Supreme Court overturns conviction in murder case due to weak circumstantial evidence: S. Kaleeswaran vs. State (2022) INSC 525

Date of the Judgment: 3 November 2022
Citation: (2022) INSC 525
Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, CJI and Bela M. Trivedi, J.
Can a conviction be upheld when the case rests solely on circumstantial evidence that doesn’t conclusively link the accused to the crime? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question in a criminal appeal, ultimately overturning the conviction of the accused. This case highlights the importance of a complete and unbroken chain of evidence in cases relying on circumstantial evidence. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice Bela M. Trivedi, with the opinion authored by Justice Bela M. Trivedi.

Case Background

The case revolves around the murder of a taxi driver, John Thomas, in Pollachi, Tamil Nadu. According to the prosecution, on July 18, 2007, the accused persons conspired to commit dacoity of John Thomas’s Ambassador car and murder him. The first accused, John Anthonisamy, allegedly hired John Thomas’s taxi. Later, all the accused joined him and proceeded towards Ammapatty. Near an isolated place, they murdered John Thomas and buried his body. The accused then sold the car and shared the proceeds. After John Thomas was missing for a week, his wife filed a missing person complaint on July 25, 2007.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted all five accused under Sections 120(B), 147, 364, 302 (read with 120(B)/149), 201, and 396 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The High Court of Judicature at Madras upheld the Trial Court’s decision, dismissing the appeals filed by the accused. Aggrieved by the High Court’s decision, accused S. Kaleeswaran and John Anthonisamy filed appeals in the Supreme Court. The other three accused did not appeal.

Legal Framework

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

• Section 120B, IPC: This section deals with criminal conspiracy, which is an agreement between two or more persons to commit an illegal act or an act that is not illegal but is done by illegal means.
• Section 147, IPC: This section defines the offense of rioting, which involves violence or disturbance of public peace by an unlawful assembly.
• Section 364, IPC: This section deals with kidnapping or abduction in order to murder.
• Section 302, IPC: This section defines the punishment for murder.
• Section 201, IPC: This section deals with causing disappearance of evidence of an offense or giving false information to screen an offender.
• Section 396, IPC: This section deals with dacoity with murder.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The case rests solely on circumstantial evidence, and the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt.
• The High Court should not have relied on the extra-judicial confession of accused no. 1, as it was not duly proven.
• The credibility of witnesses PW-6 and PW-7 is doubtful, as their statements were recorded six months after the incident.
• The identity of the deceased’s body was not conclusively proven.
• Recoveries from the accused were made from public places and had no link to the crime.
• The “last seen together” theory is unreliable due to the significant time gap between the alleged sighting and the crime.

Respondent-State’s Arguments:

• The concurrent findings of facts by the High Court and Sessions Court should not be disturbed.
• Though the High Court didn’t rely on the extra-judicial confession, other evidence sufficiently connects the accused to the crime.
• The identification of the deceased’s body, incriminating recoveries, and discoveries of articles were duly proven.
• The chain of circumstances leads to the conclusion of the accused’s guilt.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issue:

1. Whether the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt, the entire chain of circumstances, not leaving any link missing for the accused to escape from the clutches of law.

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:

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The principles laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [1984] 4 SCC 116 were followed to evaluate the circumstantial evidence.
• The distinction between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’ guilty, as highlighted in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra [1973] 2 SCC 793, was applied.
• The principle regarding the time gap in the “last seen together” theory from State of Goa vs. Sanjay Thakran (2007) 3 SCC 755 was used to assess the reliability of the evidence.
• The limitations of superimposition as a means of identification, as discussed in Pattu Rajan v. State of Tamil Nadu (2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 354, were considered.
• The importance of motive in circumstantial evidence cases, as stated in Nandu Singh v. State of M.P., was applied.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily concerned with the lack of a complete and convincing chain of circumstantial evidence. The Court emphasized that the prosecution’s case had several weaknesses, including the unproven extra-judicial confession, the delayed statements of key witnesses, the inconclusive identification of the body, and the lack of a clear motive. The Court was not convinced that the circumstances pointed solely to the guilt of the accused, and therefore, the benefit of the doubt had to be given to the accused.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the alternative interpretation that the accused might be guilty, but rejected it because the evidence did not conclusively prove their guilt. The Court emphasized that the prosecution must establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and in this case, the prosecution failed to do so. The decision was reached by carefully analyzing the evidence and applying the established principles of criminal jurisprudence.

The reasons for the decision were:

• The extra-judicial confession was not proven.
• The statements of PW-6 and PW-7 were unreliable due to the delay in recording them.
• The superimposition test was not sufficient to identify the body.
• The prosecution failed to establish a clear motive.
• The chain of circumstances was incomplete.

The Court stated, “Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’ is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.” The Court also observed, “It is well settled that if there is considerable time gap between the persons seeing together and the proximate time of the crime, the circumstances of last seen together, even if proved cannot clinchingly fasten the guilt of the accused.” Further, the Court noted, “…the superimposition technique cannot be regarded as infallible.”

Key Takeaways

• In cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances that leads to the irresistible conclusion of the accused’s guilt.
• Extra-judicial confessions are weak pieces of evidence and must be corroborated by other reliable evidence.
• Statements of witnesses recorded after a significant delay may be considered unreliable.
• Identification of a body using superimposition alone is not sufficient without supporting medical evidence.
• Motive plays an important role in cases based on circumstantial evidence.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that all the accused, including those who did not file an appeal, be set free forthwith if not required in any other case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances that leads to the irresistible conclusion of the accused’s guilt. This judgment reinforces the established principles of criminal jurisprudence regarding the burden of proof and the importance of reliable evidence. There is no change in the previous position of law, but the judgment emphasizes the strict application of existing principles.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court overturned the conviction of the accused in this murder case, emphasizing the importance of a complete and unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence. The Court found that the prosecution’s case was weak, with several deficiencies in the evidence presented. The judgment reinforces the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and any doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused.

Category:

Parent category: Criminal Law
Child category: Circumstantial Evidence
Child category: Burden of Proof
Child category: Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860

FAQ:

Q: What is circumstantial evidence?
A: Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence that suggests a fact but doesn’t prove it directly. For example, finding a suspect’s fingerprints at a crime scene is circumstantial evidence.

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 evidence must be so convincing that there is no other logical explanation than the defendant committed the crime.

Q: Why was the extra-judicial confession not considered?
A: The extra-judicial confession was not considered because it was not duly proven. The prosecution did not produce a handwriting expert to verify the confession, making it unreliable.

Q: What is the “last seen together” theory?
A: The “last seen together” theory suggests that if the accused was last seen with the victim before the crime, it can be used as circumstantial evidence. However, if there is a significant time gap, it may not be reliable.

Q: What is the significance of this judgment?
A: This judgment highlights the importance of a complete and convincing chain of circumstantial evidence in criminal cases. It also emphasizes that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and any weakness in the evidence will benefit the accused.