Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Due to Lack of Evidence: Nusrat Parween vs. State of Jharkhand (2024)

Date of the Judgment: 10 December 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 955

Judges: Dipankar Datta, J. and Sandeep Mehta, J.

Can a conviction for murder be upheld when the prosecution’s case rests solely on circumstantial evidence, and the crucial links in the chain of evidence are missing? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case where the accused were convicted by the lower courts based on circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court, in this judgment, overturned the conviction, emphasizing the necessity of a complete and unbroken chain of evidence to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sandeep Mehta.

Case Background

Hamida Parween was married to Abdul Hamid Khan, the brother of Ahmad Khan (appellant No. 2) and Abdul Rahman Khan (accused No. 3). Abdul Hamid Khan passed away two years before the incident. The family resided in Holding No. 13, Dhatkidih, which was partly owned by the accused-appellants. Despite the partial partition of the property, the accused-appellants were allegedly pressuring Hamida Parween to relinquish her remaining share. This dispute led to Hamida Parween filing a complaint against the accused-appellants under Section 107 read with Section 116(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

On March 11, 1997, around 8:00 am, Hamida Parween sent her sons, Md. Sahid Khan (PW3) and Md. Javed Khan, to school. Upon returning home after school, the boys found the house locked from the outside. When their mother did not return by evening, they informed their maternal uncle, Md. Firoj (PW4). Md. Firoj, along with other family members, searched for Hamida Parween but could not find her. The next day, on March 12, 1997, Md. Firoj reported his sister’s disappearance to the Bistupur Police Station. Initially, the police did not register a complaint but later recorded a missing person’s report. Upon investigation, the police found Hamida Parween’s dead body inside her locked house.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The trial court convicted Ahmad Khan (appellant No. 2) in Sessions Trial Case No. 228 of 1998 and Nusrat Parween (appellant No. 1) and Abdul Rahman Khan (accused No. 3) in Sessions Trial Case No. 393 of 2000, sentencing them to life imprisonment under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The High Court of Jharkhand upheld these convictions in separate criminal appeals. Aggrieved by the High Court’s decision, Nusrat Parween and Ahmad Khan filed appeals before the Supreme Court. Abdul Rahman Khan did not file an appeal.

Legal Framework

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

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section defines 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 34 of the IPC: This section deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. It states, “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 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This section addresses the burden of proving facts especially within the knowledge of a person. It states, “When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.”
• Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): This section deals with security for keeping the peace in other cases.
• Section 116(3) of the CrPC: This section deals with the procedure for inquiry into the truth of the information.

The legal framework also includes the principles governing circumstantial evidence, which require a complete and unbroken chain of evidence to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court also considered the interplay between the burden of proof on the prosecution and the onus on the accused under Section 106 of the Evidence Act.

Arguments

Submissions on behalf of the appellants:

• The prosecution failed to prove the motive for the crime. The testimony of Md. Sahid Khan (PW3), the deceased’s son, did not specifically mention any disputes on the day of the incident.
• The complaint lodged by Hamida Parween against the accused under Section 107 read with Section 116(3) of the CrPC was never proven in evidence.
• The prosecution failed to establish the circumstance of ‘last seen together’ as no witness testified to seeing the accused-appellants with the deceased on the day of the incident.
• The trial court and High Court wrongly invoked Section 106 of the Evidence Act, as the prosecution did not prove the accused were present in the house on the day of the incident.
• The prosecution case is doubtful as the family members did not break open the lock of the house when they found it locked from outside, which would have been a natural reaction if they suspected foul play.

Submissions on behalf of the Respondent/State:

• The trial court’s judgment was based on sound reasoning and evidence, establishing a complete chain of incriminating circumstances.
• The prosecution established a strong motive rooted in a property dispute, corroborated by the complaint filed by Hamida Parween.
• The accused-appellants were last seen quarrelling with Hamida Parween, after which they absconded, leaving her dead body inside the locked house.
• The absence of the accused-appellants from the house when the sons returned from school indicates their involvement in the crime, justifying the invocation of Section 106 of the Evidence Act.
• Medical evidence confirmed the cause of death as strangulation, aligning with the prosecution’s case.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the prosecution had successfully proven the motive for the murder against the accused-appellants beyond a reasonable doubt.
2. Whether the prosecution had established the circumstance of ‘last seen together’ to shift the burden of proof onto the accused under Section 106 of the Evidence Act.
3. Whether the trial court and the High Court had correctly appreciated the evidence to convict the accused.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Sharad Birdhichand Sharda v. State of Maharashtra [(1984) 4 SCC 116]* The Court relied on this case to reiterate the stringent conditions required for conviction based on circumstantial evidence.
• Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC 793]* The Court used this case to emphasize the high standard of proof required for conviction.
• Nandu Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh [2022 SCC Online SC 1454]* The Court considered this case to highlight the importance of motive as a corroborative link in cases of circumstantial evidence, but found it lacking in the present case.
• Shambu Nath Mehra v. State of Ajmer [AIR 1956 SC 404]* The Court used this case to explain the limits of Section 106 of the Evidence Act and that it does not shift the primary burden of proof from the prosecution.
• Tulshiram Sahadu Suryawanshi and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra [(2012) 10 SCC 373]* The Court referred to this case to clarify that Section 106 does not relieve the prosecution of its burden but applies when the prosecution proves facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn.
• Nagendra Sah v. State of Bihar [(2021) 10 SCC 725]* The Court cited this case to reiterate that the failure of the accused to explain facts under Section 106 is relevant only when the prosecution has established a chain of circumstances.
• Anees v. The State Govt. of NCT [2024 INSC 368]* The Court relied on this case to state that Section 106 cannot be used to make up for the prosecution’s inability to produce evidence of circumstances pointing to the guilt of the accused.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to acquit the accused was primarily influenced by the lack of a complete chain of incriminating circumstances. The Court emphasized that the prosecution failed to establish key elements, such as the motive and the presence of the accused at the crime scene. The absence of credible evidence and the failure to prove the alleged complaint under Section 107 and 116(3) of CrPC weighed heavily against the prosecution’s case. The court also highlighted the failure of the prosecution to examine key witnesses and the doubtful nature of the prosecution’s narrative.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them due to the lack of evidence. The final decision was based on the principle that the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, which it failed to do in this case.

The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of incriminating circumstances against the accused-appellants. The Court noted that the prosecution’s case was based on circumstantial evidence, which requires a high degree of certainty and an unbroken chain of evidence. The Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the motive for the crime, the presence of the accused at the crime scene, and the circumstances under which the deceased was found dead. The Court also noted that the prosecution failed to examine key witnesses and that the family’s behavior after the incident was inconsistent with their allegations.

The Court emphasized that Section 106 of the Evidence Act, which deals with the burden of proving facts within the special knowledge of a person, cannot be invoked to make up for the prosecution’s failure to produce evidence. The Court also highlighted that the failure of the accused to offer an explanation under Section 106 is relevant only if the prosecution has established a complete chain of circumstances. The Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt and, therefore, they deserved to be acquitted.

“It is a well-established principle of criminal jurisprudence that conviction on a charge of murder may be based purely on circumstantial evidence, provided that such evidence is deemed credible and trustworthy.”

“The law with regard to conviction based on circumstantial evidence has been crystalised by this Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sharda v. State of Maharashtra.”

“Section 106 of the Evidence Act cannot be invoked to make up the inability of the prosecution to produce evidence of circumstances pointing to the guilt of the accused.”

Key Takeaways

• In cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete and unbroken chain of incriminating circumstances to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
• The motive for a crime, while significant, must be supported by credible evidence and not mere allegations.
• The ‘last seen together’ theory requires proof that the accused were present with the deceased at the relevant time.
• Section 106 of the Evidence Act cannot be used to shift the burden of proof onto the accused unless the prosecution has first established a prima facie case.
• The prosecution’s failure to examine key witnesses can lead to an adverse inference against their case.

This judgment underscores the importance of a thorough investigation and the need for the prosecution to present compelling evidence to secure a conviction. It also clarifies the limitations of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, ensuring that the burden of proof remains primarily on the prosecution.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that:

• Nusrat Parween (appellant No. 1) and Ahmad Khan (appellant No. 2), who were on bail, need not surrender, and their bail bonds were discharged.
• Abdul Rahman Khan (accused No. 3), if in custody, should be released forthwith unless wanted in any other case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires the prosecution to establish a complete and unbroken chain of incriminating circumstances. The judgment clarifies that Section 106 of the Evidence Act cannot be used to shift the burden of proof to the accused unless the prosecution has first established a prima facie case. This judgment reinforces the principle that the burden of proof always lies with the prosecution and that the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Nusrat Parween vs. State of Jharkhand overturned the conviction of the accused, emphasizing the importance of a complete chain of evidence in cases based on circumstantial evidence. The Court clarified the application of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, ensuring that the burden of proof remains with the prosecution. This judgment serves as a reminder of the high standards of proof required in criminal cases and the need for a thorough and meticulous investigation.

Category

Parent Category: Criminal Law

Child Categories:

• Circumstantial Evidence
• Burden of Proof
• Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Section 106, Indian Evidence Act, 1872
• Homicide
• Criminal Procedure
• Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Indian Evidence Act, 1872
• Section 106, Indian Evidence Act, 1872
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
• Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
• Section 116(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973