Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal Based on Weak Circumstantial Evidence: State of Punjab vs. Kewal Krishan (21 June 2023)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 21 June 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 583

Judges: Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Manoj Misra

Can a conviction be sustained solely on circumstantial evidence, especially when the links in the chain of circumstances are weak? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in the case of State of Punjab vs. Kewal Krishan. The court examined whether the High Court of Punjab and Haryana was justified in overturning a trial court’s conviction in a murder case, emphasizing the need for strong and conclusive circumstantial evidence. This judgment highlights the importance of a complete and unbroken chain of evidence to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Supreme Court bench comprised of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Manoj Misra. The judgment was authored by Justice B.V. Nagarathna.

Case Background

The case revolves around the death of an individual who was found dead in his house with multiple injuries. The prosecution’s case was built on circumstantial evidence, including the deceased being last seen with the accused, the discovery of the body, an alleged extra-judicial confession, and the recovery of a knife. The trial court found the accused guilty, but the High Court reversed this decision, citing doubts about the strength of the evidence.

Timeline

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court emphasized that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove each incriminating circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt. The circumstances must form a complete chain, pointing unerringly towards the accused’s guilt and excluding any other reasonable hypothesis of innocence. The Court also discussed Section 106 of the Evidence Act, stating that it does not absolve the prosecution of its primary burden to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

Section 106 of the Evidence Act states, “When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.” The Court clarified that this section is only applicable when the prosecution has already established a prima facie case.

Arguments

The prosecution argued that the deceased was last seen with the accused, and the autopsy report suggested that the death occurred around the same time. They contended that the burden was on the accused to explain when he left the deceased’s company. The prosecution also highlighted the recovery of the knife and the extra-judicial confession as evidence of the accused’s guilt.

The defense argued that the prosecution’s evidence was unreliable and did not conclusively establish the accused’s guilt. The defense pointed out the inconsistencies in the timeline of events, the lack of a serological report on the knife, and the doubtful nature of the extra-judicial confession. The accused claimed he was arrested on 12.12.1998, not 25.12.1998, as claimed by the prosecution.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

• Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the trial court’s conviction based on circumstantial evidence.
• Whether the incriminating circumstances were proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Whether the circumstances formed a complete chain pointing towards the accused’s guilt.
• Whether the High Court ignored or misread any material piece of evidence.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court referred to the following authorities:

• State of U.P. v. Sahai, (1982) 1 SCC 352 – Supreme Court of India
• State of M.P. v. Paltan Mallah, (2005) 3 SCC 169 – Supreme Court of India
• Basheera Begam v. Mohd. Ibrahim, (2020) 11 SCC 174 – Supreme Court of India
• Shivaji Chintappa Patil v. State of Maharashtra (2021) 5 SCC 626 – Supreme Court of India

The Court also considered Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872.

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the lack of conclusive evidence and the inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case. The Court emphasized that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove each incriminating circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court also highlighted the importance of a complete and unbroken chain of evidence to establish guilt. The Court was particularly concerned about the unreliable nature of the last seen evidence, the lack of a serological report on the knife, and the doubtful nature of the extra-judicial confession.

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

The Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Punjab vs. Kewal Krishan reinforces the following key principles:

• Circumstantial Evidence: In cases based on circumstantial evidence, each incriminating circumstance must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Chain of Evidence: The circumstances must form a complete and unbroken chain that points unerringly towards the guilt of the accused.
• Burden of Proof: Section 106 of the Evidence Act does not absolve the prosecution of its primary burden to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Weak Evidence: Extra-judicial confessions are a weak form of evidence and cannot be the sole basis for conviction.
• Judicial Scrutiny: Appellate courts should be cautious while interfering with acquittals, unless there is a perverse appreciation of evidence.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of evidence that excludes all reasonable hypotheses of innocence. The judgment reinforces the principle that the burden of proof remains with the prosecution, and Section 106 of the Evidence Act does not shift this burden unless a prima facie case has been established. This judgment does not change any previous positions of law but rather reinforces existing principles.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision to acquit the accused. The Court found that the prosecution’s case was based on weak and inconclusive circumstantial evidence, which did not establish the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The judgment emphasizes the importance of a strong and complete chain of evidence in cases based on circumstantial evidence.