Supreme Court Acquits Brothers in 28-Year-Old Murder Case: Surendra Kumar vs. State of U.P. (20 April 2021)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 20 April 2021
Citation: (2021) INSC 188
Judges: Rohinton Fali Nariman J., B.R. Gavai J., Hrishikesh Roy J. (authored the judgment).

Can a conviction be upheld based solely on circumstantial evidence and perceived suspicious behavior? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving two brothers accused of murdering the wife of one of them. The Court, in its judgment, underscored the necessity for the prosecution to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, based on concrete evidence, and not mere suspicion.

Case Background

The case revolves around the tragic death of Kamla Rani, who was married to Ramveer (Appellant No. 2) on 13 May 1993. On 8 August 1993, while returning from her parental home, Kamla Rani was ambushed and shot dead near a forested area between Phlawada and Bathnor. She was traveling on a scooter driven by her brother-in-law, Surendra Kumar (Appellant No. 1). According to Surendra, two armed men attacked them, shot Kamla Rani, and robbed her of her jewelry. Surendra then informed Kamla Rani’s father, Baldev, about the incident, leaving the scooter with him, and returned to his village.

The First Information Report (FIR) was filed by Baldev, the father of the deceased, at the Phlawada Police Station. The police detained Surendra, Ramveer, and their father, Om Prakash, based on allegations of maltreatment of the deceased in her matrimonial home. The police also arrested two other individuals, Rajveer and Shiv Kumar, as suspected robbers.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted Surendra Kumar under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Ramveer under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, based on circumstantial evidence. Shiv Kumar and Rajveer were additionally convicted under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad upheld the conviction of Surendra and Ramveer, accepting the prosecution’s conspiracy theory and the “last seen together” evidence against Surendra. However, it acquitted Rajveer and Shiv Kumar. The brothers then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of circumstantial evidence and the burden of proof in criminal cases. The relevant provisions include:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Defines the punishment for murder.
• Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
• Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Defines the punishment for criminal conspiracy.
• Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Defines the punishment for voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery.
• Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: States that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.

The Supreme Court emphasized that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must be fully established and consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. The chain of evidence must be so complete that it excludes every reasonable hypothesis consistent with the innocence of the accused. The burden of proving guilt always lies with the prosecution and cannot be shifted to the accused.

Arguments

The prosecution argued that Ramveer was unhappy with Kamla Rani’s appearance, leading to a conspiracy with his brother Surendra and their father, Om Prakash, to eliminate her. The prosecution presented the following arguments:

• Motive: The prosecution argued that Ramveer was unhappy with Kamla Rani’s appearance. Witnesses Santari (PW-6) and Nain Singh (PW-7) testified to this effect, and it was mentioned in the FIR.
• Conspiracy: The prosecution argued that Ramveer conspired with his brother Surendra and their father to kill Kamla Rani.
• Last Seen Together: Surendra was the last person seen with Kamla Rani. He was driving the scooter when the incident occurred.
• Suspicious Conduct: Surendra did not confront the attackers and did not sustain any injuries, which was considered suspicious.

The appellants countered these arguments, stating that:

• Motive: The testimony of PW-6 and PW-7 was unreliable as they had a motive to implicate the appellants due to their own legal troubles.
• Conspiracy: There was no evidence to prove a meeting of minds between the brothers or with the other accused.
• Last Seen Together: The fact that Surendra was last seen with Kamla Rani did not automatically imply his involvement in the crime.
• Suspicious Conduct: Surendra’s actions after the incident were natural, as he immediately informed the deceased’s father and did not flee.

The appellants also argued that the prosecution failed to establish a link between them and the two acquitted robbers.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt.
2. Whether the High Court erred in upholding the conviction of the appellants based on the available evidence.
3. Whether the High Court was correct in relying on Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to shift the burden of proof on the accused.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Supreme Court referred to 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 Supreme Court relied on Hanumant Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [AIR 1952 SC 343] to emphasize that circumstantial evidence must be conclusive and exclude all reasonable hypotheses of innocence.

✓ The Court cited Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra [(1984) 4 SCC 116] to highlight the essential proof required in criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence.

✓ The Court referred to Shailendra Rajdev Pasvan & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. [(2020) 14 SCC 750] to underscore that all links in the chain of circumstantial evidence must be complete.

✓ The Court used Emperor Vs. Santa Singh [AIR 1944 Lahore 339 (FB)] to clarify that Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 cannot be used to shift the burden of proof to the accused.

✓ The Court cited Rana Pratap and others vs. State of Haryana [(1983) 3 SCC 327] to emphasize that there is no set rule of natural reaction to a crime and witnesses react differently.

✓ The Court referred to Dinesh Borthakur Vs. State of Assam [(2008) 5 SCC 697] to explain that guilt should not be inferred based on a particular type of reaction by an individual.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the lack of concrete evidence linking the appellants to the crime. The Court emphasized that the prosecution’s case was based on speculation and suspicion, rather than solid proof. The Court also noted that the High Court had incorrectly shifted the burden of proof to the accused, which is against established legal principles.

The Court’s reasoning can be summarized as follows:

The Court noted that “the prosecution failed to adduce acceptable evidence to prove the crime against the appellants and the Court according to us erred in shifting the burden of proving the innocence upon the accused, with the aid of Section 106 of the Evidence Act.”

The Court also observed that “the reaction of witnesses who see violent crime can vary from person to person and to expect a frightened witness to react in a particular manner would be wholly irrational.”

The Court concluded that “the innocence of the appellants is a distinct possibility in the present matter and when two views are possible the benefit must go to the accused.”

Key Takeaways

• Burden of Proof: The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden of proof cannot be shifted to the accused.
• Circumstantial Evidence: In cases based on circumstantial evidence, the chain of evidence must be complete and exclude all reasonable hypotheses of innocence.
• Witness Reactions: There is no set rule for how witnesses should react to a crime. Inferences should not be drawn based on a witness’s perceived unnatural behavior.
• Benefit of Doubt: If two views are possible, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the immediate release of both appellants.

Specific Amendments Analysis

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

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and the chain of evidence must be complete. The judgment reinforces the principle that the burden of proof always lies with the prosecution and cannot be shifted to the accused. It also clarifies that inferences about guilt should not be drawn based on a witness’s perceived unnatural behavior. This case does not introduce any new legal principles but reaffirms the established principles of criminal jurisprudence.

Conclusion

In the case of Surendra Kumar & Anr. vs. State of U.P., the Supreme Court of India overturned the conviction of two brothers accused of murder, emphasizing the importance of conclusive circumstantial evidence and the prosecution’s burden of proof. The Court found that the prosecution’s case was based on suspicion and speculation, rather than solid evidence. The Court’s decision reinforces the fundamental principles of criminal law and ensures that convictions are based on concrete proof, not assumptions or perceived suspicious behavior.