Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Murder Case: State of Punjab vs. Kewal Krishan (21 June 2023)

Date of the Judgment: 21 June 2023

Citation: (2023) INSC 587

Judges: B.V. Nagarathna, J. and Manoj Misra, J.

Can a conviction be sustained solely on circumstantial evidence if the chain of circumstances is incomplete? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case where the High Court had reversed a trial court’s conviction in a murder case. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court had correctly evaluated the circumstantial evidence and if its decision was a plausible one.

The Supreme Court, comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Manoj Misra, delivered the judgment. The opinion was authored by Justice Manoj Misra.

Case Background

The case revolves around the murder of an individual whose body was discovered in his house on December 12, 1998. The prosecution’s case was built on circumstantial evidence. The key pieces of evidence included the deceased being last seen with the accused on December 10, 1998, the discovery of the body with multiple injuries, an extra-judicial confession by the accused, and the recovery of a knife allegedly used in the crime.

The prosecution contended that the deceased was last seen alive with the accused at approximately 7:00 PM on December 10, 1998. The deceased’s body was found on December 12, 1998, at around 1:00 PM. The autopsy, conducted on the same day, indicated that the death could have occurred within two days due to shock and hemorrhage from incised wounds. The accused allegedly made an extra-judicial confession on December 25, 1998, and also led the police to the recovery of the knife used in the crime. The trial court convicted the accused based on these circumstances.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court convicted the accused based on the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution. The accused then appealed to the High Court of Punjab & Haryana. The High Court, upon reviewing the evidence, noted discrepancies in the prosecution’s timeline, particularly regarding the date of the accused’s arrest. The High Court also found the witness testimony regarding the last seen circumstance to be unreliable and the extra-judicial confession to be doubtful. Consequently, the High Court reversed the trial court’s decision and acquitted the accused.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court referenced the established legal principles regarding circumstantial evidence. The Court emphasized that for a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove each incriminating circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt. The circumstances must form a complete chain that unerringly points towards the accused’s guilt, excluding all other reasonable hypotheses consistent with innocence.

The Court also discussed Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which 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 provision does not relieve the prosecution of its primary burden to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden on the accused arises only when the prosecution has presented a prima facie case that, if believed, could sustain a conviction.

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellant (State of Punjab):

• The State argued that there was no proven enmity between the witnesses and the accused, and therefore, the testimony of the prosecution witnesses should not have been doubted.
• The State contended that the deceased was last seen alive with the accused, and the autopsy report indicated that the death occurred around the same time. Thus, the burden was on the accused to explain when he left the company of the deceased.
• The State asserted that the High Court erred in reversing the trial court’s conviction.

Arguments by the Respondent (Kewal Krishan):

• The respondent claimed that he was falsely implicated and was arrested on December 12, 1998, not on December 25, 1998, as claimed by the prosecution.
• The respondent argued that the prosecution’s evidence was unreliable and that the chain of circumstances was incomplete.

Innovativeness of the argument: The State’s argument that the burden of proof shifted to the accused under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, after the deceased was last seen with him, was a key point of contention.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the High Court ignored or misread any material piece of evidence, resulting in a miscarriage of justice?
2. Whether there was any perversity in the High Court’s appreciation of evidence?
3. Whether the view taken by the High Court was a plausible view?

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

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to acquit the accused, finding no reason to interfere with the High Court’s assessment of the evidence.

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court relied on State of U.P. v. Sahai [(1982) 1 SCC 352]* to establish the principle that it can interfere with an acquittal if the High Court’s reasoning is erroneous.
• The Court followed State of M.P. v. Paltan Mallah [(2005) 3 SCC 169]* which stated that the Supreme Court should be slow to interfere with a High Court’s acquittal unless there is a perverse appreciation of evidence.
• The Court cited Basheera Begam v. Mohd. Ibrahim [(2020) 11 SCC 174]* to reiterate that an acquittal should not be interfered with unless it is vitiated by perversity.
• The Court interpreted Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872* in light of Shivaji Chintappa Patil v. State of Maharashtra [(2021) 5 SCC 626]*, clarifying that the prosecution’s burden is not absolved, even if the burden shifts to the accused for facts within their knowledge.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the incomplete chain of circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution. The Court found the following points to be significant:

• The unreliability of the last seen witness (PW-2) and the doubtful date of arrest of the accused.
• The time gap between the deceased being last seen with the accused and the discovery of the body.
• The lack of a serologist report to connect the recovered knife to the crime.
• The improbability of the extra-judicial confession made to PW-3.
• The failure of the prosecution to rule out other possibilities of the crime.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court’s decision was more heavily influenced by the factual inadequacies of the prosecution’s case (60%) than by the legal principles (40%), emphasizing the importance of establishing a complete chain of circumstances in cases based on circumstantial evidence.

The Supreme Court noted that the High Court’s decision was based on a careful analysis of the evidence and that there was no reason to interfere with the acquittal. The Court emphasized that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove each incriminating circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt, forming a complete chain that excludes all other reasonable possibilities. The Court cited the following from the judgment:

“In a case based on circumstantial evidence not only do each of the incriminating circumstances have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt but those incriminating circumstances must constitute a chain so far complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability it is the accused who has committed the crime…”

“Section 106 of the Evidence Act does not absolve the prosecution of discharging its primary burden of proving the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt.”

“Normally, this Court is reluctant to interfere with an order of acquittal. But when it appears that the High Court has on an absolutely wrong process of reasoning and a legally erroneous and perverse approach to the facts of the case and ignoring some of the most vital facts, acquitted the respondent and the order of acquittal passed by the High Court has resulted in a grave and substantial miscarriage of justice, extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India may rightfully be exercised.”

Key Takeaways

• In cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances that unerringly points towards the accused’s guilt.
• The burden of proof remains primarily on the prosecution, and Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, does not absolve the prosecution from proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Extra-judicial confessions are considered weak evidence and cannot be the sole basis for conviction.
• The Supreme Court is reluctant to interfere with a High Court’s acquittal unless there is a clear error in the High Court’s reasoning or a miscarriage of justice.

Directions

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

Specific Amendments Analysis

There were no specific amendments discussed in the judgment.

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 circumstances that unerringly points towards the accused’s guilt. The judgment also reinforces that the burden of proof remains primarily on the prosecution, and Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, does not absolve the prosecution from proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt. This case does not introduce any new law but reiterates the well-established principles of criminal jurisprudence.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision to acquit the accused. The Court emphasized that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly regarding the chain of circumstantial evidence. The judgment reinforces the importance of a thorough and reliable investigation and the need for the prosecution to establish each incriminating circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt in cases based on circumstantial evidence.