Supreme Court overturns conviction in murder case due to flawed evidence: Wadla Bheemaraidu vs. State of Telangana (2024) INSC 923 (03 December 2024)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 03 December 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 923

Judges: Dipankar Datta, J. and Sandeep Mehta, J.

Can a conviction be upheld when the prosecution fails to establish a clear chain of circumstances and relies on flawed evidence? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a criminal appeal, overturning a High Court judgment and acquitting the accused. The case revolved around a murder conviction based on circumstantial evidence, where the prosecution’s case was found to be lacking in several key aspects. The bench, comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Sandeep Mehta, delivered the judgment.

Case Background

The case involves the murder of K. Nagesh, who allegedly had an extra-marital affair with Smt. Shivaleela @ Wadla Anjali, the wife of the appellant, Wadla Bheemaraidu (A1). On 7th January 2013, K. Nagesh and Smt. Shivaleela eloped from their village. Smt. Shivaleela returned after four days, but K. Nagesh did not. On 8th January 2013, K. Nagesh’s mother, Smt. B. Laxmamma (PW-1), filed a missing person complaint. During the investigation, it was revealed that a panchayat was convened regarding the affair, where the family of K. Nagesh was allegedly threatened and agreed to pay Rs. 3,50,000 to the appellant.

The prosecution alleged that the appellant, dissatisfied with the resolution, planned to kill K. Nagesh. On 11th January 2013, the appellant, along with his brother (A2) and brother-in-law (A3), went to Raichur railway station where K. Nagesh was expected to arrive. They abducted K. Nagesh from the railway station and took him to Shakthi Nagar. There, they allegedly strangled him with a towel and crushed his face with a boulder to conceal his identity. The body was hidden in a water channel, and the clothes were thrown in the Krishna River. On 19th January 2013, the family of the deceased paid Rs. 3,50,000 to the appellant. The appellant was later arrested, and based on his alleged confession, the missing person case was converted into a murder case. The police recovered skeletal remains from the crime scene which were later matched with the DNA of the deceased’s mother.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court convicted the appellant (A1) and two co-accused (A2 and A3) under Sections 302, 364, 384, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), while acquitting the remaining co-accused (A4-A8). The High Court of Telangana, in appeal, upheld the conviction of the appellant (A1) but acquitted A2 and A3. Aggrieved by the High Court’s decision, the appellant (A1) appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case involves several sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC):

• Section 302, IPC: “Punishment for murder.—Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or [imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine.” This section defines the punishment for murder.
• Section 364, IPC: “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.” This section deals with kidnapping or abducting with the intent to murder.
• Section 384, IPC: “Punishment for extortion.—Whoever commits extortion shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.” This section defines the punishment for extortion.
• Section 201, IPC: “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 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 which he knows or believes to have been committed is punishable with death, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.” This section deals with causing disappearance of evidence of an offence.

The judgment also refers to Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA), which pertains to the admissibility of information leading to the discovery of a fact: “Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.”

Arguments

Submissions on behalf of the accused-appellant:

• The prosecution’s case is false and fabricated. The motive of the appellant committing the offense was not proven because the deceased’s mother (PW-1), father (PW-2) and wife of the appellant (PW-8) did not support the prosecution’s claim of an extra-marital affair.
• The recovery of skeletal remains was not proved by cogent evidence. The information provided by the accused under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was not proven as per law.
• The clothes recovered at the crime scene were not identified by any witness as belonging to the deceased.
• The prosecution failed to establish that the blood samples of the deceased’s mother were collected during the investigation. The testimony of PW-1 and the Medical Officer (PW-15) contradict the Investigating Officer’s version.
• The crime scene was not pointed out by the appellant to the Investigating Officer. The Medical Officer admitted that the police showed him the scene.
• It is improbable that skeletal remains would be found after two months.
• In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances must be proved beyond doubt. If one link is broken, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. Reliance was placed on Bhim Singh v. State of Uttarakhand (2015) 4 SCC 281 and Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab 2024 INSC 19.

Submissions on behalf of the Respondent-State:

• The prosecution proved that the deceased had an illicit affair with the appellant’s wife, and fueled by this motive, the appellant conspired to murder him.
• The crime scene was in the exclusive knowledge of the appellant. The recovery of skeletal remains at his instance proves his guilt.
• The gap of two months between the murder and discovery of remains is explained by natural decomposition.
• The DNA of the skeletal remains matched with the blood samples of the deceased’s mother.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the prosecution has proved the chain of circumstances beyond reasonable doubt to establish the guilt of the accused.
2. Whether the recovery of skeletal remains at the instance of the accused was proved as per law.
3. Whether the DNA evidence was properly established and linked to the accused.
4. Whether the motive for the crime was sufficiently proven.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The following authorities were considered by the Court:

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court followed the principles laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116* regarding the requirements for proving a case based on circumstantial evidence.
• The Court relied upon Bhim Singh v. State of Uttarakhand (2015) 4 SCC 281* and Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab 2024 INSC 19* to emphasise that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances must be proved beyond all doubt.
• The Court referred to State of U.P. v. Deoman Upadhyaya 1960 SCC OnLine SC 8*, Mohd. Abdul Hafeez v. State of A.P. (1983) 1 SCC 143*, Subramanya v. State of Karnataka (2023) 11 SCC 255*, Ramanand v. State of U.P. (2023) 16 SCC 510* and Babu Sahebgouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka (2024) 8 SCC 149* to analyze the requirements for proving a disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court emphasized that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove each link in the chain of circumstances beyond all reasonable doubt. The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish the motive, the recovery of skeletal remains, and the DNA evidence, all of which were crucial to their case. The Court noted that the Investigating Officer did not properly record the disclosure statement of the accused, nor did he establish that the accused led the police to the crime scene. Additionally, the Court found that the prosecution failed to prove that the blood samples of the deceased’s mother were collected for DNA profiling. The Court also highlighted the contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, which further weakened their case.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the prosecution’s arguments but found them insufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to legal procedures for recording disclosure statements and ensuring the reliability of evidence.

The Supreme Court held that “the information under Section 27 IEA which leads to discovery of an incriminating material/evidence must be proved by the Investigating Officer as being voluntary and uninfluenced by threat, duress or coercion.” The Court also noted that “the Investigating Officer is also required to prove the contents of the information/confessional memo to the extent they relate to the facts discovered.” Furthermore, the Court stated that “the manner of proving the disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act has been the subject matter of consideration by this Court in various judgments…”

The Court concluded that, “none of the incriminating circumstances portrayed by the prosecution…were established by cogent and clinching evidence.”

Key Takeaways

• In cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove each link in the chain of circumstances beyond reasonable doubt.
• Information leading to the discovery of evidence under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 must be proven as voluntary and uninfluenced by coercion.
• The Investigating Officer must properly record the disclosure statement of the accused, including the exact words spoken.
• The prosecution must establish the collection of blood samples and their connection to the DNA evidence.
• Contradictions in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses can weaken their case.
• The Court emphasized that, “the mental distance between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’ is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.“

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the accused be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish each link in the chain of circumstances beyond reasonable doubt. The Court reiterated the importance of adhering to the legal requirements for recording disclosure statements under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and emphasized that the prosecution must prove that the accused voluntarily led the police to the discovery of the incriminating evidence. The Court also highlighted the necessity of proper collection and linking of DNA evidence. This case reinforces the principle that the prosecution must prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and that mere suspicion is not sufficient for conviction.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Wadla Bheemaraidu vs. State of Telangana highlights the critical importance of meticulous evidence gathering and adherence to legal procedures in criminal cases. The Court overturned the conviction of the appellant, emphasizing that the prosecution failed to establish a clear chain of circumstances, and relied on flawed evidence. This judgment serves as a reminder of the high standards of proof required in criminal cases, especially those based on circumstantial evidence.