Supreme Court overturns conviction in murder case due to weak circumstantial evidence: Suresh vs State of Haryana (21 August 2018)

Date of the Judgment: 21 August 2018
Citation: [Not Available in Source]
Judges: N. V. Ramana, J. and Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J.
Can a conviction be upheld when based solely on circumstantial evidence that doesn’t form a complete chain? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a criminal appeal, ultimately overturning a conviction due to significant gaps in the prosecution’s case. The bench, comprising Justices N. V. Ramana and Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, found that the circumstantial evidence presented was not strong enough to conclusively prove the guilt of the accused, leading to their acquittal.

Case Background

The case revolves around the death of Chander Bhan, who was an election agent for Maha Singh, a losing candidate in a Panchayat election held on December 15, 1994, in the village of Sundawas. On the day of the election, there was a quarrel between the supporters of Maha Singh and Dharampal, the winning candidate. Following this, a First Information Report (FIR) was registered against Maha Singh and one Darya for firing gunshots.

Later, during the night of December 15 and 16, 1994, Dharampal alias Dharam, Sobhat Singh, and Suresh, all supporters of Maha Singh, visited Chander Bhan. They proposed falsely implicating Dharampal, the winning candidate, in a counter case. They then took Chander Bhan to Hisar. Umed Singh, while waiting for transport, saw the four of them traveling in an auto-rickshaw. The prosecution alleged that they went to an abandoned house in Adarsh Nagar, Hisar, where Chander Bhan was shot.

Subsequently, Dharampal and Sobhat Singh took the injured Chander Bhan to the City Civil Hospital, Hisar, where he died. Following this, Sobhat Singh filed a complaint against Umed Singh, Dharampal (son of Beg Raj), and Dharambir, alleging they were responsible for Chander Bhan’s death.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted Sobhat Singh and Suresh for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Lachman for offenses under the Arms Act. The Trial Court acquitted Dharampal, Umed Singh, and Dharambir, noting the lack of motive and evidence against them.

Appeals were filed in the High Court. The High Court upheld the conviction of Sobhat Singh and Suresh, emphasizing the motive, recovery of incriminating articles, and extra-judicial confession. The High Court also directed the accused to pay damages to the deceased’s family.

The accused then appealed to the Supreme Court against their conviction, while Sobhat Singh also appealed against the acquittal of Dharampal, Umed Singh, and Dharambir.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which deals with the punishment for murder, and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which addresses acts done by several persons in furtherance of a common intention.

Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 states:
“Punishment for murder.—Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 states:
“Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.—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.”

The Arms Act, 1959 was also invoked, specifically Sections 25, 30, 54, and 59, related to the possession and use of firearms.

Arguments

The appellants argued that the case was based on circumstantial evidence, which did not form a complete chain. They also questioned the credibility of key witnesses and the admissibility of the extra-judicial confession.

The State contended that the accused were hardened criminals who killed Chander Bhan for political rivalry. They argued that the recovery of weapons and other materials from Adarsh Nagar bolstered their case.

The innovativeness of the argument by the appellants lies in their challenge to the chain of circumstantial evidence, by highlighting the inconsistencies and contradictions in the prosecution’s case and the testimonies of key witnesses.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues:

• Whether the case involves direct evidence, and if not, whether the chain of circumstantial evidence is complete?
• Whether the conviction of the appellants based on the evidence is sustainable?
• Whether the extra-judicial confession made before PW-16 is admissible?
• Whether the acquittal of Dharampal son of Beg Raj, Umed Singh son of Beg Raj and Dharambir in Sessions Case No. 62 of 1997 is valid?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the Criminal Appeal No(s). 1445-1446 of 2012, setting aside the conviction and punishment of Sobhat Singh and Suresh. The Court dismissed the Criminal Appeal No. 1458 of 2012, upholding the acquittal of Dharampal, Umed Singh, and Dharambir.

The Court directed the authorities to release the accused-appellants if not required in any other case.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court used Thomas Starkie, A Practical treatise on the law of evidence, and digest of proofs, in civil and criminal proceedings (vol. I, 4th Eds., 1876) to define the nature of circumstantial evidence and the role of motive, highlighting that while motive is a factor, it is not conclusive on its own.
• The Court relied on Sir Fitz James Stephen, Introduction to Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to understand the relevance of facts in drawing inferences about the facts in issue.
• The Court referred to Wharton’s Criminal Evidence (1955) to emphasize that while motive is relevant, it must be weighed with other evidence in homicide cases.
• The Court used Peacock v. The King, 13 CLR 619 to underscore that while a case might be capable of an inference of guilt, the jury must be convinced beyond reasonable doubt.
• The Court applied the definition of circumstantial evidence from Anant Chintaman Lagu v. State of Bombay, AIR 1960 SC 500, noting that it must form a network with no escape for the accused.
• The Court adopted the test for circumstantial evidence from Hanumant and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1952 SC 343, stressing that the circumstances must be fully established and consistent only with the accused’s guilt.
• The Court used Deonandan Mishra v. State of Bihar, AIR 1955 SC 801 and Govinda Reddy v. State of Mysore, AIR 1960 SC 29 as examples of cases applying the test from Hanumant case.
• The Court used Charan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1967 SC 520 to explain that the chain of evidence must be complete, leaving no reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with innocence.
• The Court applied the conditions for circumstantial evidence from Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622, emphasizing the need for fully established circumstances consistent only with guilt.
• The Court used Prakash v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2013 SC 1474 to refer to the tests in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda as ‘Panchsheel of proof in Circumstantial Cases’.
• The Court relied on Shivaji Genu Mohite v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1973 SC 55 to explain that while motive is important, the credibility of eye-witnesses is also crucial.
• The Court referred to Satbir v. Surat Singh, (1997) 4 SCC 192, Harjinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2004) 11 SCC 253, Shankarlal v. State of Rajasthan, (2004) 10 SCC 632, and Thangaiya v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2005) 9 SCC 650 to highlight the need for a chance witness to provide a credible explanation for their presence.
• The Court used Re Periyaswami Moopan, AIR 1931 Mad. 177 to explain that a co-accused’s confession can only be used as additional evidence if other independent evidence is already present.
• The Court used Haricharan Kurmi v. State of Bihar, AIR 1964 SC 1184 to emphasize that a co-accused’s confession cannot be the sole basis for conviction.
• The Court used Latesh v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2018 SC 659 to explain the concept of reasonable doubt, stating that it must be a practical one, not based on abstract theories.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by its assessment of the evidence and the circumstances of the case. The Court found that the prosecution’s case was based on circumstantial evidence, which was not strong enough to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court highlighted several key points that weighed on its mind:

• Incomplete Chain of Evidence: The Court noted that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances linking the accused to the crime. There were significant gaps in the narrative, particularly between the time the accused left the village and when they appeared at the hospital.
• Unreliable Witness Testimony: The Court found the testimonies of key witnesses, such as the deceased’s wife (PW-13) and Umed Singh (PW-14), to be unreliable due to contradictions, improvements, and doubtful presence. The Court also noted that the wife was an interested witness due to prior enmity.
• Doubtful Extra-Judicial Confession: The Court did not accept the extra-judicial confession made before Zile Singh (PW-16) as it was made under suspicious circumstances and lacked credibility.
• Investigative Deficiencies: The Court pointed out several deficiencies in the investigation, including the lack of forensic evidence, contradictory statements by the investigating officer, and the failure to examine the author of the FSL report.
• Motive: The Court questioned the motive presented by the prosecution, noting that it was strange to believe that the accused would kill their own supporter to implicate a rival.

The court’s reasoning was based on a careful analysis of the facts and the law, emphasizing the importance of a complete chain of evidence in cases of circumstantial evidence. The court also highlighted the need for credible witness testimony and a thorough investigation, to ensure justice.

Logical Reasoning

The logical reasoning of the court for Issue 1, “Whether the case involves direct evidence, and if not, whether the chain of circumstantial evidence is complete?”, is as follows:

The logical reasoning of the court for Issue 2, “Whether the conviction of the appellants based on the evidence is sustainable?”, is as follows:

The logical reasoning of the court for Issue 3, “Whether the extra-judicial confession made before PW-16 is admissible?”, is as follows:

The logical reasoning of the court for Issue 4, “Whether the acquittal of Dharampal son of Beg Raj, Umed Singh son of Beg Raj and Dharambir in Sessions Case No. 62 of 1997 is valid?”, is as follows:

The Court rejected the prosecution’s argument that the accused were hardened criminals, stating that such argumentsare not a substitute for concrete evidence. The Court emphasized that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, which it failed to do in this case.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Suresh vs State of Haryana highlights the importance of a complete and credible chain of circumstantial evidence in criminal cases. It underscores that convictions cannot be based on mere suspicion or weak evidence. The Court’s meticulous scrutiny of the witness testimonies, the extra-judicial confession, and the investigative process demonstrates its commitment to upholding the principles of justice and fairness. This judgment serves as a reminder that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution, and that the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.