Supreme Court acquits accused in murder case due to weak circumstantial evidence: Shankar vs. State of Maharashtra (2023)

Date of the Judgment: 15 March 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 209

Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi and Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.T. Ravikumar

Can a conviction be upheld based solely on circumstantial evidence, especially when the prosecution fails to establish a clear motive? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case where the accused were convicted of murder based on circumstantial evidence. The court scrutinized the evidence and ultimately acquitted the accused, emphasizing the importance of a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Case Background

The case revolves around the murder of one Rahul Pundlik Meshram. On December 12, 2001, the deceased went to the house of Chintaman Giddu Gatey (PW-8) in Bhandara. While there, he was joined by the accused, including Shankar, who is the appellant in this case. An altercation occurred, and the accused then took the deceased with them, ostensibly for drinks. Later that evening, the deceased was found dead with multiple injuries.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted the accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for murder. The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Nagpur, upheld the conviction. The accused 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 pertains to acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. The Supreme Court also considered the principles governing cases based on circumstantial evidence.

The court referred to the following principles laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [(1984) 4 SCC 116]:

• “the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.”
• “The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused.”
• “the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency.”
• “they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved.”
• “there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused.”

Arguments

The appellants argued that the circumstantial evidence was insufficient to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. They pointed out the lack of a clear motive and inconsistencies in the testimonies of key witnesses. The prosecution, on the other hand, contended that the circumstances, including the last seen evidence and recovery of weapons, formed a complete chain pointing to the guilt of the accused.

The prosecution’s arguments were based on the following points:

• The deceased was last seen with the accused before his death.
• The accused had a motive due to a prior assault on the brother of one of the accused.
• A weapon with the deceased’s blood was recovered at the instance of one of the accused.

The appellants countered with the following arguments:

• The prosecution failed to establish the alleged motive.
• The testimonies of the key witnesses were inconsistent and unreliable.
• The recovery of the weapon and clothes was not conclusive evidence of guilt.
• The chain of circumstances was incomplete and did not exclude other possibilities.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt?
2. Whether the High Court was right in upholding the conviction based on the evidence presented?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The court considered the following authorities:

• Sarbir Singh v. State of Punjab [1993 SCC (Cri) 860] – This case highlighted the need for fully established circumstances, consistent with guilt, and excluding any other hypothesis.
• Brijlal Prasad Sinha v. State of Bihar [(1998) SCC (Cri) 1382] – This case emphasized that the circumstances should lead to no other inference except the guilt of the accused.
• Prakash v. State of Rajasthan [(2013) 4 SCC 668] – This case reiterated the five golden principles for circumstantial evidence as laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [(1984) 4 SCC 116].
• Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [(1984) 4 SCC 116] – Established the five golden principles for cases based on circumstantial evidence.
• Tomaso Bruno & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2015)7 SCC 178] – This case discussed the scope of interference by the Supreme Court in concurrent findings of lower courts.
• Nandu Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) [2022 SCC OnLine SC 1454] – This case discussed the importance of motive in circumstantial evidence cases.
• Anwar Ali & Anr. v. State of Himachal Pradesh [(2020) 10 SCC 166] – This case discussed the impact of the absence of motive in cases based on circumstantial evidence.
• Shivaji Chintappa Patil v. State of Maharashtra [(2021) 5 SCC 626] – This case highlighted the importance of motive as a link in the chain of circumstances.

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The inconsistencies in the testimonies of key witnesses, particularly regarding the “last seen” evidence.
• The failure of the prosecution to establish a clear motive for the murder.
• The lack of conclusive evidence to link the accused to the crime, despite the recovery of a weapon.
• The incomplete chain of circumstantial evidence, which did not exclude other possibilities.

The court’s reasoning process can be summarized as follows:

The court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them due to the lack of conclusive evidence and the inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case. The final decision was based on the principle that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution, and any doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused.

The court quoted the following from the judgment:

• “It is not as if motive alone becomes the crucial link in the case to be established by the prosecution and in its absence the case of prosecution must be discarded. But, at the same time, complete absence of motive assumes a different complexion and such absence definitely weighs in favour of the accused.”
• “In a case of circumstantial evidence, motive plays an important link to complete the chain of circumstances.”
• “The law relating to circumstantial evidence no longer remains res integra and it has been held by catena of decisions of this Court that the circumstances proved should lead to no other inference except that of the guilt of the accused so that, the accused can be convicted of the offences charged.”

There were no dissenting opinions. The bench was unanimous in its decision to acquit the accused.

Key Takeaways

• In cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances that point unequivocally to the guilt of the accused.
• The absence of a clear motive can weaken the prosecution’s case, especially in cases based on circumstantial evidence.
• The testimonies of key witnesses must be consistent and reliable; inconsistencies can undermine the prosecution’s case.
• The recovery of weapons or other incriminating evidence is not conclusive proof of guilt if it is not supported by other evidence and if the witnesses don’t support the prosecution’s case.
• The benefit of doubt must always be given to the accused if the prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Directions

The Supreme Court ordered the acquittal of the appellants. The judgments and orders of the High Court and the Trial Court were overturned. The bail bonds executed by the appellants were discharged.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove a complete chain of circumstances that unequivocally point to the guilt of the accused. The absence of a clear motive, inconsistencies in witness testimonies, and lack of conclusive evidence can lead to acquittal. This judgment reinforces the principles laid down in previous cases regarding circumstantial evidence and the importance of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no change in the previous position of law, but this judgment emphasizes the strict application of the existing principles.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision to acquit the accused in Shankar vs. State of Maharashtra underscores the importance of a robust and complete chain of evidence in cases based on circumstantial evidence. The court’s emphasis on the need for a clear motive, consistent witness testimonies, and conclusive evidence serves as a reminder of the high standard of proof required in criminal cases. This judgment reinforces the principle that the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused when the prosecution fails to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.