Supreme Court acquits husband in murder case due to weak circumstantial evidence: State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Phoolchand Rathore (28 April 2023)

Date of the Judgment: 28 April 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 395
Judges: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J., Manoj Misra, J., Aravind Kumar, J.
Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on circumstantial evidence when key pieces of that evidence are unreliable? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case where a husband was accused of murdering his wife. The court ultimately acquitted the husband, finding the prosecution’s case to be based on weak and contradictory evidence. 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 allegedly murdered by her husband, Phoolchand Rathore. The prosecution’s case was built on circumstantial evidence, as there were no eyewitnesses to the crime. The key events unfolded as follows:

• February 1, 2010, 1400 hours: Phoolchand allegedly fought with Sundariya’s sister, Jaimatiya Bai (PW-8), accusing her of keeping Sundariya’s jewelry. He threatened to kill Sundariya and set the house on fire.
• February 1, 2010, 1900 hours: Kamla (PW2), Sundariya’s brother, received information that Phoolchand had taken Sundariya on a bicycle towards the fields, threatening to kill her.
• February 1, 2010, 2000 hours: Sundariya was found seriously injured near the railway tracks. She was rushed to the hospital but died en route.
• February 1, 2010, 2130 hours: An FIR was lodged by Kamla (PW2), suspecting Phoolchand of murdering his wife.
• February 2, 2010, 1240 hours: Phoolchand was arrested.
• February 2, 2010, 1300 hours: Phoolchand’s disclosure statement was recorded, where he allegedly admitted to hiding stones and blood-stained clothes in his hut.
• February 2, 2010, 1400 hours: Blood-stained clothes, stones, and a bicycle were recovered from Phoolchand’s hut. Additionally, blood-stained gravel, a saree, and chappals were found near the railway line.

The prosecution argued that Phoolchand had a motive to kill his wife due to disputes over her jewelry and ancestral property. They also presented evidence of Phoolchand taking Sundariya on a bicycle while threatening her, and the recovery of incriminating items from his hut and near the crime scene.

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 and 7 years of rigorous imprisonment, respectively. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, however, overturned the Trial Court’s decision, acquitting Phoolchand. The High Court found the prosecution’s evidence to be unreliable, citing contradictions and inconsistencies in the testimonies of key witnesses, particularly the deceased’s daughter, Madhuri (PW-4). The State of Madhya Pradesh then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section defines the punishment for murder.
• Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section deals with causing disappearance of evidence of an offense or giving false information to screen an offender.

The court also examined the principles governing convictions based on circumstantial evidence. It emphasized that the circumstances must be: (i) proved beyond reasonable doubt; (ii) of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; (iii) form a complete chain with no escape from the conclusion that the crime was committed by the accused; (iv) consistent only with the hypothesis of the accused being guilty; and (v) exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved.

Arguments

Appellant (State of Madhya Pradesh):

• The prosecution argued that the testimony of the deceased’s daughter, Madhuri (PW-4), was crucial. She had stated that there were frequent quarrels between the deceased and the accused, and that on the day of the incident, the accused had taken the deceased on a bicycle towards the field.
• The State contended that the High Court erred in discarding the entire testimony of PW-4 based on minor inconsistencies, and should have separated the reliable parts from the unreliable ones.
• It was submitted that the circumstances, including the accused taking the deceased on a bicycle and the deceased being found injured shortly thereafter, were sufficient to establish guilt. The State argued that the accused had failed to provide any explanation for the circumstances surrounding his wife’s death.
• The prosecution emphasized that the FIR was promptly lodged, and the circumstances described therein were corroborated by the prosecution witnesses.

Respondent (Phoolchand Rathore):

• The respondent argued that the High Court’s decision was a plausible view based on a thorough analysis of the evidence.
• It was contended that the testimony of PW-4 was unreliable, and therefore, could not form the basis for conviction.
• The respondent pointed out that the original motive for the crime (dispute over jewelry) was disproven, and that the prosecution had introduced a new, unsubstantiated motive during the trial.
• The respondent argued that the recovery of blood-stained clothes and stones was doubtful, especially since the seizure witness (PW-6) had denied the seizure.
• The respondent also highlighted the contradictions in the prosecution’s case regarding the time of arrest, suggesting a possible false implication due to a property dispute with the informant (PW-2).

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following key issues:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the conviction and acquitting the accused.
2. Whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
3. Whether the testimony of PW4 was reliable and could be used to sustain conviction.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• State of U.P. v. Sahai & Others, (1982) 1 SCC 352: The Court acknowledged this authority which permits the Supreme Court to reverse an acquittal if the High Court’s approach is legally erroneous and perverse. However, in this case, the Court found no such perversity in the High Court’s decision.
• State of M.P. & Others v. Paltan Mallah & Others, (2005) 3 SCC 169: The Court relied on this case to reiterate that it would be slow to interfere with the High Court’s findings unless there is a perverse appreciation of evidence. The Court found the High Court’s view to be plausible.
• Basheera Begam v. Mohd. Ibrahim & Others, (2020) 11 SCC 174: The Court used this authority to emphasize that an acquittal should not be interfered with unless it is vitiated by perversity. The Court did not find the High Court’s acquittal to be perverse.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the High Court’s acquittal was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Unreliable Testimony of PW-4: The Court found that the testimony of the deceased’s daughter, Madhuri (PW-4), was full of contradictions and inconsistencies. Her statements regarding the accused’s actions, including the alleged extra-judicial confession and the washing of blood-stained clothes, were deemed unreliable. The Court noted that her testimony was not corroborated by other witnesses and was inconsistent with the prosecution’s case.
• Failure to Prove Motive: The prosecution’s initial motive of a dispute over jewelry was disproven, and the subsequent motive of a dispute over ancestral property was not substantiated with sufficient evidence. The Court emphasized that while the absence of motive is not sufficient to dislodge the prosecution’s case, it plays an important part in cases based on circumstantial evidence.
• Doubtful Recovery of Evidence: The recovery of blood-stained clothes and stones from the accused’s hut was found to be doubtful. The seizure witness (PW-6) denied the seizure, and the timing of the arrest, disclosure, and recovery memos raised questions about their authenticity. The Court also noted the implausibility of the accused carrying stones from the crime scene to his hut.
• Weak Chain of Circumstantial Evidence: The Court held that the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution did not form a complete chain pointing towards the guilt of the accused. The circumstances were not consistent only with the hypothesis of the accused being guilty and did not exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved.
• Plausible View of the High Court: The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court’s decision was a plausible view based on a detailed analysis of the evidence. The Supreme Court was reluctant to interfere with the High Court’s findings unless there was a clear case of perversity, which was not found in this case.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the argument that the doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (false in one thing, false in everything) does not apply in India. However, the Court stated that even if that were the case, the High Court had discarded PW4 as unreliable after analyzing the entire evidence. The Court also considered the argument that the accused had taken the deceased on a bicycle, but found that this was not conclusive evidence of murder, and that there was a significant time gap between the accused taking the deceased and the deceased being found injured.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

• “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.”
• “In such circumstances, it appears to us that those stones were picked from the spot near the railway track to show recovery from the hut.”
• “For all the reasons above, if the High Court has extended the benefit of doubt to the accused, its view being a plausible view, in our opinion, does not call for any interference.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case. The three-judge bench unanimously agreed with the decision.

Key Takeaways

• Convictions based on circumstantial evidence require a strong and complete chain of evidence that excludes all reasonable doubt.
• The testimony of a witness must be reliable and consistent to be used as a basis for conviction.
• The prosecution must prove the motive for the crime, especially in cases based on circumstantial evidence.
• The recovery of incriminating evidence must be credible and supported by reliable witnesses.
• The Supreme Court is reluctant to interfere with an acquittal by the High Court unless there is a clear case of perversity.

Directions

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

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove the circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt and that the circumstances must form a complete chain pointing towards the guilt of the accused. The Court also highlighted the importance of reliable witness testimony and the need for credible recovery of evidence. There was no change in the previous position of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal by the State of Madhya Pradesh, upholding the High Court’s decision to acquit Phoolchand Rathore. The Court found that the prosecution’s case was based on weak and contradictory evidence, failing to establish a complete chain of circumstances that would prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The judgment reinforces the principle that convictions based on circumstantial evidence require a high standard of proof and that the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused when the evidence is not conclusive.