Supreme Court acquits husband in murder case due to weak circumstantial evidence: State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Phoolchand Rathore (2023)

Date of the Judgment: April 28, 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 444
Judges: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J., Manoj Misra, J., Aravind Kumar, J.
Can a conviction for murder be upheld when the case relies solely on circumstantial evidence and the prosecution fails to establish a clear motive and reliable evidence? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case where a husband was accused of murdering his wife. The court examined the evidence, including witness testimonies and forensic reports, ultimately acquitting the accused due to inconsistencies and doubts in the prosecution’s case. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Manoj Misra, and Aravind Kumar, with the opinion authored by Justice Manoj Misra.

Case Background

The case revolves around the death of Sundariya, who was found seriously injured near railway tracks on February 1, 2010, and later died on the way to the hospital. The prosecution alleged that her husband, Phoolchand Rathore, the respondent, was responsible for her death. The prosecution’s case was based on circumstantial evidence, as there were no direct eyewitnesses to the crime. The prosecution’s narrative was that Phoolchand was unhappy with Sundariya for keeping her jewelry with her sister, Jaimatiya Bai (PW-8). On the day of the incident, Phoolchand allegedly fought with Jaimatiya Bai and threatened to kill Sundariya. Later that evening, he was accused of taking Sundariya on a bicycle towards the fields, threatening to kill her. Sundariya was later found injured near the railway tracks.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The trial court convicted Phoolchand under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) for murder and Section 201 of the IPC for causing disappearance of evidence, sentencing him to death. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, however, overturned this conviction, acquitting Phoolchand. The High Court cited inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence, particularly the testimony of the key witness, Madhuri (PW4), the daughter of the deceased. The High Court also noted that the alleged motive was not proven and that the recovery of blood-stained clothes and stones was doubtful.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which deals with the punishment for murder, and Section 201 of the IPC, which addresses causing the disappearance of evidence of an offense. The court also considered the principles governing circumstantial evidence, which require that the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution must be fully established and must point unerringly towards the guilt of the accused.

The relevant legal provisions are:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:
  “Punishment for murder.—Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or 1[imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:
  “Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender.—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, if the offence which he knows or believes to have been committed is punishable with death, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for any term not extending to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of imprisonment provided for the offence, or with fine, or with both.”

Arguments

Appellant (State of Madhya Pradesh) Arguments:

• The prosecution argued that the testimony of PW4, the daughter of the deceased, was crucial. She stated that there were frequent quarrels between the deceased and the accused. On the day of the incident, the accused took the deceased on a bicycle to the field, and shortly after, the deceased was found injured near the railway tracks.
• The State contended that even if some parts of PW4’s testimony were unreliable, the court should have considered the remaining parts, particularly the fact that the accused took the deceased on a bicycle and she was later found injured.
• The prosecution argued that the circumstances, including the accused taking the deceased on a bicycle and her subsequent discovery in an injured state, were sufficient to establish guilt. They emphasized that the accused did not provide an explanation for where he was during the period when his wife sustained injuries.
• The State asserted that the prompt lodging of the FIR and the circumstances narrated therein, corroborated by prosecution witnesses, formed a complete chain of evidence to sustain the conviction.

Respondent (Phoolchand Rathore) Arguments:

• The defense argued that the High Court’s decision was based on a careful analysis of the evidence and was not perverse. They pointed out that the High Court had found the testimony of PW4 to be unreliable due to several inconsistencies and contradictions.
• The defense argued that the original motive for the crime, the dispute over jewelry, was not proven. This raised the possibility of false implication due to a property dispute with the informant (PW2).
• The defense highlighted that the public witnesses testified that the accused was arrested on the night of the incident itself, whereas the police witnesses claimed that he was arrested the next day. This discrepancy suggested a possible fabrication of the case.
• The defense argued that the testimony of PW4 was not credible as she had given contradictory statements regarding the accused’s confession and actions.
• The defense also argued that the recovery of blood-stained clothes and stones was doubtful, as the seizure witness did not support the prosecution’s claim.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following key issues:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in overturning the trial court’s conviction and acquitting the accused.
2. Whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
3. Whether the testimony of PW4 was reliable enough to form the basis of a conviction.

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:

• State of U.P. v. Sahai & Others, (1982) 1 SCC 352: This case was cited to establish the principle that the Supreme Court can reverse an acquittal if the High Court’s reasoning is legally erroneous and perverse, leading to a miscarriage of justice. The court emphasized that while it is generally reluctant to interfere with acquittals, it may do so in cases of substantial injustice.
• State of M.P. & Others v. Paltan Mallah & Others, (2005) 3 SCC 169: This case reiterated that the Supreme Court should be slow in interfering with the High Court’s findings in an acquittal appeal unless there is a perverse appreciation of evidence leading to a serious miscarriage of justice. The court also noted that if two views are possible, and the High Court has chosen a reasonable one, the Supreme Court should not interfere.
• Basheera Begam v. Mohd. Ibrahim & Others, (2020) 11 SCC 174: This recent decision was cited to reinforce that the reversal of an acquittal should not be done unless the acquittal is vitiated by perversity. The court stated that an acquittal can be reversed only if no person properly instructed in law could have found the accused “not guilty” based on the evidence.

Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to acquit Phoolchand Rathore. The Court found that the prosecution’s case was based on weak circumstantial evidence and that the High Court’s assessment of the evidence was plausible and not perverse.

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• State of U.P. v. Sahai & Others, (1982) 1 SCC 352: The Court used this authority to define the circumstances under which the Supreme Court can interfere with a High Court’s acquittal, emphasizing the need for a legally erroneous and perverse approach by the High Court.
• State of M.P. & Others v. Paltan Mallah & Others, (2005) 3 SCC 169: The Court relied on this authority to highlight that interference with an acquittal should be slow and only in cases of perverse appreciation of evidence.
• Basheera Begam v. Mohd. Ibrahim & Others, (2020) 11 SCC 174: This case was used to reinforce that an acquittal should not be reversed unless it is vitiated by perversity, emphasizing that no person properly instructed in law could have found the accused not guilty.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the lack of reliable evidence and the inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case. The Court emphasized that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances must be complete and point unerringly towards the guilt of the accused. The following points weighed heavily in the Court’s decision:

• Unreliable Testimony of PW4: The court found that PW4’s testimony was full of contradictions and embellishments, making it unreliable as the sole basis for conviction.
• Lack of Proven Motive: The prosecution failed to establish a clear motive for the crime. The initial motive of jewelry dispute was disproven, and the subsequent motive of property dispute was considered an improvement in the prosecution’s story.
• Doubtful Recovery of Evidence: The recovery of blood-stained clothes and stones was deemed doubtful due to the contradictory statements of witnesses and the illogical circumstances surrounding the seizure.
• Incomplete Chain of Circumstances: The court noted that the circumstantial evidence did not form a complete chain pointing towards the guilt of the accused. The time gap between the accused taking the deceased on a bicycle and her being found injured left room for other possibilities.
• Plausible View of the High Court: The Supreme Court found that the High Court’s view was plausible and based on a careful analysis of the evidence, thus, not warranting interference.

Logical Reasoning

The court highlighted the following key aspects of its reasoning:

• The court emphasized that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances that points unerringly towards the guilt of the accused. “In such circumstances to sustain a conviction the court would have to consider — (i) whether the circumstances relied by the prosecution have been proved beyond reasonable doubt; (ii) whether those circumstances are of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; (iii) whether those circumstances taken cumulatively form a chain so far complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused; (iv) whether they are consistent only with the hypothesis of the accused being guilty; and (v) whether they exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved.”
• The court noted the unreliability of PW4’s testimony, stating, “that her statement is full of embellishments, exaggerations and material discrepancies and, therefore, we find ourselves unable to pick out the grain of truth from the falsehood of her statement.”
• The court also pointed out the lack of a clear motive, stating, “Thus, in our view, the prosecution failed to prove the motive set out by it. No doubt absence of motive by itself may not be sufficient to dislodge the prosecution case if the other proven circumstances could form a chain so complete as to indicate that in all human probability it is the accused and no one else who committed the crime but, in a case based on circumstantial evidence, motive plays an important part.”

Key Takeaways

• In cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances that points unerringly towards the guilt of the accused.
• The testimony of a witness must be reliable and free from inconsistencies and embellishments to form the basis of a conviction.
• The prosecution must establish a clear motive for the crime, especially in cases based on circumstantial evidence.
• The recovery of evidence must be free from doubt and must be corroborated by reliable witnesses.
• The benefit of the doubt must be given to the accused if the prosecution fails to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances that points unerringly towards the guilt of the accused. This case does not change the previous positions of law but rather reinforces the existing principles related to circumstantial evidence and the burden of proof in criminal cases.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision to acquit Phoolchand Rathore underscores the importance of reliable evidence and a complete chain of circumstances in cases based on circumstantial evidence. The court’s meticulous analysis of the evidence and its emphasis on the benefit of the doubt highlight the safeguards in place to protect individual liberties within the Indian legal system. The judgment reinforces that a conviction cannot be sustained on weak or doubtful evidence, and that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.