Supreme Court overturns acquittal in double murder case: Malti Sahu vs. Rahul (2022) INSC 640

Date of the Judgment: 11 July 2022

Citation: (2022) INSC 640

Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and B.V. Nagarathna, J.

Can a High Court overturn a trial court’s conviction in a double murder case based on circumstantial evidence? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, examining whether the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh was correct in acquitting an accused previously convicted by the Trial Court. The case involves the murder of two siblings, and the Supreme Court’s decision hinges on the evaluation of circumstantial evidence and the links established by the prosecution. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench of Justices M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, with the opinion authored by Justice M.R. Shah.

Case Background

The case originates from the murder of two siblings, Kavita Sahu and Gaurang Sahu, in Chandigarh. On December 16, 2011, Malti Devi, the mother of the deceased, returned home from work to find her daughter and son murdered. Kavita was found with a cut on her neck, and Gaurang was also found with a similar injury. The house was ransacked. The police investigation began with Malti Devi’s statement and the collection of evidence from the crime scene.

Initially, the local police investigated the case. Subsequently, the investigation was transferred to the Crime Branch (SIT), Chandigarh. During the investigation, a witness, PW-8, Sidharth Vashisht, stated that he had seen the accused, Rahul, with the victims before the incident. He also noted that Rahul was wearing a blue sweater at that time, but was not wearing it when he returned and had covered himself with a brown shawl or Loi. Rahul was later arrested on January 17, 2012, from Village Saha, District Ambala.

Based on Rahul’s disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a bag containing blood-stained clothes was recovered. A sweater was also found at the crime scene. Additionally, the police recorded statements from a shopkeeper, PW-9, who stated that Rahul had purchased the knife used in the murders, and from PW-20, a doctor who gave first aid to Rahul for an injury on his left ring finger.

The Trial Court convicted Rahul under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for the murders. However, the High Court acquitted him, citing a lack of a complete chain of circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court is now hearing appeals against this acquittal.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The case was initially investigated by the local police and then transferred to the Crime Branch (SIT), Chandigarh. The Trial Court convicted the accused, Rahul, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh overturned this conviction, acquitting Rahul. The High Court reasoned that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The State and the mother of the deceased then appealed to the Supreme Court against this acquittal.

Legal Framework

The primary legal provision involved in this case is Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which deals with the punishment for murder. Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 states:
“Punishment for murder.—Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or 1[imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine.”
The case also involves Section 27 of the Evidence Act, which pertains to the admissibility of information leading to the discovery of facts. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence to establish the guilt of the accused, as there was no direct evidence linking him to the crime. The legal framework also involves the principles of criminal jurisprudence related to circumstantial evidence, requiring a complete chain of circumstances to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments (Mother of the victim and State):

• Motive: The prosecution successfully proved the motive of the accused to kill the deceased. PW-8, despite turning hostile, admitted that Kavita Sahu had disclosed that Rahul had made obscene gestures at her. This establishes a motive for the crime.

• Recovery of the Knife: The knife used in the commission of the offense was recovered from the crime scene. The prosecution established that the accused purchased this knife from PW-9, a shopkeeper, who identified the knife and the accused.

• Recovery of Loi: The Loi recovered at the instance of the accused had blood stains matching the blood group of the deceased and the accused. The accused failed to explain this incriminating evidence.

• Injury on Accused: The accused sustained an injury on his left ring finger, which was treated by PW-20, Dr. Davinder Kapil. The accused failed to provide a valid explanation for this injury, and Dr. Kapil stated that it could have been caused by a sharp-edged weapon.

Respondent’s Arguments (Accused):

• Lack of Link Evidence: The prosecution failed to prove the necessary link in the evidence to establish the guilt of the accused. The case is based on circumstantial evidence, and the prosecution has not established a complete chain of circumstances.

• Hostile Witness: PW-8 turned hostile, and his testimony cannot be relied upon to establish the motive. The prosecution has failed to prove the motive by leading cogent evidence.

• Loi: It has not been established that the Loi with blood stains belonged to the accused. The prosecution has not been able to link the Loi to the accused.

• Injury: The injury on the ring finger of the accused was an old injury and not related to the crime. The accused has provided an explanation that the injury was caused by an iron bar.

Innovativeness of the argument: The prosecution’s argument was innovative in relying on a hostile witness’s testimony to establish motive and connecting the accused to the crime through the purchase of the murder weapon and the recovery of blood-stained clothing.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issue:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in overturning the conviction of the accused and acquitting him based on the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution.

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 authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court considered Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as the relevant provision for the offense of murder. The Court also considered Section 27 of the Evidence Act as the provision for admissibility of information leading to the discovery of facts.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The establishment of motive through the testimony of PW-8, even though he turned hostile.
• The recovery of the knife used in the commission of the offense, which was proven to have been purchased by the accused.
• The recovery of the Loi with blood stains matching both the deceased and the accused.
• The unexplained injury on the accused’s left ring finger, which was consistent with a sharp-edged weapon.

The Court’s reasoning was heavily influenced by the factual evidence presented by the prosecution, which established a strong link between the accused and the crime. The legal principles related to circumstantial evidence were applied to assess the completeness of the chain of circumstances.

The Court rejected the High Court’s interpretation that the prosecution failed to establish the necessary links in the evidence. The Supreme Court emphasized that the circumstantial evidence, when considered cumulatively, pointed towards the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court highlighted that the High Court had not properly appreciated the evidence and had recorded perverse findings.

The Supreme Court stated, “Considering the aforesaid overall facts of the case and evidence on record, the High Court has committed a grave/serious error in observing that the prosecution has failed to prove the link evidence, which could establish and bring home the guilt of the accused. The findings recorded by the High Court are perverse.”

The Court also noted, “The High Court has not properly appreciated the entire evidence on record, more particularly, the findings recorded by the Trial Court, which as such were on appreciation of the entire evidence on record.”

The Court further observed, “Under the circumstances, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court reversing the conviction and consequently acquitting the accused is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.”

The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision, restoring the Trial Court’s conviction, finding that the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court emphasized the importance of considering all pieces of evidence together, rather than in isolation.

Key Takeaways

• Circumstantial evidence can be sufficient to establish guilt if a complete chain of circumstances is proven.
• The testimony of a hostile witness can be considered to the extent it supports the prosecution’s case.
• The recovery of incriminating evidence, such as weapons and blood-stained clothing, can be crucial in establishing guilt.
• The failure of an accused to explain incriminating evidence can be held against them.
• High Courts should not overturn convictions based on flimsy grounds and must consider the evidence in its entirety.
• The Supreme Court will intervene if the High Court’s findings are perverse and not based on a proper appreciation of evidence.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the respondent-accused to surrender before the concerned Jail Authority or concerned Court to undergo the sentence imposed by the Trial Court.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be upheld if the prosecution establishes a complete chain of circumstances that points towards the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. This case reinforces the principle that the evidence of a hostile witness can be considered to the extent it supports the prosecution’s case. It also reiterates that the failure of an accused to explain incriminating evidence can be used against them. This judgment has not changed the previous position of law but has reaffirmed the principles of appreciation of circumstantial evidence in criminal cases.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, overturning the High Court’s acquittal and restoring the Trial Court’s conviction of the accused, Rahul, for the murder of Kavita Sahu and Gaurang Sahu. The Court found that the prosecution had successfully established the necessary links in the circumstantial evidence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The judgment emphasizes the importance of a thorough evaluation of circumstantial evidence and the need for High Courts to properly appreciate the evidence on record.