Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Due to Lack of Evidence: Pavan Vasudeo Sharma vs. State of Maharashtra (25 March 2019)

Date of the Judgment: 25 March 2019

Citation: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 519 OF 2019

Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, J., Indu Malhotra, J.

Can an accused be convicted solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case where the prosecution’s evidence was found to be lacking. The court acquitted the accused, emphasizing that the circumstances must conclusively point towards the guilt of the accused, leaving no room for reasonable doubt. This judgment highlights the importance of a complete chain of evidence in cases relying on circumstantial evidence. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice Indu Malhotra.

Case Background

On 20th December 2005, a police officer, PW11 Police Naik Nagare, was robbed of his service pistol and walkie-talkie by three individuals. An FIR was registered, but no persons were named, only descriptions were given. Subsequently, on 4th January 2006, an injured person, later identified as Bhima Waghmare, was found near a highway and declared dead at the hospital. A post-mortem revealed that Waghmare had died from a gunshot wound. The prosecution alleged that the firearm used in Waghmare’s murder was the same service weapon stolen from PW11. Further, it was alleged that two mobile phones belonging to Waghmare were also robbed. One of these phones was later used to make ransom calls in the kidnapping of a boy named Akash Lokhande on 13th January 2006. During the investigation of the kidnapping, the police apprehended Pavan Vasudeo Sharma (Accused No. 1), along with three others. A 9mm pistol and two live cartridges were recovered from Accused No. 1. Forensic analysis confirmed that the bullet recovered from Waghmare’s body was fired from this pistol. However, no Test Identification Parade was documented in the present trial to confirm that the accused were the same persons who had robbed the police officer.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, convicted Accused Nos. 1 and 2 for offences under Sections 302, 392 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 37(1) read with Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, and Section 3 read with Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act. Both accused appealed to the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. The High Court upheld the conviction of Accused No. 1 but acquitted Accused No. 2 of the charges under Sections 302, 392 of IPC and under Section 3 read with Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act, while maintaining his conviction under Section 37(1) read with Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. The State did not challenge the acquittal of Accused No. 2.

Legal Framework

The case involves several key legal provisions:
✓ Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with the punishment for murder.
✓ Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with the punishment for robbery.
✓ Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
✓ Section 37(1) read with Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act: These sections deal with violations related to police regulations.
✓ Section 3 read with Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act: These sections deal with the possession and use of illegal arms.

Arguments

Prosecution’s Arguments:

• The prosecution argued that the service weapon stolen from PW11 was used to murder Bhima Waghmare.
• The mobile phone allegedly belonging to the deceased was used to make ransom calls in the kidnapping case, linking the accused to the murder.
• The prosecution relied on the extra-judicial confession allegedly made by the kidnappers during the ransom calls, where they mentioned killing a person at Karjat.
• The prosecution argued that the recovery of the service weapon from Accused No. 1 was a crucial link in establishing his guilt.

Defense’s Arguments:

• The defense argued that the prosecution failed to establish the link between the mobile phone and the deceased. The mobile number was registered in the name of Sanjay S. Roy and not Bhima Waghmare.
• The defense contended that no Test Identification Parade was conducted or documented to identify the accused as the persons who robbed PW11.
• The defense pointed out that the alleged extra-judicial confession was not part of the initial testimony of PW12 and was only mentioned during cross-examination.
• The defense highlighted the inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case, including the fact that PW11’s mobile phone was not stolen during the robbery, which was incongruent.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following key issue:

1. Whether the material on record sufficiently establishes that it was Accused No.1 alone who was guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

• Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra [(1984) 4 SCC 116]: The Supreme Court referred to this case to reiterate the principles for appreciating cases based on circumstantial evidence. The court highlighted that the circumstances must be fully established, consistent with the guilt of the accused, conclusive, and exclude every other possible hypothesis.
• Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC 793]: This case was cited to emphasize the distinction between “may be” and “must be” guilty, stressing that the court must be sure of the accused’s guilt before convicting.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra [(1984) 4 SCC 116]*: The Court applied the principles laid down in this case to assess the circumstantial evidence. It emphasized that the circumstances must be fully established and must exclude every possible hypothesis except the guilt of the accused.
• Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC 793]*: The Court used this case to highlight the difference between the phrases “may be” and “must be” guilty, underscoring the necessity for a sure conclusion before conviction.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the lack of a complete chain of evidence and the missing links in the prosecution’s case. The court emphasized that circumstantial evidence must be conclusive and rule out every other hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. The court was not convinced by the prosecution’s evidence regarding the mobile phone and the recovery of the service weapon. The absence of a documented Test Identification Parade further weakened the prosecution’s case. The court also noted the inconsistencies and incongruities in the prosecution’s narrative. The benefit of doubt was given to the accused due to these shortcomings.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the prosecution’s evidence, particularly the recovery of the service weapon and the mobile phone. However, the Court found that the prosecution failed to establish a clear link between the mobile phone and the deceased, as the phone was registered to a third party. Additionally, the absence of a documented Test Identification Parade weakened the prosecution’s claim that the accused were the same individuals who had robbed the police officer. The Court also noted inconsistencies in the prosecution’s narrative, such as the fact that the police officer’s mobile phone was not stolen during the robbery, which was incongruent. The Court emphasized that the circumstantial evidence must rule out every other hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. In this case, the Court found that the prosecution’s evidence did not meet this standard, leading to the acquittal of the accused.

The Court stated, “Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’ is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.”

The Court also noted, “The circumstances relied upon must rule out every single hypothesis except the guilt of the person accused of an offence. There are too many missing links in the present matter and in our considered view, the material on record does not exclude every single hypothesis except the guilt of the man.”

The Court further stated, “These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence.”

Key Takeaways

• In cases relying on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of evidence that conclusively points towards the guilt of the accused.
• The circumstances must rule out every other hypothesis except the guilt of the accused, leaving no room for reasonable doubt.
• The prosecution must ensure that all links in the chain of evidence are established and documented properly, including Test Identification Parades.
• The benefit of doubt must be given to the accused if the prosecution’s evidence is not conclusive and leaves room for other reasonable hypotheses.
• Inconsistencies and incongruities in the prosecution’s narrative can weaken the case against the accused.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the Appellant be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other offence.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that in cases relying on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of evidence that conclusively points towards the guilt of the accused. The court reiterated the principles laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra [(1984) 4 SCC 116], emphasizing that the circumstances must be fully established, consistent with the guilt of the accused, conclusive, and exclude every other possible hypothesis. This judgment reinforces the importance of a strong and complete chain of evidence in cases based on circumstantial evidence and highlights the high standard of proof required for a conviction.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court acquitted Pavan Vasudeo Sharma, emphasizing that the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution was insufficient to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court found missing links in the chain of evidence, inconsistencies in the prosecution’s narrative, and the absence of a documented Test Identification Parade. The judgment underscores the high standard of proof required in criminal cases and the importance of a complete and conclusive chain of evidence, especially when relying on circumstantial evidence.