the disclosure statement leading to its discovery was made by a co-accused. The Court also considered the fact that there were no eyewitnesses to the crime implicating the appellant.

The Court’s reasoning focused on the following points:

• The prosecution’s case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, which requires a higher standard of proof.
• The recovery of the pistol, while an inculpatory fact, did not conclusively link the appellant to the murder.
• The disclosure statement leading to the recovery was made by the co-accused, not the appellant, reducing its evidentiary value against the appellant.
• The prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances that excluded all other reasonable hypotheses.

The Court’s analysis was heavily weighted towards legal considerations, particularly the interpretation of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and the principles governing circumstantial evidence. While the facts of the case were considered, the legal framework and the stringent requirements for proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt played a more significant role in the Court’s decision.

The Court considered alternative interpretations of the evidence but ultimately rejected them because they did not meet the high standards required for a conviction based on circumstantial evidence. The Court emphasized that the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and the evidence presented did not meet this threshold.

The Supreme Court’s decision was based on the following reasons:

• The prosecution’s case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence.
• The recovery of the pistol was not directly linked to the appellant.
• The disclosure statement was made by the co-accused, not the appellant.
• The chain of circumstances was incomplete and did not exclude other reasonable possibilities.
• The prosecution failed to prove the appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

“Where the case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence, a finding of guilt is justified only if all the incriminating facts and circumstances are incompatible with the accused’s innocence.”

“Section 27 of the Evidence Act is an exception to Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. It makes that part of the statement which distinctly leads to discovery of a fact in consequence of the information received from a person accused of an offence, to the extent it distinctly relates to the fact thereby discovered, admissible in evidence against the accused.”

“We too countenance three possibilities when an accused points out the place where a dead body or an incriminating material was concealed without stating that it was concealed by himself. One is that he himself would have concealed it. Second is that he would have seen somebody else concealing it. And the third is that he would have been told by another person that it was concealed there …”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case. The bench unanimously agreed on the acquittal of the appellant, Santosh @ Rajesh @ Gopal.

The Court’s reasoning highlighted the strict standards required for convictions based on circumstantial evidence. It emphasized that the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and the evidence presented in this case did not meet that standard. The Court also clarified the limitations of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, particularly when the disclosure statement is made by a co-accused.

This decision has significant implications for future cases involving circumstantial evidence. It reinforces the principle that the prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances that excludes all other reasonable possibilities. It also underscores the importance of direct evidence and the limitations of relying solely on the discovery of incriminating material based on a co-accused’s statement.

Key Takeaways

• In cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances that excludes all other reasonable possibilities.
• The recovery of a weapon based on a co-accused’s disclosure statement is not sufficient to prove the guilt of another accused, particularly in the absence of direct evidence.
• The prosecution bears the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and this burden is not met by merely showing the possibility of guilt.
• The interpretation of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, is limited to the specific information that directly leads to the discovery of a fact.
• This judgment underscores the importance of direct evidence in criminal trials and the limitations of relying solely on circumstantial evidence.

The decision may lead to a more cautious approach by trial courts when dealing with cases based primarily on circumstantial evidence. It may also encourage law enforcement agencies to prioritize the collection of direct evidence in criminal investigations. This judgment will serve as a precedent for future cases involving similar issues, reinforcing the need for a robust and complete chain of evidence to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the bail bonds and sureties furnished by the appellant, Santosh @ Rajesh @ Gopal, be treated as cancelled.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There is no discussion of any specific amendments in this judgment.

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 excludes all other reasonable possibilities. The recovery of a weapon based on a co-accused’s disclosure statement is not sufficient to prove the guilt of another accused, particularly in the absence of direct evidence. This judgment reinforces the existing legal principles regarding circumstantial evidence and the interpretation of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, without introducing any new legal doctrines. It clarifies that the standards for convictions based on circumstantial evidence are stringent and that the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of India allowed the appeal filed by Santosh @ Rajesh @ Gopal, setting aside his conviction for the murder of Narayan Singh. The Court held that the prosecution’s case, which relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, did not meet the stringent standards required to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The recovery of the pistol, based on a co-accused’s disclosure statement, was deemed insufficient to link the appellant to the murder. This judgment reinforces the importance of direct evidence in criminal trials and the limitations of circumstantial evidence, emphasizing that the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt by excluding all other reasonable possibilities.