Supreme Court acquits accused in murder case due to weak circumstantial evidence: State of Rajasthan vs. Mahesh Kumar (2019) INSC 687

Date of the Judgment: 16 July 2019

Citation: (2019) INSC 687

Judges: Indira Banerjee, J., Ajay Rastogi, J.

Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on circumstantial evidence if the prosecution fails to establish a complete chain of events? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a recent case, scrutinizing the High Court of Rajasthan’s decision to acquit the accused. The core issue revolved around whether the prosecution had successfully proven the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, based on the presented circumstantial evidence. This judgment underscores the importance of a robust and complete chain of evidence in cases where direct evidence is lacking.

The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice Ajay Rastogi, with Justice Rastogi authoring the opinion.

Case Background

On the morning of 19th October 2002, at 12:30 PM, Abdul Haq reported to the police that he had been informed by Madan Bheel and Parmanand Bheel that a dead body was lying near the railway line in Kota, Rajasthan. Abdul Haq went to the location and found the body with injuries on its head, mouth, and face. Smt. Saroti Bai Bheel mentioned that she had seen two or three people in an auto-rickshaw placing the body there before leaving. Another person identified the deceased as Bajranglal, a retired constable. Based on this information, the police registered a case under Sections 302 (murder), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence), read with Section 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The police investigation led to a charge sheet against Mahesh Kumar, Dinu @ Deendayal, and Bhaiya @ Devkaran. The case was transferred to the Sessions Court, and subsequently to the Additional Sessions Judge, No. 2, Fast Track, Kota.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Sessions Judge, based on the evidence, found all the respondents guilty under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced them to life imprisonment. The respondents then appealed to the High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The High Court, after reviewing the records, found that the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution was doubtful, contradictory, and unreliable. The High Court also noted that many key prosecution witnesses were declared hostile, and several important witnesses were not produced by the prosecution without any valid reason. Consequently, the High Court acquitted the respondents on 3rd January 2012.

Legal Framework

The accused were charged under the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

• Section 302: This section deals with the punishment for murder. It states,
  “Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 201: This section addresses causing the disappearance of evidence of an offence or giving false information to screen the offender. It states,
  “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 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.”
• Section 34: This section pertains to acts done by several persons in furtherance of a common intention. It states,
  “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.”

Arguments

The prosecution argued that the circumstantial evidence, though not direct, was strong enough to prove the guilt of the accused. They relied on the fact that the deceased was found near the railway line, and witnesses had seen the accused in the vicinity. The prosecution also argued that the accused had a motive for the murder due to an alleged illicit relationship between one of the accused and the deceased’s relative.

The defense, on the other hand, argued that the prosecution’s case was weak due to the following reasons:

• Most of the prosecution witnesses turned hostile.
• Many important witnesses were not produced in court.
• The chain of circumstantial evidence was incomplete and contradictory.
• There was no blood found in the auto-rickshaw which was allegedly used to transport the body.

The defense contended that the prosecution failed to establish a clear link between the accused and the crime, and that the evidence was not sufficient to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issue:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in acquitting the respondents based on its finding that the chain of circumstantial evidence was doubtful, contradictory, and unreliable.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

• Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra [1984(4) SCC 116], Supreme Court of India: This case outlines the conditions that must be fulfilled before a case based on circumstantial evidence can be considered fully established. These conditions include that the circumstances must be fully established, consistent with the guilt of the accused, conclusive, and exclude every other hypothesis except guilt.
• Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC 793], Supreme Court of India: This case emphasizes that the accused “must be” and not merely “may be” guilty before a court can convict.
• Sujit Biswas vs. State of Assam [2013(12) SCC 406], Supreme Court of India: This case reiterates the duty of the court to evaluate circumstantial evidence to ensure the chain of events is clearly established and completely rules out any reasonable likelihood of innocence of the accused.
• Raja alias Rajinder vs. State of Haryana [2015(11) SCC 43], Supreme Court of India: This case also emphasizes the need for a complete chain of events to rule out any reasonable likelihood of innocence.

The Supreme Court also considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Pertains to punishment for murder.
• Section 201, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Pertains to causing disappearance of evidence of an offense.
• Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Pertains to acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra [1984(4) SCC 116]* to emphasize that circumstantial evidence must meet specific criteria to establish guilt, which the prosecution failed to do in this case.
• The Court cited Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC 793]* to underscore the principle that the accused must be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, not merely suspected of being guilty.
• The Court used Sujit Biswas vs. State of Assam [2013(12) SCC 406]* and Raja alias Rajinder vs. State of Haryana [2015(11) SCC 43]* to reinforce the need for a complete and unbroken chain of evidence to rule out the possibility of the accused’s innocence.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the following factors:

• Absence of Key Witnesses: The prosecution failed to produce several crucial witnesses, including those who identified the body, those who lifted it from the railway track, and those who allegedly knew the motive behind the murder. This absence created significant gaps in the prosecution’s case.
• Hostile Witnesses: Many of the prosecution witnesses turned hostile, meaning they did not support the prosecution’s version of events. This further weakened the prosecution’s case.
• Contradictory Evidence: The evidence presented by the prosecution was found to be contradictory and unreliable. The High Court noted that the circumstantial evidence did not form a complete and consistent chain.
• Incomplete Chain of Circumstantial Evidence: The Court emphasized that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of events that leads only to the conclusion that the accused committed the crime. The prosecution failed to do so in this case.
• Lack of Blood in Auto-Rickshaw: The absence of blood marks in the auto-rickshaw that was allegedly used to transport the body raised doubts about the prosecution’s narrative.

The court emphasized that the circumstances must be fully established and consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt. It stated that “the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.” Furthermore, the court reiterated that “the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused.” The court also noted that “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.”

The Court considered alternative interpretations of the evidence but rejected them because the prosecution’s case was fundamentally flawed due to the lack of a complete chain of evidence and the unreliability of the witnesses. The Court concluded that the prosecution had not met the required standard of proof to convict the accused.

Key Takeaways

• In cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete and unbroken chain of events that leads only to the conclusion that the accused committed the crime.
• The absence of key witnesses and the presence of hostile witnesses can significantly weaken the prosecution’s case.
• The evidence presented by the prosecution must be consistent, reliable, and free from contradictions.
• The standard of proof in criminal cases is “beyond a reasonable doubt,” and any reasonable doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused.
• This judgment reinforces the importance of thorough investigation and the need for the prosecution to present a strong and complete case.

Directions

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, thereby upholding the High Court’s decision to acquit the respondents. No further directions were given.

Specific Amendments Analysis

N/A

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 events that leads only to the conclusion that the accused committed the crime. The judgment reinforces the principles laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra and other related cases, emphasizing that the circumstances must be fully established, consistent with the guilt of the accused, conclusive, and exclude every other hypothesis except guilt. There is no change in the previous position of law, but this case serves as an important reminder of the stringent requirements for conviction in cases based on circumstantial evidence.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by the State of Rajasthan, upholding the High Court’s decision to acquit the accused. The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence and that the evidence presented was doubtful, contradictory, and unreliable. This judgment underscores the importance of a thorough investigation and the need for the prosecution to present a strong and complete case, particularly in cases where direct evidence is lacking.