Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Due to Weak Circumstantial Evidence: Indrajit Das vs. State of Tripura (28 February 2023)

Date of the Judgment: 28 February 2023
Citation: [Not Available in Source]
Judges: B.R. Gavai, J. and Vikram Nath, J.
Can a conviction be upheld when the prosecution’s case relies heavily on circumstantial evidence, but key links in the chain of circumstances are weak or missing? 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 Vikram Nath, delivered the judgment, authored by Justice Vikram Nath.

Case Background

The case began with a phone call to the Kailashahar Police Station on June 20, 2007, reporting a large amount of blood on the Kailashahar-Kumarghat Road. Police investigation revealed blood stains, a large knife (vojali), a thread (taga), and broken glass pieces. Further investigation found marks suggesting a heavy object had been dragged into the nearby jungle towards the Manu River. The police also received a missing person report for Kaushik Sarkar, who had gone out on his bike the previous evening, June 19, 2007, and not returned. Kaushik’s mother stated that he had left with two friends, Indrajit Das (the appellant) and a juvenile, ‘K’.

The police investigation led to the appellant and the juvenile, who allegedly confessed to assaulting Kaushik with vojalis, throwing his body and bike into the river, and burning their blood-stained clothes. The juvenile was tried under the Juvenile Justice Act, while the appellant was tried by the Sessions Court. The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, sentencing him to life imprisonment. The High Court of Tripura upheld this conviction, leading to the current appeal before the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, sentencing him to life imprisonment. The High Court of Tripura dismissed the appellant’s appeal, upholding the Trial Court’s decision. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court of India.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which deals with the punishment for murder, and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. Additionally, Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, addresses causing disappearance of evidence of an offense or giving false information. The Supreme Court also considered the principles governing circumstantial evidence, particularly as laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra and Sailendra Rajdev Pasvan and Others vs. State of Gujarat Etc.

Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 states: “Punishment for murder.—Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 states: “Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.—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 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 states: “Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender.—Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; or, if the offence which he knows or believes to have been committed is punishable with death, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

Arguments

The prosecution argued that the chain of circumstantial evidence, including the last seen theory, recoveries, and extra-judicial confession, proved the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution contended that the appellant and the juvenile were the last people seen with the deceased, and that the recovery of the knife, blood stains, and the motorcycle from the river, along with the confession, established their involvement in the crime. The prosecution relied on the principle that in cases of circumstantial evidence, if the circumstances form a complete chain pointing towards the guilt of the accused, the court can convict the accused.

The defense argued that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances. The defense pointed out the lack of a motive, the absence of the deceased’s body, inconsistencies in the last seen evidence, the open nature of the recovery locations, and the retracted extra-judicial confession. The defense emphasized that the prosecution’s case was based on presumptions and weak evidence, which did not meet the threshold for a conviction based on circumstantial evidence. The defense relied on the principle that in cases of circumstantial evidence, the circumstances should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but also inconsistent with their innocence.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue:

1. Whether the prosecution has successfully established the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt based on the circumstantial evidence presented.

The Supreme Court also considered the sub-issue of whether the extra-judicial confession was reliable and corroborated by other evidence.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court analyzed the submissions made by both parties and the authorities cited. The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish key links in the chain of circumstantial evidence. The Court noted that the prosecution did not establish any motive for the crime. The Court also highlighted the inconsistencies in the last seen evidence and the fact that the recoveries were made from an open place, not exclusively known to the appellant. The Court further noted that the extra-judicial confession was retracted during trial and lacked corroborating evidence.

Authorities:

The Supreme Court relied on the principles laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra and Sailendra Rajdev Pasvan and Others vs. State of Gujarat Etc.* to emphasize that in cases of circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must form a complete chain pointing towards the guilt of the accused and must be inconsistent with their innocence. The Court also referred to Kuna Alias Sanjaya Behera vs. State of Odisha* and Ranganayaki vs. State by Inspector of Police* to highlight the importance of motive in cases of circumstantial evidence. The Court stated that the prosecution’s failure to establish these key links led to the acquittal of the appellant.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the lack of a complete chain of circumstances and the absence of strong evidence. The court emphasized the importance of motive in circumstantial evidence cases, noting that the prosecution failed to establish any motive for the crime. The court also highlighted the inconsistencies in the last seen evidence, the open nature of the recovery locations, and the weakness of the retracted extra-judicial confession. The court was also concerned about the absence of the body, which further weakened the prosecution’s case. The court’s analysis focused on the principle that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, which it failed to do in this case.

The Court considered alternative interpretations of the evidence but found them to be insufficient to establish the guilt of the accused. The Court emphasized the importance of a complete chain of circumstances in cases of circumstantial evidence, which was lacking in this case. The Court also noted that the extra-judicial confession was not reliable and lacked corroboration.

The Supreme Court stated, “In view of the discussion made above, we find that the major links of the chain of circumstances have not been proved by the prosecution evidence and as such it would be unjust to uphold the conviction of the appellant.” The Court also noted, “The extra -judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and especially when it has been retracted during trial. It requires strong evidence to corroborate it and also it must be established that it was completely voluntary and truthful.” Further, the court observed, “In a case of circumstantial evidence, motive has an important role to play. Motive may also have a role to play even in a case of direct evidence but it carries much greater importance in a case of circumstantial evidence than a case of direct evidence.”

The Court’s decision was unanimous, with both judges concurring in the judgment.

Key Takeaways

• ✓ In cases of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances pointing towards the guilt of the accused.
• ✓ Motive is an important link in the chain of circumstances, especially in cases based on circumstantial evidence.
• ✓ Extra-judicial confessions are weak pieces of evidence and require strong corroboration to be relied upon.
• ✓ Recoveries from open places do not hold much evidentiary value.
• ✓ The absence of the corpus delicti (body) can weaken the prosecution’s case.
• ✓ If the prosecution fails to prove any of the links in the chain of circumstances, the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused.

This judgment underscores the importance of a thorough investigation and the need for the prosecution to establish each link in the chain of circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. The judgment also highlights the cautious approach that courts must take when relying on circumstantial evidence.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellant be released forthwith, as he was in judicial custody and had been granted parole by the State.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that in cases of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances that points unerringly towards the guilt of the accused, and the absence of any key link can lead to an acquittal. This case reinforces the principle that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused if the evidence is weak or incomplete. This case does not change any previous positions of law but rather reinforces existing legal principles.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant, Indrajit Das, in the murder case, citing the prosecution’s failure to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence. The Court emphasized the importance of motive, reliable last seen evidence, credible recoveries, and corroborated extra-judicial confessions. The judgment reinforces the principle that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and any weakness in the chain of circumstances can lead to an acquittal.