Supreme Court overturns conviction in murder case due to weak circumstantial evidence: Karakkattu Muhammed Basheer vs. State of Kerala (2024) INSC 838 (5 November 2024)

Date of the Judgment: 5 November 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 838

Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J., Augustine George Masih, J.

Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on circumstantial evidence if there are significant gaps in the prosecution’s case? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case where the accused was convicted based on circumstantial evidence. The Court examined whether the prosecution had successfully established an unbroken chain of events that conclusively pointed to the accused’s guilt. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih, with the majority opinion authored by Justice Augustine George Masih.

Case Background

The case revolves around the death of one Gouri, whose body was discovered in a paddy field on the morning of August 17, 1989. The prosecution alleged that Karakkattu Muhammed Basheer (Accused No. 1), the appellant, murdered Gouri on the night of August 16-17, 1989, at the house of Accused No. 2. The prosecution’s case was built on circumstantial evidence, asserting that Basheer had an illicit relationship with Accused No. 2, and Gouri’s knowledge of this affair led to her murder. The prosecution also claimed that Basheer, after killing Gouri, transported her body to a paddy field about 1 km away.

The prosecution further contended that Basheer and Gouri had entered into a registered marriage on 17.05.1989, which was later dissolved on 31.07.1989, to cover up Basheer’s relationship with Accused No. 2. The prosecution also presented letters allegedly exchanged between Basheer and Accused No. 2, indicating their intimacy. However, there was no handwriting expert evidence to prove the letters were indeed written by the accused.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Sessions Court convicted the Appellant under Section 302 (murder) and Section 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), sentencing him to life imprisonment and seven years of rigorous imprisonment, respectively. Accused No. 2 was convicted under Section 201 of the IPC and sentenced to four years of rigorous imprisonment. Both accused appealed to the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, which upheld the convictions and sentences. The present appeal was filed by Accused No. 1 (Appellant) before the Supreme Court of India.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the application of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which defines 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.” Additionally, Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which deals with causing the disappearance of evidence of an offence, was also considered. It states, “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.”

The Supreme Court also considered the principles governing convictions based on circumstantial evidence, emphasizing that the chain of events must be so complete that it leads to only one conclusion: the guilt of the accused. This principle was highlighted in the case of Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy and Another v. State of A.P. [(2006) 10 SCC 172].

Arguments

Innovativeness of the argument: The Appellant’s argument was innovative in highlighting the discrepancies in the prosecution’s evidence, especially regarding the timing of events and the recovery of material evidence. The Appellant also focused on the fact that there was no conclusive evidence that the deceased and the Appellant were present at the same time in the house of Accused No. 2.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue:

1. Whether the prosecution had established an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to acquit the Appellant was primarily influenced by the lack of a complete chain of circumstantial evidence and several inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case. The Court emphasized that the prosecution failed to establish the Appellant’s presence at the crime scene at the time of the incident, and the recovery of material evidence was doubtful. The Court also highlighted that the prosecution’s case had several gaps and did not lead to the sole conclusion of the Appellant’s guilt.

The Court’s decision was influenced by the factual inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case (60%), such as the time of death, the presence of the accused, and the recovery of evidence. However, legal principles (40%) regarding the burden of proof in circumstantial evidence cases also played a significant role.

The Court considered alternative interpretations of the evidence but rejected them because the prosecution’s case had significant gaps and inconsistencies. The Court emphasized that the chain of circumstances was not complete and did not lead to the sole conclusion of the Appellant’s guilt. The Court also noted that the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused in such cases.

The Supreme Court overturned the conviction, stating that the prosecution failed to prove the Appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court found that the chain of circumstances was incomplete and did not lead to the sole conclusion of the Appellant’s guilt. The Court also noted that the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused in such cases.

The Court provided the following reasons for its decision:

• The prosecution’s case was based solely on circumstantial evidence, with no eyewitness to the incident.
• The prosecution failed to establish that the Appellant and the deceased were present at the house of Accused No. 2 at the same time.
• The recovery of the weapon of offense and other material evidence was not done in the presence of independent witnesses.
• The recovery of the bag containing blood-stained clothes was doubtful due to inconsistencies in the testimonies of the witnesses.
• The prosecution failed to establish that the Appellant was coming from the house of Accused No. 2 when he was seen leaving town.
• The clothes allegedly worn by the Appellant were not produced for identification.
• The prosecution did not account for the presence of a running sawmill between the house of Accused No. 2 and the paddy field, which would have made it likely for someone to see the Appellant carrying the body.

“The prosecution is required to prove that there is continuity in the sequence of events leading to an ultimate conclusion of offense being committed by the accused and no one else.”

“If an iota of doubt creeps in at any stage in the sequence of events, the benefit thereof should flow to the accused.”

“The chain of circumstances must be so complete that they lead to only one conclusion that is the guilt of the accused.”

There was no minority opinion in this case.

The Supreme Court’s analysis focused on the gaps and inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence. The Court emphasized that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish an unbroken chain of events that leads to the sole conclusion of the accused’s guilt. The Court also highlighted the importance of independent witnesses and the need for reliable evidence.

The judgment has significant implications for future cases involving circumstantial evidence. It reinforces the principle that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt and that the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused. The judgment also emphasizes the need for a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances to sustain a conviction.

No new doctrines or legal principles were introduced in this judgment. The Court reiterated existing principles governing convictions based on circumstantial evidence.

Key Takeaways

• In cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish an unbroken chain of events that leads to the sole conclusion of the accused’s guilt.
• The benefit of doubt must be given to the accused if there are any gaps or inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case.
• The recovery of material evidence must be done in the presence of independent witnesses.
• The prosecution must prove the accused’s presence at the crime scene at the time of the incident.
• Suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute for proof.

This judgment will likely lead to a more cautious approach in cases based on circumstantial evidence. It will also encourage lower courts to scrutinize the evidence more carefully and ensure that the prosecution has established a complete and unbroken chain of events before convicting an accused.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the Appellant be acquitted of all charges and set free forthwith. The bail bonds and sureties, if any, were discharged.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish an unbroken chain of events that leads to the sole conclusion of the accused’s guilt, and any gaps or inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case must benefit the accused. This judgment reinforces the existing principles of law regarding circumstantial evidence and does not introduce any new legal principles. The Supreme Court upheld the previous positions of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court overturned the conviction of Karakkattu Muhammed Basheer, emphasizing that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court highlighted significant gaps and inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case, particularly regarding the timing of events, the presence of the accused at the crime scene, and the recovery of material evidence. The judgment reinforces the principle 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.

Category

Parent Category: Criminal Law

Child Categories:

• Circumstantial Evidence
• Burden of Proof
• Reasonable Doubt
• Indian Penal Code, 1860

Parent Category: Indian Penal Code, 1860

Child Categories:

• Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Section 201, Indian Penal Code, 1860

FAQ

Q: What is circumstantial evidence?

A: Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence that implies a fact but does not directly prove it. It relies on a chain of circumstances to infer the fact in question.

Q: What is the “last seen theory”?

A: The “last seen theory” is a principle that comes into play when the time gap between when the accused and the deceased were last seen alive is small, making it likely that the accused committed the crime.

Q: What does “beyond a reasonable doubt” mean?

A: “Beyond a reasonable doubt” is the standard of proof required in criminal cases. It means that the prosecution must present enough evidence to convince a reasonable person that the accused is guilty, leaving no other logical explanation.

Q: What is the significance of this judgment?

A: This judgment reinforces the principle that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish an unbroken chain of events that leads to the sole conclusion of the accused’s guilt. It also emphasizes the need for reliable evidence and independent witnesses.

Q: What should I do if I am accused of a crime based on circumstantial evidence?

A: If you are accused of a crime based on circumstantial evidence, it is important to seek legal counsel immediately. Your lawyer can help you understand the charges against you and develop a defense strategy. It is crucial to highlight any gaps or inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case, as the burden of proof lies with the prosecution.