Date of the Judgment: 16 April 2018
Citation: (2018) INSC 330
Judges: A.K. Sikri, J. and R.K. Agrawal, J.
Can a conviction be upheld when based primarily on circumstantial evidence and a retracted confession? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a double murder case, ultimately overturning the High Court’s decision. The Court emphasized the importance of a complete and unbroken chain of evidence to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice A.K. Sikri and Justice R.K. Agrawal, with Justice R.K. Agrawal authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case began with a missing person report filed on February 16, 2008, by Mahimaidoss (PW-8), who stated that his driver, John Bosco, and another individual named Madhan, had not returned after taking his Maruti Van on February 14, 2008. The following day, on February 17, 2008, a body was found in a well by Asokan, which was later identified as John Bosco.

During the investigation, Sivashankar (A-1) confessed to the crime, implicating Navaneethakrishnan (A-3) and Suresh (A-2). According to the confession, the accused had abducted John Bosco and Madhan, taken them to a relative’s house, strangled them, and disposed of their bodies in gunny bags in different locations. The police recovered Madhan’s body based on A-1’s information.

Timeline

Date Event
February 14, 2008 John Bosco and Madhan go missing after taking a Maruti Van.
February 16, 2008 Mahimaidoss (PW-8) files a missing person report (FIR No. 41/2008).
February 17, 2008 Body of John Bosco found in a well (FIR No. 88/2008).
February 25, 2008 PW-8 hands over the bill of John Bosco’s mobile phone to the investigation officer.
March 1, 2008 Accused No. 1 (Sivashankar) is apprehended and gives a confessional statement.
March 1, 2008 Recovery of Madhan’s body, John Bosco’s mobile phone, and a rope based on A-1’s confession.
Later Accused No. 2 (Suresh) and Accused No. 3 (Navaneethakrishnan) are apprehended.
September 18, 2009 Fast Track Court No. II, Salem, convicts the accused.
November 23, 2009 High Court of Judicature at Madras dismisses the appeals by the accused.
April 16, 2018 Supreme Court of India sets aside the High Court Judgment and acquits the accused.

Course of Proceedings

The case was initially filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate No. 5, Salem, and later committed to the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. II, Salem. The trial court convicted the accused under Sections 364, 302 read with Section 34, 201 read with Section 302, and 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, sentencing them to life imprisonment. The High Court of Judicature at Madras dismissed the appeals filed by the accused, upholding the trial court’s decision.

Legal Framework

The accused were charged under the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

  • Section 302: This section deals with the punishment for murder. It states, “Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”
  • Section 34: This section addresses acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. It states, “When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.”
  • Section 364: This section deals with kidnapping or abduction in order to murder. It states, “Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person in order that such person may be murdered…shall be punished with imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
  • Section 379: This section deals with the punishment for theft. It states, “Whoever commits theft shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.”

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellants (Accused):

  • The conviction was primarily based on a retracted confession, which should only be used to support other evidence, not as the sole basis for conviction.
  • The cause of death was not definitively established, and the courts below erred in convicting the appellants without knowing the exact cause of death.
  • There were significant gaps in the prosecution’s case, including the failure to examine the actual owner of the mobile phone recovered from A-1. The phone was not registered in the name of PW-8.
  • The gap between when the accused were last seen with the deceased (14.02.2008) and the discovery of the bodies (after several days) leaves room for the possibility of other people’s involvement.
  • The prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence, with inherent discrepancies. The benefit of doubt should have been given to the appellants.
See also  Supreme Court Upholds Bank's Sale of Mortgaged Property Under SARFAESI Act: Shakeena vs. Bank of India (20 August 2019)

Arguments by the Respondent (State):

  • The High Court’s judgment upholding the Sessions Court’s decision was in accordance with the law.
  • The evidence presented against the accused was sufficient to establish their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The innovativeness in the argument by the appellants was that the prosecution failed to examine the actual owner of the mobile phone recovered from A-1, which was not registered in the name of PW-8. It raised a doubt on the veracity of the prosecution’s case.

Main Submission Sub-Submissions
Appellants’ Submissions
  • Retracted confession cannot be the sole basis for conviction.
  • Cause of death is not known.
  • Lacunas in the prosecution version.
  • Failure to examine the owner of the phone recovered from Accused No. 1.
  • Possibility of intervention of some other person.
  • Incomplete chain of circumstantial evidence.
  • Discrepancies in the prosecution case.
  • Benefit of doubt should be given to the appellants.
Respondent’s Submissions
  • High Court’s judgment is as per the law.
  • Evidence against the appellants is sufficient to prove guilt.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

  1. Whether the High Court was right in dismissing the appeals preferred by the appellants-accused?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Issue Court’s Decision
Whether the High Court was right in dismissing the appeals preferred by the appellants-accused? The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in dismissing the appeals. The conviction was overturned due to insufficient evidence and reliance on a retracted confession and inadmissible evidence.

Authorities

Cases Relied Upon by the Court:

  • Padala Veera Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh [1989 Supp. 2 SCC 706] – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to explain the principles governing circumstantial evidence, emphasizing that the circumstances must be cogently established, point unerringly to the guilt of the accused, and form a complete chain.
  • Rafikul Alam & Others vs. The State of West Bengal [2008 Crl. L.J. 2005] – High Court of Calcutta: This case was cited to highlight that identification parades are not the sole substantive evidence and the court can rely on a witness’s testimony even without corroboration.
  • Selvi and Others vs. State of Karnataka [(2010) 7 SCC 263] – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to discuss the admissibility of statements made in police custody under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872, and the protection against self-incrimination.
  • Madhu vs. State of Kerala [(2012) 2 SCC 399] – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to further explain the mandate of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872, and the conditions under which a confessional statement can be admitted.

Legal Provisions Considered by the Court:

  • Section 26, Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This section states that no confession made to a police officer while in police custody can be proved against a person.
  • Section 27, Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This section allows for the admissibility of information given by an accused in custody that leads to the discovery of a new fact.
Authority How Considered by the Court
Padala Veera Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh [1989 Supp. 2 SCC 706] – Supreme Court of India Explained the principles of circumstantial evidence.
Rafikul Alam & Others vs. The State of West Bengal [2008 Crl. L.J. 2005] – High Court of Calcutta Clarified the evidentiary value of identification parades.
Selvi and Others vs. State of Karnataka [(2010) 7 SCC 263] – Supreme Court of India Discussed the admissibility of custodial statements under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
Madhu vs. State of Kerala [(2012) 2 SCC 399] – Supreme Court of India Further explained the mandate of Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
Section 26, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Explained the inadmissibility of confessions made to a police officer while in custody.
Section 27, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Explained the admissibility of information leading to the discovery of a new fact.

Judgment

Submission by Parties Treatment by the Court
Appellants argued that the conviction was based on a retracted confession. The Court agreed that a retracted confession cannot be the sole basis for conviction.
Appellants argued that the cause of death was not known. The Court noted that the cause of death was not definitively established.
Appellants pointed out lacunas in the prosecution version. The Court acknowledged the gaps in the prosecution’s case, including the failure to examine the actual owner of the mobile phone.
Appellants argued that the chain of circumstantial evidence was incomplete. The Court agreed that the prosecution failed to prove a complete chain of circumstances pointing to the guilt of the accused.
Respondent argued that the High Court’s judgment was as per the law. The Court disagreed and set aside the High Court’s judgment.
Respondent argued that the evidence was sufficient to prove guilt. The Court held that the evidence was insufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
See also  Supreme Court Grants Bail in Money Laundering Case: Sanjay Raghunath Agarwal vs. Directorate of Enforcement (20 April 2023)

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

  • Padala Veera Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh [1989 Supp. 2 SCC 706]*: The principles of circumstantial evidence were applied, and the Court found that the prosecution failed to meet the required standards.
  • Rafikul Alam & Others vs. The State of West Bengal [2008 Crl. L.J. 2005]*: The Court acknowledged that while identification parades are corroborative, the testimony of PW-11 was not sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
  • Selvi and Others vs. State of Karnataka [(2010) 7 SCC 263]*: The Court used this to emphasize that statements made in custody are admissible only to the extent that they lead to the discovery of facts, and the confession was not admissible.
  • Madhu vs. State of Kerala [(2012) 2 SCC 399]*: The Court reiterated that Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872 only allows for the admissibility of information that leads to the discovery of a new fact, which was not the case here.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily concerned with the lack of concrete evidence linking the accused to the crime. The Court emphasized that circumstantial evidence must form a complete and unbroken chain, which was not established in this case. The Court also highlighted the inadmissibility of the confession under Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the fact that the recoveries were not directly linked to the crime. The Court was also influenced by the fact that the mobile phone was not proven to belong to the deceased. The Court was not convinced that the prosecution had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Reason Percentage
Lack of concrete evidence 40%
Inadmissibility of confession 30%
Incomplete chain of circumstantial evidence 20%
Unproven ownership of mobile phone 10%
Category Percentage
Fact 30%
Law 70%

The ratio of Fact:Law shows that the Court was more influenced by the legal aspects of the case, especially the rules of evidence and the requirements for circumstantial evidence. The factual aspects of the case were not sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused.

Issue: Was the High Court correct in upholding the conviction?
↓
No direct evidence linking accused to the crime.
↓
Retracted confession inadmissible under Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
↓
Recovered items not conclusively linked to the crime.
↓
Prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence.
↓
Benefit of doubt given to the accused.
↓
Conclusion: High Court’s judgment set aside; accused acquitted.

The Court’s reasoning was based on a careful evaluation of the evidence and its compliance with the legal standards. The Supreme Court concluded that the lower courts had erred in relying on inadmissible evidence and that the circumstantial evidence was not sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Court considered alternative interpretations of the evidence, such as the possibility of other individuals being involved, given the time gap between when the accused were last seen with the deceased and the discovery of their bodies. However, the Court ultimately rejected these interpretations because the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The decision was reached by carefully analyzing the evidence and applying the established legal principles. The Supreme Court was of the opinion that the prosecution did not meet the required burden of proof.

The Court’s decision was based on the following reasons:

  • The retracted confession was inadmissible under Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
  • The recovered items were not conclusively linked to the crime.
  • The prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence.
  • The prosecution failed to prove the ownership of the mobile phone.
  • The benefit of doubt must be given to the accused when the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Court stated, “In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that both the courts below have erred in relying that part of the statement which can be termed as confession which were given to the police officer while they were in custody and it will be hit by Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872 and only that part of the statement which led to the discovery of various materials would be permissible.”

The Court further added, “Hence, in the absence of any other material evidence against the appellants-accused, they cannot be convicted solely on the basis of evidence of last seen together with the deceased.”

The Court also noted, “The law is well settled that each and every incriminating circumstance must be clearly established by reliable and clinching evidence and the circumstances so proved must form a chain of events from which the only irresistible conclusion about the guilt of the accused can be safely drawn and no other hypothesis against the guilt is possible.”

There were no minority opinions in this case; the decision was unanimous.

See also  Supreme Court Stays Criminal Complaint Based on Sub-Judice Order: Hanumant Dinkar Arjun vs. Suresh R. Andhare (2019) INSC 399

The implications of this judgment are that it reinforces the importance of a complete and unbroken chain of evidence in cases based on circumstantial evidence. It also highlights the inadmissibility of confessions made to police officers while in custody.

No new doctrines or legal principles were introduced; the Court applied existing legal principles to the facts of the case.

Key Takeaways

  • Convictions based on circumstantial evidence require a complete and unbroken chain of evidence.
  • Retracted confessions cannot be the sole basis for conviction; they must be supported by other evidence.
  • Statements made to police officers while in custody are generally inadmissible, except for the part that leads to the discovery of new facts.
  • The prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused.

This judgment reinforces the importance of due process and the high standards of proof required in criminal cases. It serves as a reminder to lower courts to carefully scrutinize evidence and ensure that the prosecution meets its burden of proof before convicting an accused.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellants, who were in custody, be released immediately if they were not required in any other criminal case.

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 a retracted confession cannot be the sole basis for conviction. This case reinforces the existing legal principles regarding circumstantial evidence and the admissibility of confessions. There is no change in the previous positions of law, but the Court has clarified the application of existing legal principles to the facts of this case.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court overturned the conviction of the accused in this double murder case, emphasizing the importance of a complete chain of circumstantial evidence and the inadmissibility of retracted confessions. The Court’s decision underscores the need for a thorough and rigorous investigation and the high standards of proof required in criminal cases. The appellants were acquitted and ordered to be released from custody.

Source: Navaneethakrishnan vs. State