Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Due to Weak Circumstantial Evidence: Sunita vs. State of Haryana (2019)

Date of the Judgment: July 30, 2019

Citation: (2019) INSC 746

Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J. and Hemant Gupta, J.

Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on the basis of weak circumstantial evidence and the “last seen” theory? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in the case of Sunita vs. State of Haryana. The Court examined whether the prosecution had established an unbroken chain of circumstances that unequivocally pointed to the guilt of the accused, Sunita, in the murder of Sushila. The bench comprised Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta, with Justice Hemant Gupta authoring the judgment.

Case Background

The case revolves around the death of Sushila, wife of Shish Pal, who resided in Village Dadola, District Panipat. The accused, Sunita, is the daughter of Roshan, a cousin of Shish Pal’s father, and also a resident of the same village. Sunita was allegedly living with Baburam in Village Kailash, about 55 km from Dadola. Sushila had two children, Sagar and Shivani. The prosecution alleged that Sunita murdered Sushila and disposed of her body by burning it in a ‘Bitora’ (a conical storage of cow dung cakes) in Village Kailash.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, convicted Sunita for the murder of Sushila on January 13, 2006. Sunita’s appeal against this judgment was dismissed by the High Court on March 25, 2008. Subsequently, Sunita appealed to the Supreme Court of India.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the interpretation and application of circumstantial evidence in criminal law, specifically concerning the “last seen” theory. The court also referred to Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which states:

“When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.”

The Supreme Court also examined the principles governing convictions based on circumstantial evidence, as established in prior judgments.

Arguments

The appellant, Sunita, argued that the prosecution’s case was based on weak and contradictory evidence. The primary arguments made by the appellant are as follows:

• The evidence of Neeraj (PW-4) and Pirthi Singh (PW-5), who claimed to have last seen the deceased with the appellant, was unreliable due to their animosity towards the appellant.
• Neeraj’s (PW-4) testimony about seeing the appellant with the deceased at 2 pm and later with a gunny bag on a Scooty at 2 am was inconsistent and improbable. It was argued that it was impossible to carry a dead body on a Scooty’s footrest.
• The height of the deceased as stated by her father, Isham Singh (PW-3), was different from what Neeraj (PW-4) claimed to have seen.
• The motive presented by the prosecution was weak and not substantiated by evidence.

The prosecution argued that the circumstantial evidence, including the last seen evidence, the recovery of the body parts from the ‘Bitora’, and the appellant’s failure to provide an explanation, was sufficient to prove her guilt. The prosecution also relied on the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant to Kashmir Singh (PW-12).

The prosecution also argued that under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the appellant was required to explain the circumstances under which the body parts of the deceased came to be recovered from the burning ‘Bitora’ at Village Kailash.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following main issue:

1. Whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to convict the accused for the murder of Sushila.

The Court also considered whether the High Court was correct in invoking Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, against the appellant.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court analyzed the evidence and found that the prosecution had failed to establish an unbroken chain of circumstances that unequivocally pointed to the guilt of the accused. The Court highlighted the following:

• The “last seen” evidence was weak and unreliable. The testimony of Neeraj (PW-4) was inconsistent and improbable. The court noted that it was impossible to carry a dead body on a scooty.
• The motive presented by the prosecution was not substantiated by evidence.
• The prosecution failed to establish the manner and place of death.
• The court held that the High Court was wrong in invoking Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, against the appellant, as the ‘Bitora’ was not in her exclusive possession.

The Court concluded that the prosecution had not proven that it was the appellant, and the appellant alone, who was guilty of the murder of Sushila.

The authorities were viewed by the Court in the following manner:

• Satpal v. State of Haryana (2018) 6 SCC 610*: The Court relied on this case to emphasize that the “last seen” theory is a weak form of evidence and cannot be the sole basis for conviction.
• Asar Mohammad v. State of U.P. 2018 SCC OnLine SC 2179*: The Court reiterated the principles for maintaining a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, emphasizing that the chain of circumstances must be complete and point only to the guilt of the accused.
• Padala Veera Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1989 Supp (2) SCC 706*: The Court referred to this case to explain the tests that circumstantial evidence must satisfy.
• Gambhir v. State of Maharashtra (1982) 2 SCC 351*: The Court cited this case as a precedent for the principles of circumstantial evidence.
• Rama Nand v. State of Himachal Pradesh (1981) 1 SCC 511*: The Court cited this case as a precedent for the principles of circumstantial evidence.
• Prem Thakur v. State of Punjab (1982) 3 SCC 462*: The Court cited this case as a precedent for the principles of circumstantial evidence.
• Earabhadrapa alias Krishnappa v. State of Karnataka (1983) 2 SCC 330*: The Court cited this case as a precedent for the principles of circumstantial evidence.
• Gian Singh v. State of Punjab 1986 Supp SCC 676*: The Court cited this case as a precedent for the principles of circumstantial evidence.
• Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab (1987) 1 SCC 1*: The Court cited this case as a precedent for the principles of circumstantial evidence.
• Mulakh Raj v. Satish Kumar (1992) 3 SCC 43*: The Court reiterated the legal position on circumstantial evidence.

“Criminal jurisprudence and the plethora of judicial precedents leave little room for reconsideration of the basic principles for invocation of the last seen theory as a facet of circumstantial evidence. Succinctly stated, it may be a weak kind of evidence by itself to found conviction upon the same singularly.”

“The Court must weigh the evidence of the cumulative effect of the circumstances and if it reaches the conclusion that the accused committed the crime, the charge must be held proved and the conviction and sentence would follow.”

“We find that finding of the High Court is erroneous inasmuch as ‘Bitora’ was not in possession of the appellant much less exclusive.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to acquit Sunita was primarily influenced by the lack of a strong, unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence. The Court found the prosecution’s evidence to be weak, contradictory, and insufficient to establish Sunita’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court was particularly concerned about the unreliability of the “last seen” evidence and the absence of a clear motive or explanation for the manner and place of Sushila’s death.

The Court emphasized the importance of a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances in cases based on circumstantial evidence. The Court also highlighted that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution, and the accused is not required to explain circumstances unless the prosecution has first established a prima facie case.

Key Takeaways

• Convictions based on circumstantial evidence require a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances that unequivocally point to the guilt of the accused.
• The “last seen” theory is a weak form of evidence and cannot be the sole basis for conviction.
• The burden of proof lies with the prosecution, and the accused is not required to explain circumstances unless the prosecution has first established a prima facie case.
• Courts must carefully scrutinize the credibility of witnesses, especially those with a potential bias.

Directions

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, acquitted Sunita of all charges, and ordered her release if not required in any other case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the “last seen” theory is a weak form of evidence and cannot be the sole basis for conviction. The judgment reinforces the principle that convictions based on circumstantial evidence require a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances that unequivocally point to the guilt of the accused. The Court also clarified that the burden to explain under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, only arises after the prosecution has discharged its initial burden of proof. This case does not change the previous position of law but reinforces the existing principles of circumstantial evidence.

Conclusion

In Sunita vs. State of Haryana, the Supreme Court acquitted the appellant, Sunita, of the murder charges, emphasizing that the prosecution’s case was based on weak and contradictory circumstantial evidence. The Court reiterated the importance of a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances in cases based on circumstantial evidence and highlighted the limitations of the “last seen” theory. This judgment serves as a reminder of the high standards of proof required in criminal cases and the need for a thorough examination of all evidence before convicting an accused.