Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Due to Lack of Evidence: Ravishankar Tandon vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2024)

Date of the Judgment: April 10, 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 299
Judges: B.R. Gavai, J., Sandeep Mehta, J.
Can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence and a disclosure statement to the police, especially when the discovery of the body was already known to the police? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a criminal appeal, ultimately acquitting the accused due to insufficient evidence. The bench, comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, delivered a judgment that underscores the importance of a complete chain of evidence in cases relying on circumstantial evidence.

Case Background

On December 2, 2011, Ramavtar (PW-1) reported his son, Dharmendra Satnami, missing at Police Station Kunda. During the investigation, the police interrogated the appellants, who allegedly confessed to strangulating Dharmendra to death on the Bhatgaon Canal Road and throwing his body into a pond at Bhatgaon village. Based on these statements, the police recovered Dharmendra’s body from the pond on December 3, 2011. The First Information Report (FIR) No. 402 of 2011 was registered at Police Station Mungeli, stating that the offenses occurred between November 30, 2011, and December 3, 2011. The Post-Mortem Report confirmed the cause of death as asphyxia due to strangulation, and the nature of death as homicidal.

The prosecution’s case was based on the memorandum statements of the appellants. According to the prosecution, Dinesh Chandrakar (accused No. 3) instructed Ravishankar Tandon (accused No. 1) and Satyendra Kumar Patre (accused No. 4) to murder Dharmendra for Rs. 90,000. Ravishankar, Satyendra, and Umend Prasad Dhritalhare (accused No. 2) conspired to carry out the murder. They called Dharmendra to Mungeli on November 30, 2011, under the pretext of purchasing silver. After having dinner at the house of Satyendra’s brother-in-law, they strangled Dharmendra near Bhatgaon, stuffed his body in a jute sack, and threw it into a pond.

A charge-sheet was filed against accused Nos. 1, 2, and 4 under Sections 302 read with 34, 120B, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and against accused No. 3 under Sections 302 read with 34 and 120B of the IPC. The trial court convicted the accused, and the High Court upheld the conviction. The appellants then approached the Supreme Court.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The trial court found the accused guilty of the offenses and sentenced them to life imprisonment. The accused then appealed to the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, which dismissed their appeals and upheld the trial court’s decision. The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court of India.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which deals with the admissibility of information leading to the discovery of facts. The section states:

“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.”

The Supreme Court also referred to the principles governing circumstantial evidence as laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra and Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh. These principles require that the circumstances from which guilt is inferred must be fully established, consistent only with the guilt of the accused, conclusive, and must exclude every other reasonable hypothesis.

Arguments

Arguments on behalf of the Appellants:

• The case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence, and the prosecution failed to prove the incriminating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt.
• The prosecution did not establish a complete chain of proven circumstances that leads to no other conclusion than the guilt of the accused.
• The recovery of the dead body was not solely based on the information provided by the accused, as the police and other witnesses were already aware of the body’s location.
• The witnesses to the memorandum statements were not reliable, as they admitted to signing documents without reading them.

Arguments on behalf of the Respondent-State:

• The trial court and the High Court have concurrently held that the prosecution proved the case beyond a reasonable doubt.
• The findings of the lower courts were based on a cogent appreciation of evidence.
• The recovery of the dead body based on the disclosure statements of the accused was a crucial piece of evidence.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the recovery of the dead body was based on the information given by the accused persons in the statement recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, and that nobody had the knowledge about the existence of the dead body at the place from where it was recovered before that.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

• Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [ (1984) 4 SCC 116 : 1984 INSC 121 ] – Supreme Court: This case laid down the principles for conviction based on circumstantial evidence, emphasizing the need for a complete chain of evidence.
• Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh [ (1952) 2 SCC 71 : AIR 1952 SC 343 : 1952 SCR 1091 : 1953 Cri LJ 129 ] – Supreme Court: This case established that the circumstances from which guilt is inferred must be fully established and consistent only with the guilt of the accused.
• State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu alias Afsan Guru [ (2005) 11 SCC 600 : 2005 INSC 333 ] – Supreme Court: This case discussed the application of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, emphasizing that only the information directly related to the discovered fact is admissible.
• Asar Mohammad and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh [ (2019) 12 SCC 253 : 2018 INSC 985 ] – Supreme Court: This case highlighted the importance of establishing a clear link between the information provided by the accused and the discovery of the fact.
• Boby v. State of Kerala [ 2023 SCC OnLine SC 50 : 2023 INSC 23 ] – Supreme Court: This case further elaborated on the requirements for the admissibility of evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This section deals with the admissibility of information leading to the discovery of facts.
• Sections 302, 34, 120B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: These sections define the offences of murder, common intention, criminal conspiracy and causing disappearance of evidence of offence.

Authorities Considered by the Court

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• The Court relied on Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [(1984) 4 SCC 116 : 1984 INSC 121]* to emphasize the need for a complete chain of evidence in cases based on circumstantial evidence.
• The Court cited Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(1952) 2 SCC 71 : AIR 1952 SC 343 : 1952 SCR 1091 : 1953 Cri LJ 129]* to reiterate that the circumstances must be fully established and consistent only with the guilt of the accused.
• The Court used State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu alias Afsan Guru [(2005) 11 SCC 600 : 2005 INSC 333]* to interpret Section 27 of the Evidence Act, emphasizing that only the information directly related to the discovered fact is admissible.
• The Court referred to Asar Mohammad and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2019) 12 SCC 253 : 2018 INSC 985]* and Boby v. State of Kerala [2023 SCC OnLine SC 50 : 2023 INSC 23]* to highlight the importance of a clear link between the information provided by the accused and the discovery of the fact.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the lack of a clear link between the accused’s statements and the discovery of the dead body. The Court noted that the police and other witnesses were already aware of the body’s location before the statements were recorded, undermining the prosecution’s reliance on Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The Court also expressed concern about the reliability of the witnesses to the memorandum statements, who admitted to signing documents without reading them. The Court emphasized the importance of the principles of circumstantial evidence, which require a complete chain of evidence that excludes every other reasonable hypothesis.

The Court’s decision was primarily driven by a thorough examination of the factual evidence, particularly the circumstances surrounding the discovery of the body and the reliability of the witnesses. While legal principles were applied, the factual analysis weighed more heavily in the Court’s reasoning.

The Supreme Court’s reasoning was based on the following:

• The prosecution failed to establish that the discovery of the dead body was solely based on the information provided by the accused.
• Witnesses to the memorandum statements were unreliable, as they admitted to signing documents without reading them.
• The evidence of the Investigating Officer (IO) was insufficient to establish a link between the accused’s statements and the discovery of the body.
• The chain of circumstantial evidence was incomplete, and did not exclude every other reasonable hypothesis.

The Court emphasized that suspicion, no matter how strong, cannot replace proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court stated, “An accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” The Court also noted, “It is settled law that suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt.” And further, “The circumstances should be such that they exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case, and the judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta.

The Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove the case against the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt.

Key Takeaways

• Convictions based on circumstantial evidence require a complete chain of evidence that excludes every other reasonable hypothesis.
• Statements made by accused persons to the police are only admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act if they lead to the discovery of a fact that was not previously known.
• The reliability of witnesses is crucial, and statements signed without reading them may be deemed unreliable.
• Suspicion, no matter how strong, cannot replace proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the acquittal of all the appellants and ordered their immediate release if they were not required in any other case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that for a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances that leads to no other conclusion than the guilt of the accused. Additionally, the discovery of facts under Section 27 of the Evidence Act must be solely based on the information provided by the accused, and not on prior knowledge. This judgment reinforces the principles of circumstantial evidence and the strict application of Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Ravishankar Tandon vs. State of Chhattisgarh highlights the critical importance of adhering to the principles of circumstantial evidence and the strict requirements of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The Court’s decision to acquit the accused underscores the principle that suspicion, no matter how strong, cannot replace concrete proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The case serves as a reminder of the need for a thorough and meticulous investigation and the importance of reliable evidence in criminal proceedings.

Category:

Parent Category: Criminal Law
Child Categories: Circumstantial Evidence, Section 27, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Murder, Criminal Conspiracy, Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 120B, 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 chain of circumstances that, when taken together, lead to a conclusion.

Q: What is Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act?
A: Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act allows the admissibility of information given by an accused person in police custody if that information leads to the discovery of a fact. However, only the part of the information that relates directly to the discovery is admissible.

Q: Why were the accused acquitted in this case?
A: The accused were acquitted because the Supreme Court found that the prosecution failed to prove that the discovery of the dead body was solely based on the information provided by the accused. The Court also found the witnesses to the memorandum statements unreliable and the chain of circumstantial evidence incomplete.

Q: What does it mean to prove a case “beyond a reasonable doubt”?
A: Proving a case “beyond a reasonable doubt” means that the prosecution must present enough evidence to convince a reasonable person that there is no other logical explanation for the facts other than the guilt of the accused.

Q: Can a conviction be based solely on circumstantial evidence?
A: Yes, a conviction can be based on circumstantial evidence, but the chain of circumstances must be complete and must exclude every other reasonable hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused.