Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Due to Weak Circumstantial Evidence: Suresh Chandra Tiwari vs. State of Uttarakhand (2024) INSC 907 (28 November 2024)

Date of the Judgment: 28 November 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 907
Judges: J.B. Pardiwala, J., Manoj Misra, J.
Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on circumstantial evidence? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question, overturning a High Court judgment and acquitting the accused. This case highlights the importance of a complete and unbroken chain of evidence in criminal trials. The judgment was authored by Justice Manoj Misra, on behalf of the two-judge bench.

Case Background

On February 3, 1997, at approximately 10:00 AM, PW-7, a cousin of the deceased, filed a First Information Report (FIR) at PS Lohaghat, District Pithoragarh. The FIR stated that the deceased’s body was found in the verandah of Mohan Singh’s shop around 9:30 AM. The police conducted an inquest, prepared a report, and seized blood-stained and plain earth from the scene. They also seized the deceased’s belongings and a black polythene bag containing goat meat found nearby.

The autopsy, conducted on the same day at 2:45 PM by PW-1, revealed that the cause of death was shock due to head injury. The estimated time of death was approximately one day prior to the autopsy. The ante-mortem injuries included incised wounds on the head, contusions, and abrasions on various parts of the body, along with a fracture of the occipital bone.

On February 6, 1997, the police arrested the appellants based on suspicion. The police claimed that at the appellants’ pointing out, they discovered the place where the deceased was allegedly assaulted. Blood-stained stones and mud were seized from that location.

During the investigation, statements from witnesses who had seen the deceased with the accused on February 2, 1997, and who had seen the two accused together late at night on the same day, were recorded. Based on this, a charge sheet was submitted against the appellants.

Timeline

Legal Framework

The case involves the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

• Section 302: Punishment for murder.
• Section 304 Part I: Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
• Section 34: Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
• Section 201: Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender.

Arguments

Appellants’ Submissions:

• ✓ The circumstances relied upon by the prosecution were not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
• ✓ The “last seen” circumstance was not conclusive because there was no proximity between the place where the deceased was last seen with the accused and the place where the body was recovered. Also, the time gap was too large.
• ✓ The incriminating circumstance of discovery/recovery at the instance of the accused was not put to either of the accused while recording their statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and therefore, it cannot be relied upon.
• ✓ The disclosure statement was inadmissible as it did not lead to discovery because, according to PW-10, recovery was made from the place pointed out by the accused-appellants even before their disclosure statement was recorded at the police station.
• ✓ The recovery of the stone was not connected to the crime as it was not proven that it carried the blood of the deceased or that it could have caused the injuries found on the deceased’s body.
• ✓ PW-2’s testimony about seeing the accused walking on the path was inconsequential, and his testimony was not reliable because he remained silent until 9.2.1997, despite being present at the inquest on 3.2.1997.
• ✓ The recovery of a polythene bag containing meat was not incriminating as there were other meat vendors in the area, and there was no evidence that the recovered bag was the one sold to the accused.
• ✓ The trial court and the High Court did not properly test the evidence to ascertain whether the circumstances were proven beyond a reasonable doubt and whether they formed a complete chain to rule out other hypotheses.

State’s Submissions:

• ✓ Each of the incriminating circumstances was proven beyond doubt.
• ✓ The chain of circumstances was complete and pointed towards the guilt of the appellants by ruling out all hypotheses consistent with their innocence.
• ✓ The concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts should not be disturbed.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution were proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
2. Whether these circumstances were of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused.
3. Whether the circumstances taken cumulatively formed a chain so complete that there was no escape from the conclusion that the crime was committed by the accused.
4. Whether the circumstances were consistent only with the hypothesis of the accused being guilty.
5. Whether the circumstances excluded every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved.

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

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [CITATION], Hanumat Govind Nargundkar v. State of Madhya Pradesh [CITATION] and Santosh @ Bhure versus State (G.N.C.T) of Delhi [CITATION] to reiterate the principles governing circumstantial evidence, emphasizing that the circumstances must be fully established, point unerringly to the guilt of the accused, and form a complete chain.
• The Court applied the principle from Devi Lal vs. State of Rajasthan [CITATION], stating that when two views are possible, the accused should be given the benefit of the view favorable to them.
• The Court emphasized the principle from Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade vs. State of Maharashtra [CITATION], that the accused must ‘must be’ and not merely ‘may be’ guilty.
• The Court relied on Nizam v. State of Rajasthan [CITATION], Navaneethakrishnan v. State [CITATION], Kanhaiya Lal v. State of Rajasthan [CITATION], State of U.P. v. Satish [CITATION], Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy & Anr. V. State of A.P. [CITATION] and Bodhraj v. State of J & K [CITATION] to highlight that a large time gap between the deceased being last seen and the recovery of the body weakens the last seen circumstance.
• The Court referred to Geejaganda Somaiah vs. State of Karnataka [CITATION] to caution against the misuse of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872, stating that courts must be vigilant about its application.

Reasoning:

The Court meticulously analyzed each piece of evidence presented by the prosecution. It found that the motive, based on past election rivalry, was weak and not directly linked to the crime. The last seen circumstance was deemed insufficient due to the significant time gap and lack of proximity between where the deceased was last seen with the accused and where the body was found. The Court also noted that the circumstance of the accused looking for the deceased was not incriminating, as it did not establish any ill intent. The testimony of PW-2 was considered unreliable due to his delayed disclosure and inconsistencies. The recovery of the polythene bag and meat was not connected to the accused. The most critical aspect was the Court’s finding that the discovery of the blood-stained stones was not a result of a valid disclosure statement and that the stones themselves were not conclusively linked to the crime. The Court also noted that the forensic report did not confirm blood on the stones.

The Court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances that unerringly pointed to the guilt of the accused. The Court emphasized that mere suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute for proof. The High Court’s decision to alter the conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 Part I of the IPC was also criticized, as the injuries on the deceased’s body clearly indicated an intention to kill.

The Court stated, “The circumstance of (i) last seen; (ii) recovery of a meat bag from near the spot; (iii) accused-appellants walking on the pathway near Mohan Singh’s shop in the night; and (iv) accused-appellants inquiring about the deceased in the evening of 2.2.1997 are not of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused-appellants.”

The Court also noted, “The disclosure statement was not admissible as it did not lead to discovery. The stone, etc. were allegedly recovered even before the disclosure statement was recorded. That apart, neither Doctor’s (PW-1’s) statement nor forensic report could connect them with the crime.”

Further, the Court observed, “The trial court and the High Court failed to test the evidence on record to find out whether the incriminating circumstances were proved beyond reasonable doubt and whether they were of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused-appellants.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to acquit the accused was primarily influenced by the lack of a complete and unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence. The Court emphasized that each piece of evidence must be strong and directly linked to the crime, which was not the case here. The Court was particularly critical of the prosecution’s reliance on weak evidence, such as the last seen circumstance with a significant time gap, the unverified recovery of a meat bag, and the doubtful discovery of blood-stained stones. The Court also noted the unreliable nature of some witness testimonies and the failure of the lower courts to properly scrutinize the evidence.

Fact:Law Ratio

Key Takeaways

• ✓ Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires a complete and unbroken chain of evidence.
• ✓ The “last seen” circumstance is not conclusive if there is a significant time gap and no proximity between the place where the deceased was last seen with the accused and where the body was found.
• ✓ Recovery of articles at the instance of the accused must be directly linked to a valid disclosure statement and the recovered articles must be connected to the crime.
• ✓ Courts must be vigilant about the application of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872, and ensure that the discovery is a result of the disclosure statement.
• ✓ Mere suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute for proof in criminal cases.
• ✓ The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellants be acquitted of the charges for which they were tried and convicted. Their bail bonds were discharged, and they were not required to surrender.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There were no specific amendments discussed in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires a complete and unbroken chain of evidence, and if the chain is broken or if the circumstances are not conclusively linked to the crime, the accused is entitled to acquittal. This judgment reinforces the principles governing circumstantial evidence and the importance of the prosecution proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court acquitted the appellants, overturning the High Court’s decision. The Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, as the circumstantial evidence was weak, and the chain of circumstances was incomplete. The judgment underscores the importance of a thorough and meticulous evaluation of evidence in criminal cases, particularly when relying on circumstantial evidence.