Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Due to Weak Circumstantial Evidence: Arun Shankar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2024)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: April 10, 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 298
Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J. and Ujjal Bhuyan, J.
Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on circumstantial evidence, especially when key elements of the prosecution’s case are not conclusively proven? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in the case of *Arun Shankar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh*. The court examined whether the chain of circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution was complete and compelling enough to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The bench comprised Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, who delivered the judgment.

Case Background

The appellant, Arun Shankar, and the deceased, Sushildhar Dubey, were related and lived in the same village, Amgoan. They were known to consume liquor together. On September 29, 1993, around 7:00 PM, Arun Shankar went to Sushildhar Dubey’s house and invited him to drink liquor. They went to the house of PW-2 (Ramdas) in the village of Kohaka, consumed liquor, and left. Sushildhar Dubey was not seen alive after that. His body was found on the morning of September 30, 1993, on the road leading to Village Bijholidhar Amgoan. The prosecution’s case rested on circumstantial evidence, including the recovery of a knife, the fact that they were last seen together, the medical opinion on the cause of death, and their habit of drinking together.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Sessions Court convicted Arun Shankar on March 13, 1995, under Sections 302 (murder) and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) of the Indian Penal Code, sentencing him to life imprisonment. The High Court upheld this decision on December 5, 2017. The case then reached the Supreme Court, which reviewed the evidence and arguments presented by both sides.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court referred to the principles governing cases based on circumstantial evidence as laid down in *Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra* [(1984) 4 SCC 116]. The court emphasized that for a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must be fully established, consistent only with the guilt of the accused, conclusive, and exclude every other hypothesis. The chain of evidence must be so complete that it leaves no reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. The court also referred to *Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra* [(1973) 2 SCC 793] to emphasize that the accused “must be” and not merely “may be” guilty.

The relevant legal provisions considered were:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code: This section defines the punishment for murder.
• Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code: This section deals with causing the disappearance of evidence of an offense or giving false information to screen the offender.
• Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This section deals with the discovery of facts based on information received from an accused.

Arguments

The appellant’s counsel argued that the “last seen together” circumstance was weak, as the appellant and deceased were related and often drank together. They contended that the recovery of the knife was not properly proven and that the prosecution failed to establish a motive for the murder. They also argued that the possibility of death due to a motorcycle accident could not be ruled out, based on the evidence of PW-7 and PW-15. The State’s counsel argued that the deceased’s body was found shortly after he was last seen with the appellant, and that the recovery of the weapon was duly proved. They maintained that all circumstances forming part of the chain of evidence had been established.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn were fully established.
2. Whether the facts so established were consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused.
3. Whether the circumstances were of a conclusive nature and tendency.
4. Whether the circumstances excluded every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved.
5. Whether there was a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court relied on Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [(1984) 4 SCC 116]* to highlight the essential conditions for conviction based on circumstantial evidence.
• The Supreme Court used Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC 793]* to emphasize that the accused must be proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, not merely possibly guilty.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the lack of conclusive evidence and the failure of the prosecution to establish a complete chain of circumstances. The court found the “last seen together” evidence weak, the recovery of the weapon unproven, and the possibility of an accidental death not ruled out. The Court emphasized that the circumstances must be fully established and consistent only with the guilt of the accused, which was not the case here.

The court stated, “the circumstances brought on record are not conclusive in nature. The circumstances are not consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the appellant.”

The court further noted, “the recovery of the weapon at the instance of the appellant has not been proved. Therefore, it cannot be said that all the circumstances forming part of the chain of circumstances have been duly proved.”

The court also observed, “The circumstance of last seen together is a very weak circumstance in the facts of the case.”

Key Takeaways

✓ Circumstantial evidence must be complete and conclusive to sustain a conviction.
✓ The “last seen together” circumstance is weak if the parties are known to be together frequently.
✓ Recovery of a weapon must be proven with reliable witnesses and documentation.
✓ The prosecution must rule out all other reasonable hypotheses for the cause of death.

Directions

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgments, and acquitted the appellant of all charges. The appellant’s bail bonds were cancelled.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances that leads only to the conclusion of the guilt of the accused. If any link in the chain is weak or missing, the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused. This judgment reinforces the principles laid down in *Sharad Birdhichand Sarda* and *Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade*, emphasizing the high standard of proof required in criminal cases.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court acquitted Arun Shankar, emphasizing that the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution was insufficient to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court highlighted the weaknesses in the evidence, including the unproven recovery of the weapon and the possibility of accidental death. This case underscores the importance of a complete and conclusive chain of evidence in criminal cases, especially those based on circumstantial evidence.