Supreme Court Overturns Conviction in Murder Case Due to Lack of Evidence: Santosh @ Bhure vs. State (28 April 2023)

Date of the Judgment: 28 April 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 443

Judges: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Manoj Misra, Aravind Kumar, JJ.

Can mere presence of a dead body in a rented apartment lead to a murder conviction? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in the case of *Santosh @ Bhure vs. State (G.N.C.T.) of Delhi*. The court overturned the conviction of an accused, Santosh @ Bhure, emphasizing that circumstantial evidence must conclusively prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, not just create suspicion. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Manoj Misra, and Aravind Kumar, with the majority opinion authored by Justice Manoj Misra.

Case Background

The case revolves around the death of Hari Shankar, whose body was discovered on 12 September 2000, in an apartment rented by Santosh @ Bhure. The police were informed that a dead body was lying in the apartment. Upon arrival, they found Hari Shankar dead on a cot with blood scattered around. The police seized various items from the scene, including bed linen, blood samples, cigarette butts, a matchbox, empty snack packets, a whisky bottle, and a plate. A suicide letter was also found in the deceased’s trouser pocket.

Initially, the body was unidentified. Later, Bhagwan Dass (PW26) identified the deceased as Hari Shankar. Subsequently, Shiv Shankar (PW23), the deceased’s brother, Smt. Vandana (PW9), the deceased’s wife, and Ajay Kumar (PW18), the deceased’s brother-in-law, also confirmed the identity of the body.

During the investigation, Ramesh Chand (PW3), the owner of the building, stated that Santosh @ Bhure was his tenant and had been seen leaving the premises on 11 September 2000, around 4:00 PM with a cloth bag. Raj Kumar (PW4), another tenant, mentioned that Santosh lived with one Hari Om, who had left a week before the incident. Raj Kumar also stated that on 11 September 2000, around 9:00 PM, he saw the deceased playing cards and drinking with Santosh and Neeraj in the apartment.

The police visited Santosh’s native place in Etawah on 20 September 2000, but could not find him. Both Santosh and Neeraj surrendered before the court on 23 September 2000. The police obtained three days of custody and claimed that two disclosure statements were made by each accused. The first disclosure on 23 September 2000, yielded no discovery. However, the second disclosure on 25 September 2000, led to the recovery of a knife/dagger at Neeraj’s instance and blood-stained clothes at Santosh’s instance. Based on this, both were charged under Sections 302 read with 34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted Santosh and Neeraj under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, sentencing them to life imprisonment. However, they were acquitted of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Both Santosh and Neeraj filed appeals before the Delhi High Court.

The High Court allowed Neeraj’s appeal, acquitting him of the murder charge. The court relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Sukhvinder Singh & Others v. State of Punjab [(1994) 5 SCC 152] and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Babu Misra [(1980) 2 SCC 343], holding that the expert opinion on the suicide letter was inadmissible because the specimens were obtained without consent or a court order. Consequently, the High Court found insufficient evidence to sustain Neeraj’s conviction.

The High Court dismissed Santosh’s appeal, finding sufficient evidence to prove his guilt. The court held that Santosh was the tenant of the apartment where the body was found, the death was homicidal, Santosh had absconded, and blood-stained clothes were recovered at his instance. Thus, the High Court upheld Santosh’s conviction and sentence.

Legal Framework

The case involves several key legal provisions:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section defines the punishment for murder, which is imprisonment for life or death.
• Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. It states that 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 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section defines the punishment for criminal conspiracy. It states that 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.
• Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA, 1872): This section deals with how much of information received from an accused may be proved. It states 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.
• Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA, 1872): This section allows for the comparison of a person’s writing with writings alleged to have been written by that person. It also empowers the court to direct any person present in court to give their specimen writing for comparison.
• Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA, 1872): This section deals with the burden of proving facts especially within the knowledge of the accused. It states that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.
• Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code): This section deals with reports of certain government scientific experts. It states that any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a government scientific expert, to whom this section applies, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this Code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code.

These provisions are interpreted within the framework of the Constitution of India, ensuring that the fundamental rights of the accused are protected. Specifically, Article 20(3) of the Constitution, which protects against self-incrimination, is relevant when considering the admissibility of compelled testimony or evidence.

Arguments

Arguments on behalf of Santosh @ Bhure (Criminal Appeal No. 575 of 2011):

• Lack of Tenancy Proof: There is no documentary evidence to prove that Santosh was the tenant of the apartment where the body was found.

• No Motive: The prosecution failed to establish any motive for Santosh to commit the murder.

• Absence at the Scene: There is no proof that Santosh was present in the apartment at the time of the murder.

• Fingerprint Evidence: Despite the presence of various articles at the crime scene, the FSL report does not indicate if Santosh’s fingerprints were found on them, suggesting a third party may have been involved.

• Doubtful Disclosure Statement: The second disclosure statement leading to the recovery of blood-stained clothes is questionable, especially since the first disclosure yielded no results. The place of recovery was the rooftop of the same building where the murder occurred 13 days prior, raising doubts about the credibility of the police version.

• Ownership of Clothes: There is no admissible evidence to prove that the recovered blood-stained clothes belonged to Santosh. His statement to the police is not admissible in evidence.

• Mere Presence of Body: The mere presence of a dead body in an apartment accessible to others is insufficient to infer guilt, especially without a proven motive or evidence of the deceased being last seen with the accused.

• Explanation for Absence: Santosh’s absence from the scene was explained by his parents requesting him to go to Delhi to confirm information about the crime, which aligns with his surrender in court on 23 September 2000.

Arguments on behalf of the State (Criminal Appeal No. 575 of 2011):

• Tenancy of Apartment: It is proven that the apartment where the body was found was under Santosh’s tenancy.

• Recovery of Blood-Stained Clothes: Blood-stained clothes were recovered based on Santosh’s disclosure statement, and the blood matched the deceased’s blood group.

• Absconding: Santosh remained absconding until 23 September 2000, despite the police visiting his native place, indicating a guilty mind.

• No Explanation: Santosh failed to provide a plausible explanation for the presence of the deceased’s body in his apartment.

Arguments on behalf of the State (Criminal Appeal No. 576 of 2011):

• Admissibility of Expert Report: The High Court erred in discarding the expert report on the suicide letter. The specimen handwriting and signature of Neeraj were admissible for comparison, as per the eleven-judge Constitution Bench decision in State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad [AIR 1961 SC 1808]. The investigating agency is not fettered from obtaining specimen signatures during investigation.

• Neeraj’s Involvement: The suicide letter was recovered from the deceased’s pocket, and a knife was recovered at Neeraj’s instance, which could have caused the injuries on the deceased, as per the doctor’s opinion. This implicates Neeraj in the crime.

• Relevancy of Doctor’s Opinion: The doctor’s opinion regarding the use of the recovered weapon in causing the injuries is relevant, as per the decision in Malti Sahu v. Rahul & Another [(2022) 10 SCC 226].

Arguments on behalf of Neeraj (Criminal Appeal No. 576 of 2011):

• False Recovery of Knife: The recovery of the knife is false. The disclosure statement is not substantiated, and the public witness was a Special Police Officer. The knife carried no blood and could not be connected to the crime.

• Multiple Weapons: The autopsy report indicated injuries of different dimensions, suggesting the use of multiple sharp-edged weapons.

• Doctor’s Opinion: The doctor who opined on the knife was not a scientific expert under Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and was not produced as a witness.

• No Connection: There is no evidence to establish any connection between Neeraj and the deceased or Santosh.

• No Presence at Scene: There is no evidence that Neeraj was present in the vicinity of the crime scene.

• Inadmissibility of FSL Report: The FSL report is inadmissible, as rightly found by the High Court, and there is no other admissible evidence to prove that the suicide letter was written by Neeraj.

• Recovery of Trousers: The recovery of trousers is not at Neeraj’s instance and has no evidentiary value against him. Santosh’s statement about the trousers is inadmissible.

Submissions:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution were proved beyond reasonable doubt?
2. Whether those circumstances are of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused?
3. Whether those circumstances taken cumulatively form a chain so far complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused?
4. Whether they are consistent only with the hypothesis of the accused being guilty?
5. Whether they exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved?

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:

Decision

The Supreme Court, after considering all the evidence and the arguments, held that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of Santosh @ Bhure beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court emphasized that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must be conclusively established and must point only to the guilt of the accused, excluding every other reasonable hypothesis. The Court noted that:

• The prosecution failed to prove that Santosh was the exclusive tenant of the apartment.
• The recovery of blood-stained clothes was doubtful, especially since the place of recovery was the rooftop of the same building where the murder occurred 13 days prior.
• The blood-stained clothes were not conclusively linked to Santosh.
• There was no evidence to prove that Santosh was present at the time of the murder.
• The FSL report did not indicate the presence of Santosh’s fingerprints on any of the articles recovered from the crime scene.
• The prosecution did not establish any motive for Santosh to commit the murder.
• Santosh’s absence from the scene was explained by his parents requesting him to go to Delhi to confirm information about the crime, which aligns with his surrender in court on 23 September 2000.

The Court also held that the High Court had rightly acquitted Neeraj. The Court observed that the High Court had rightly discarded the expert report on the suicide letter as the specimen handwriting and signature of Neeraj were obtained without his consent or a court order. The Court further noted that:

• The recovery of the knife at Neeraj’s instance was doubtful, as the public witness was a Special Police Officer.
• The knife did not have any blood stains and was not conclusively linked to the crime.
• The autopsy report indicated injuries of different dimensions, suggesting the use of multiple sharp-edged weapons.
• The doctor who opined on the knife was not a scientific expert under Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and was not produced as a witness.
• There was no evidence to establish any connection between Neeraj and the deceased or Santosh.
• There was no evidence that Neeraj was present in the vicinity of the crime scene.
• The recovery of trousers was not at Neeraj’s instance and had no evidentiary value against him.

Therefore, the Supreme Court allowed Santosh’s appeal, overturned his conviction, and upheld Neeraj’s acquittal. The Court emphasized that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused.

Flowchart of the Case

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in *Santosh @ Bhure vs. State (G.N.C.T.) of Delhi* underscores the importance of rigorous standards of proof in criminal cases, especially those based on circumstantial evidence. The judgment reinforces the principle that circumstantial evidence must be conclusive and exclude every other reasonable hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. The Court’s meticulous analysis of the evidence, the arguments of both sides, and the relevant legal provisions demonstrates the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the rule of law and protecting the fundamental rights of the accused. The case serves as a reminder that mere suspicion or the presence of a dead body in an accused’s residence is not sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden of proof remains with the prosecution, and the benefit of doubt must always be given to the accused.