Supreme Court Overturns Conviction in Double Murder Case Due to Inconsistent Evidence: Ravinder Singh vs. State of Punjab (2022)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: May 4, 2022

Citation: (2022) INSC 427

Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, J. and Vineet Saran, J.

Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on circumstantial evidence, even if that evidence is riddled with inconsistencies? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving the tragic murder of two young children. The Court overturned the conviction of the accused, Ravinder Singh, emphasizing that circumstantial evidence must be conclusive and coherent to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The bench comprised of Justices Uday Umesh Lalit and Vineet Saran, with the judgment authored by Justice Vineet Saran.

Case Background

On September 24, 2009, Rakesh Kumar reported to the police that his two sons, Aman Kumar (10 years old) and Om (6 years old), had gone missing after their tuition. Rakesh Kumar suspected Ranjit Kumar Gupta and his wife Sanju, as they had a dispute with Rakesh’s wife, Anita @ Arti, two days prior. An initial report was filed, and the police began their investigation. The next day, September 25, 2009, the dead bodies of the two children were found in a field. During the investigation, Ravinder Singh @ Kaku and Anita @ Arti were also named as suspects. Ultimately, Anita @ Arti, Ravinder Singh @ Kaku, and Ranjit Kumar Gupta were charged under Sections 302 (murder), 364 (kidnapping), and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted all three accused, sentencing them to death for murder under Section 302 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and 10 years rigorous imprisonment for kidnapping under Section 364 of the IPC. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana acquitted Anita @ Arti and Ranjit Kumar Gupta, but upheld the conviction of Ravinder Singh @ Kaku, reducing his sentence to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment. The High Court based its conviction on circumstantial evidence including motive, the last seen theory, and the recovery of material objects. Ravinder Singh then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

• Section 302, Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section defines the punishment for murder.
  “Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 364, Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with kidnapping or abducting in order to murder.
  “Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person in order that such person may be murdered or may be so disposed of as to be put in danger of being 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 120B, Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section defines the punishment for criminal conspiracy.
  “(1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence. (2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.”

Arguments

The prosecution argued that the High Court correctly convicted Ravinder Singh (A2) based on circumstantial evidence. They contended that:

• There was a clear motive for the murder: Ravinder Singh was allegedly infatuated with Anita (A1), the mother of the children, and wanted to eliminate the children as they were a hurdle in his relationship with her.
• The “last seen” theory was established: Witnesses had seen Ravinder Singh with the children before their deaths.
• Material objects were recovered: A mobile phone, a school bag, and a rope were recovered, linking Ravinder Singh to the crime.
• Call details between A1 and A2 showed an intimate relationship.

The defense, representing Ravinder Singh, countered these arguments by highlighting the inconsistencies and contradictions in the prosecution’s evidence:

• The prosecution failed to establish a clear motive beyond a mere probability of infatuation.
• The “last seen” theory was based on unreliable witness testimonies that contained contradictions.
• The recovery of material objects was also inconsistent with other evidence, as the children’s bags were found at the spot where the bodies were recovered, not based on the disclosure statement of A2.
• The call records did not establish that the murder was in furtherance of the alleged relationship.

The innovativeness of the argument by the defense was that it was able to point out the inconsistencies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, which were material in nature, and not merely minor discrepancies.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following key issues:

1. Whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
2. Whether the “last seen” theory was adequately established through the testimonies of PW6 and PW7.
3. Whether the recovery of material objects at the instance of the accused was consistent with other evidence on record.
4. Whether the call records produced by the prosecution were admissible as evidence under Sections 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The cases of Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan [AIR (1977 SC 1063)], Eradu and Ors. v. State of Hyderabad [AIR 1956 SC 316], Earabhadrappa @ Krishnappa v. State of Karnataka [AIR 1983 SC 446], State of U.P. v. Sukhbasi and Ors. [AIR 1985 SC 1224], Balwinder Singh @ Dalbir Singh v. State of Punjab [AIR 1987 SC 350], and Ashok Kumar Chatterjee v. State of M.P. [AIR 1989 SC 1890] were cited to emphasize that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused.
• Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab [AIR 1954 SC 621] was cited to highlight that the cumulative effect of the circumstances must negate the innocence of the accused.
• C. Chenga Reddy and Ors. v. State of A.P. [(1996) 10 SCC 193] was used to emphasize that the circumstances must be conclusive and consistent only with the guilt of the accused.
• Anvar P.V. vs P.K. Basheer & Ors [(2014) 10 SCC 473] and Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal [(2020) 7 SCC 1] were relied upon to reiterate the mandatory requirement of a certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 for the admissibility of electronic evidence.
• The judgments in Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh [(2018) 2 SCC 801] and Tomaso Bruno v. State of Kerala [(2015) 7 SCC 178] were overruled. The Court clarified that the certificate required under Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is mandatory and that the judgments in Shafhi Mohammad and Tomaso Bruno did not lay down the correct law.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the inconsistencies and contradictions in the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution. The Court emphasized that:

• The motive was not established beyond a reasonable doubt, relying on mere probabilities and conjectures.
• The “last seen” theory was based on unreliable testimonies with material contradictions.
• The recovery of material objects was inconsistent with other evidence on record.
• The electronic evidence (call records) was inadmissible due to non-compliance with Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

The Court found that the chain of circumstances was incomplete and did not conclusively establish the guilt of the accused. The Court also emphasized that the High Court had erred in extrapolating facts and drawing dubious inferences.

Logical Reasoning:

The Supreme Court considered alternative interpretations of the evidence, but rejected them due to the lack of concrete proof and the presence of significant inconsistencies. The Court emphasized that convictions cannot be based on mere probabilities or conjectures.

The Supreme Court overturned the conviction of Ravinder Singh, stating that the circumstantial evidence was not conclusive enough to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court emphasized that the prosecution failed to establish a clear motive, the “last seen” theory was based on unreliable testimonies, the recovery of material objects was inconsistent, and the call records were inadmissible.

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

• The prosecution failed to establish a motive beyond a reasonable doubt, relying on mere probabilities and conjectures.
• The “last seen” theory was based on unreliable testimonies with material contradictions.
• The recovery of material objects was inconsistent with other evidence on record.
• The call records were inadmissible as evidence due to the lack of certification as required under Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
• The chain of circumstances was incomplete and did not conclusively establish the guilt of the accused.
• The High Court had erred in extrapolating facts and drawing dubious inferences.

The Court quoted from the judgment, “We have to infer that the unusual attraction of A2 towards A1 had completely blinded his senses, which ultimately caused the death of minor children. It is quite probable that A2 would have through that the minor children had been a hurdle for his close proximity with A1”, highlighting that the High Court had based its inferences on mere probability.

The Court also stated, “When a conviction is based solely on circumstantial evidence, such evidence and the chain of circumstances must be conclusive enough to sustain a conviction.”

The Court further added, “Oral evidence in the place of such certificate cannot possibly suffice as Section 65B(4) is a mandatory requirement of the law.”

There were no dissenting opinions, as the bench was unanimous in its decision.

Key Takeaways

• Circumstantial evidence must be complete, cogent, and coherent to sustain a conviction.
• Inconsistencies and contradictions in witness testimonies can weaken the prosecution’s case.
• Motive must be established beyond a reasonable doubt and cannot be based on mere probabilities.
• Electronic evidence must comply with the requirements of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, including the mandatory certification.
• The judgment reinforces the principle that convictions cannot be based on mere conjectures or probabilities.

This judgment clarifies the standards for circumstantial evidence and the admissibility of electronic records, setting a precedent for future cases. It emphasizes the importance of a complete and coherent chain of evidence for convictions based on circumstantial evidence.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that a copy of the order be communicated to the relevant jail authorities, and Ravinder Singh (A2) be immediately set at liberty, unless his detention is required in any other case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence cannot be sustained if the evidence is marred with inconsistencies and contradictions, and the chain of circumstances is incomplete. The judgment also reiterates the mandatory requirement of a certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 for the admissibility of electronic evidence. This case overrules the previous judgments in Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh [(2018) 2 SCC 801] and Tomaso Bruno v. State of Kerala [(2015) 7 SCC 178], clarifying that the certificate under Section 65B(4) is a condition precedent for the admissibility of electronic evidence.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court overturned the conviction of Ravinder Singh (A2) in a double murder case, emphasizing the need for conclusive and coherent circumstantial evidence. The Court found that the prosecution’s evidence was riddled with inconsistencies, contradictions, and inadmissible electronic records. This judgment reinforces the principle that convictions cannot be based on mere probabilities and that the chain of circumstances must be complete to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court also clarified the law regarding the admissibility of electronic evidence, overruling previous conflicting judgments.