Supreme Court acquits accused in murder case due to weak circumstantial evidence: Sonu vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (29 May 2020)

Date of the Judgment: 29 May 2020

Citation: [Not Available in Source]

Judges: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J., K.M. Joseph, J.

Can the mere possession of a stolen item lead to a conviction for murder? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case where an accused was convicted based primarily on the recovery of a stolen mobile phone. The court examined the strength of circumstantial evidence and the importance of establishing a clear link between the accused and the crime. This judgment underscores the principle that suspicion cannot replace proof, and emphasizes the need for a robust evidentiary foundation in criminal cases.

Case Background

On the night of 08 September 2008, Bharosilal, the deceased, was found dead in his home in Bilaua. His son, Abhay Sharma (PW9), was alerted by a neighbor that his father had not opened the door. Upon investigation, PW9 discovered his father’s body. A First Information Report (FIR) was filed on 10 September 2008. The police investigation led to the arrest of Kalli, Hariom, Veeru, Virendra, and the appellant, Sonu @ Sunil. They were charged with offenses under Sections 394, 460, and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and Sections 11 and 13 of the Madhya Pradesh Dakaiti Avam Vyapharan Adhiniyam, 1981.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted the appellant and others under Sections 394, 460, and 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC, and Sections 11 and 13 of the Madhya Pradesh Adhiniyam. The Trial Court sentenced the appellant to death for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The High Court, on appeal, converted the death sentence to life imprisonment and otherwise dismissed the appeal. The High Court upheld the conviction based on circumstantial evidence.

Legal Framework

The case involves the following key legal provisions:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): Defines the punishment for murder.
• Section 34 of the IPC: Deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
• Section 394 of the IPC: Addresses the punishment for voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery.
• Section 460 of the IPC: Addresses the punishment for house-trespass in order to commit an offence punishable with imprisonment.
• Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Allows the court to presume the existence of certain facts, including that a person in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen. “The Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case. Illustrations The Court may presume — (a) That a man who is in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession;”
• Sections 11 and 13 of the Madhya Pradesh Dakaiti Avam Vyapharan Adhiniyam, 1981: Pertain to offenses related to dacoity and kidnapping in Madhya Pradesh.

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The appellant argued that there was no credible evidence to link him to the crime.
• The appellant contended that the testimony of PW-5, who claimed to have overheard the conspiracy, was unreliable.
• The appellant highlighted discrepancies in the recovery of the mobile phone, noting that the recovered phone’s number did not match the number of the phone that was stated to be missing.
• The appellant pointed out that the Investigating Officer failed to investigate the presence of a mysterious maxi found at the crime scene.
• The appellant argued that unlike other accused, he was not known to the deceased or his family, thus weakening the circumstantial evidence against him.

State’s Submissions:

• The State supported the judgment of the High Court, arguing that the circumstantial evidence, including the recovery of the mobile phone, was sufficient to prove the appellant’s guilt.
• The State contended that the appellant was part of a criminal conspiracy to commit theft, which led to the murder of the deceased.
• The State relied on the recovery of the mobile phone from the appellant as strong evidence of his involvement in the crime.

Innovativeness of the argument: The appellant’s argument was innovative in highlighting the discrepancies in the evidence, particularly the mismatch in the mobile phone numbers and the lack of investigation into the maxi, which raised doubts about the prosecution’s case.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following key issues:

1. Whether the recovery of the mobile phone from the appellant was sufficient to prove his involvement in the crime.
2. Whether the circumstantial evidence, including the testimony of PW-5, was strong enough to establish the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
3. Whether the High Court was correct in upholding the appellant’s conviction based on the available evidence.
4. Whether the principle of vicarious liability under Section 34 of the IPC could be applied to the appellant based on the facts of the case.

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:

Cases:

• Sunder Lal alias Sundera v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 28: This case was cited to discuss the principle that possession of stolen goods soon after the theft can lead to a presumption of guilt.
• Sanwant Khan and another v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1956 SC 54: This case was cited to highlight that the mere recovery of stolen articles does not necessarily indicate that the person in possession of the stolen property was the murderer.
• Baiju v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 522: This case was cited to discuss the factors to be considered when drawing a presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act.
• Shri Bhagwan v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2001 SC 2342: This case was cited to discuss that the possession of the fruits of the crime, recently after it has been committed, affords a strong and reasonable ground for the presumption that the party in whose possession they are found is the real offender.
• Hardev Singh and others v. State of Punjab, AIR 1975 SC 179: This case was cited to clarify that the common intention under Section 34 of the IPC must be to commit the particular crime.
• Arun v. State by Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu, 2008 (15) SCC 501: This case was cited to emphasize that a criminal court must satisfy itself as to the prior meeting of minds of the principal culprit and his companions.
• Brijlal Pd. Sinha v. State of Bihar, 1998 (5) SCC 699: This case was cited to highlight that the existence of a common intention must be a necessary inference from the circumstances.
• Girija Shankar v. State of U.P., 2004 (3) SCC 793: This case was cited to emphasize the need for a plan or meeting of minds of all the accused persons to commit the offense.
• Ashish Jain v. Makrand Singh and others, (2019) 3 SCC 770: This case was cited to discuss the importance of proper identification procedures.
• Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka, (1983) 2 SCC 330: This case was cited to discuss that when murder and robbery are proved to be integral parts of one and the same transaction, the presumption is that the appellant committed the murder and robbery.
• Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana, 1978 (4) SCC 440: This case was cited to emphasize that the conduct or other evidence must be such as not to leave any room for doubt in that behalf.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): Defines the punishment for murder.
• Section 34 of the IPC: Deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
• Section 394 of the IPC: Addresses the punishment for voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery.
• Section 460 of the IPC: Addresses the punishment for house-trespass in order to commit an offence punishable with imprisonment.
• Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Allows the court to presume the existence of certain facts, including that a person in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen.
• Sections 11 and 13 of the Madhya Pradesh Dakaiti Avam Vyapharan Adhiniyam, 1981: Pertain to offenses related to dacoity and kidnapping in Madhya Pradesh.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• Sunder Lal alias Sundera v. State of Madhya Pradesh* [AIR 1954 SC 28]*: The court distinguished the present case from this case, noting that in the present case, the recovery of the mobile phone was not sufficient to prove the murder charge.
• Sanwant Khan and another v. State of Rajasthan* [AIR 1956 SC 54]*: The court relied on this case to emphasize that the mere recovery of stolen articles does not necessarily indicate that the person in possession was the murderer.
• Baiju v. State of Madhya Pradesh* [AIR 1978 SC 522]*: The court applied the tests laid down in this case to evaluate the recovery of the mobile phone.
• Shri Bhagwan v. State of Rajasthan* [AIR 2001 SC 2342]*: The court considered the principle of recent possession of stolen goods but found it insufficient in this case.
• Hardev Singh and others v. State of Punjab* [AIR 1975 SC 179]*: The court used this case to clarify that the common intention under Section 34 of the IPC must be to commit the specific crime.
• Arun v. State by Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu* [2008 (15) SCC 501]*: The court relied on this case to emphasize the need for a prior meeting of minds for vicarious liability.
• Brijlal Pd. Sinha v. State of Bihar* [1998 (5) SCC 699]*: The court cited this case to highlight that the common intention must be a necessary inference from the circumstances.
• Girija Shankar v. State of U.P.* [2004 (3) SCC 793]*: The court used this case to emphasize the need for a plan or meeting of minds before the commission of the crime.
• Ashish Jain v. Makrand Singh and others* [(2019) 3 SCC 770]*: The court relied on this case to highlight the importance of proper identification procedures, noting the lack of mixing of the mobile phones during identification.
• Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka* [(1983) 2 SCC 330]*: The court distinguished this case from the present case, noting that in the present case, there was no direct link of the appellant to the murder.
• Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana* [1978 (4) SCC 440]*: The court relied on this case to emphasize that the conduct or other evidence must be such as not to leave any room for doubt in that behalf.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to acquit the appellant was primarily influenced by the following:

• Weak Circumstantial Evidence: The court found the circumstantial evidence, particularly the recovery of the mobile phone, to be weak and unreliable. The discrepancies in the phone number and the lack of proper identification procedures raised serious doubts.
• Unreliable Testimony: The testimony of PW-5, who claimed to have overheard the conspiracy, was deemed unreliable due to inconsistencies and improbabilities.
• Lack of Direct Link: The appellant was not known to the deceased or his family, which weakened the prosecution’s case.
• Absence of Common Intention: The court found that the prosecution failed to establish a common intention for the specific crime of murder, which is necessary for applying Section 34 of the IPC.
• Benefit of Doubt: Given the cumulative weaknesses in the prosecution’s case, the court concluded that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt.

Fact:Law Ratio Analysis: The court’s decision was influenced more by the factual aspects of the case (60%), such as the discrepancies in evidence and the unreliability of witnesses, than by purely legal considerations (40%). This indicates that the court focused on the specific facts and circumstances to determine the appellant’s guilt.

Logical Reasoning:

The court considered alternative interpretations, such as the possibility that the appellant was involved in the theft but not the murder. However, the court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish a clear link between the appellant and the murder, leading to the acquittal. The decision was reached by carefully analyzing the evidence and applying the principles of criminal law.

The court’s reasoning is based on the following:

• The recovery of the mobile phone was deemed unreliable due to discrepancies in the phone number and the lack of proper identification procedures.
• The testimony of PW-5 was considered unreliable due to inconsistencies and improbabilities.
• The appellant was not known to the deceased or his family, which weakened the circumstantial evidence against him.
• The prosecution failed to establish a common intention for the specific crime of murder, which is necessary for applying Section 34 of the IPC.

“In our judgment no hard and fast rule can be laid down as to what inference should be drawn from a certain circumstance. Where, however, the only evidence against an accused person is the recovery of stolen property and although the circumstances may indicate that the theft and the murder must have been committed at the same time, it is not safe to draw the inference that the person in possession of the stolen property was the murdered.”

“The common intention must be to commit the particular crime, although the actual crime may be committed by any one sharing the common intention. Then only others can be held to be guilty ………..”

“A criminal court fastening vicarious liability must satisfy itself as to the prior meeting of the minds of the principal culprit and his companions who are sought to be constructively made liable in respect of every act committed by the former.”

Key Takeaways

• Circumstantial Evidence: The judgment highlights that circumstantial evidence must be strong and reliable to secure a conviction. Mere possession of stolen goods is not sufficient to prove guilt for a more serious offense like murder.
• Importance of Identification: Proper identification procedures are crucial in criminal cases. The lack of mixing of the mobile phones during identification weakened the prosecution’s case.
• Reliability of Witnesses: The testimony of witnesses must be credible and consistent. Inconsistencies and improbabilities can undermine the prosecution’s case.
• Common Intention: For vicarious liability under Section 34 of the IPC, a common intention to commit the specific crime must be established beyond reasonable doubt.
• Benefit of Doubt: The accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt when there are significant weaknesses in the prosecution’s case.

Potential Future Impact: This judgment reinforces the principle that suspicion cannot replace proof and emphasizes the need for a robust evidentiary foundation in criminal cases. It serves as a reminder to lower courts to scrutinize circumstantial evidence carefully before convicting an accused.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellant be acquitted and set at liberty, provided his custody was not required in connection with any other case.

Specific Amendments Analysis

Not Applicable as no specific amendment was discussed in the judgment.

Development of Law

Ratio Decidendi: The ratio decidendi of this case is that the mere recovery of stolen goods from an accused is not sufficient to prove their guilt for a more serious offense like murder. The court emphasized that circumstantial evidence must be strong and reliable, and that the prosecution must establish a clear link between the accused and the crime. The judgment also underscores the importance of proper identification procedures and the need to establish a common intention for vicarious liability under Section 34 of the IPC.

There is no change in the previous position of law but the court has reiterated the importance of strong circumstantial evidence and the benefit of doubt.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant, Sonu @ Sunil, in the case of Sonu @ Sunil vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, setting aside the High Court’s judgment. The Court found that the circumstantial evidence against the appellant was weak and unreliable, particularly the recovery of the mobile phone and the testimony of PW-5. The Court emphasized that suspicion cannot replace proof and that the prosecution must establish a clear link between the accused and the crime. The judgment underscores the importance of scrutinizing circumstantial evidence carefully and ensuring that the accused is given the benefit of doubt when there are significant weaknesses in the prosecution’s case.