Supreme Court upholds acquittal in triple murder and robbery case: Ashish Jain vs. Makrand Singh (2019)

Date of the Judgment: 14 January 2019

Citation: (2019) INSC 24

Judges: N.V. Ramana, J. and Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J.

Can a conviction be sustained solely on circumstantial evidence if there are doubts about the reliability of key witnesses and the recovery of incriminating materials? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a recent case involving a gruesome triple murder and robbery. The Court examined the High Court’s decision to acquit the accused, focusing on the strength of the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution. This judgment highlights the importance of a thorough investigation and the need for reliable evidence to secure a conviction. The bench comprised Justices N.V. Ramana and Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, with the judgment authored by Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar.

Case Background

The case revolves around the murder of Premchand Jain, his wife Anandi Devi, and their unmarried daughter Preeti. Premchand Jain was a money lender and pawn broker. On the intervening night of 4th and 5th January 2003, the accused, who were known to the family as electricians, allegedly entered the Jain residence under the pretext of doing electrical repairs. They are accused of murdering the family and robbing them of Rs. 30,000 in cash and approximately Rs. 8,00,000 worth of gold and silver ornaments. After committing the crime, they locked the house from the outside and fled.

Ashish Jain (PW26), the nephew of the deceased Premchand, grew suspicious when he found the house locked from the outside on January 5, 2003. After failing to locate the family, he informed the police. The police broke open the lock and discovered the three bodies on the third floor of the house. They also found signs of a robbery, with a broken chest and missing valuables. Electrical equipment was also found at the scene. The police arrested the accused the next morning, and allegedly recovered the stolen items, weapons, and blood-stained clothes from them.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court found the accused guilty and sentenced them to capital punishment. The case then went to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. A Division Bench of the High Court could not reach a consensus, with one judge favoring acquittal and the other concurring with the Trial Court’s judgment. The matter was then referred to a third judge, who agreed with the acquittal. Consequently, the High Court acquitted the accused by a majority of 2:1. The complainant, Ashish Jain, and the State of Madhya Pradesh then appealed to the Supreme Court against this acquittal.

Legal Framework

The accused were charged under the following legal provisions:

• Sections 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for murder with common intention.
• Sections 394 read with 34 of the IPC for robbery with common intention.
• Section 449 of the IPC for house-trespass in order to commit an offence punishable with death.
• Sections 11 read with 13 of the Madhya Pradesh Dakaiti and Vyapharan Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam (MPDVPKA).
• Additionally, Makrand Singh was charged under Section 25(1)(b)(a) read with Section 27 of the Arms Act for possessing a country-made pistol.

The Supreme Court also considered the interplay between Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, which relates to the right against self-incrimination.

Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act states:
“Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.”

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellant (Complainant and State):

• The recovery of the stolen articles from the possession of the accused is sufficient for conviction.
• The High Court erred in giving undue importance to minor shortcomings in the investigation.
• The “last seen” evidence of PW12 and PW20, along with the recoveries, should not be ignored.
• The recovery of the key used to lock the house from outside at the instance of the first accused is conclusive proof of their involvement.
• The presence of blood group ‘O’ on the clothes of the accused, which was also the blood group of the deceased, further implicates them.

Arguments by the Respondent (Accused):

• There are discrepancies in the evidence relating to the arrests and recoveries.
• The recovery witnesses are all relatives of the deceased, and an independent witness was not examined.
• The identification of the ornaments by the mortgagees was not done properly, and the police had taken an active interest in the identification process.
• The “last seen” circumstance was not proved.
• The confessions leading to the recovery of incriminating material were not voluntary but were obtained under pressure and coercion.

Submissions Categorized by Main Submissions

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in acquitting the accused based on the evidence on record?
2. Whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt?
3. Whether the recovery of incriminating materials was done in accordance with law and if the confessions leading to such recoveries were voluntary?

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?

• State of Rajasthan v. Islam and Ors., (2011) 6 SCC 343, State of U.P. v. Awdhesh, (2008) 16 SCC 238, and State (Delhi Admin.) v. Laxman Kumar and Ors., (1985) 4 SCC 476: These cases were cited to emphasize that the Supreme Court should not interfere with a High Court’s acquittal unless there are compelling reasons, such as a palpable error or miscarriage of justice. The Court followed this principle and found no such error in the High Court’s decision.
• Selvi v. State of Karnataka, (2010) 7 SCC 263: This case was heavily relied upon to explain the relationship between Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and Article 20(3) of the Constitution. The Court held that the confessions leading to the recovery were involuntary and thus, inadmissible.
• Kathi Kalu Oghad [AIR 1961 SC 1808 : (1961) 2 Cri LJ 856 : (1962) 3 SCR 10]: This case was used to clarify that self-incriminatory information given without any threat is admissible, and Section 27 is not within the prohibition of Article 20(3) unless compulsion was used. The Court found that compulsion was used in this case, rendering the confessions inadmissible.
• Sonvir v. State (NCT) of Delhi, (2018) 8 SCC 24: This case was cited to affirm that Section 5 of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920, is directory and not mandatory. While a magisterial order is desirable, it is not essential for taking fingerprints. However, in the facts of the present case, the court found that the absence of a magisterial order cast doubts on the credibility of the fingerprint evidence.
• Shankaria v. State of Rajasthan, (1978) 3 SCC 435: This case was relied upon in Sonvir v. State (NCT) of Delhi, (2018) 8 SCC 24 to affirm that Section 5 is directory and not mandatory.
• Mohd. Aman v. State of Rajasthan, (1997) 10 SCC 44: This case was relied upon in Sonvir v. State (NCT) of Delhi, (2018) 8 SCC 24 to emphasize that it is desirable to take fingerprints under the order of a Magistrate to dispel suspicion.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the acquittal was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Unreliable “Last Seen” Evidence: The court found the testimony of the “last seen” witnesses (PW12 and PW20) to be inconsistent and unreliable. The absence of crucial details in the initial FIR, despite the witnesses allegedly informing the complainant, cast doubt on their credibility.
• Involuntary Confessions and Flawed Recoveries: The court determined that the confessions leading to the recovery of stolen articles, weapons, and other incriminating materials were not voluntary. The Investigating Officer admitted that the accused were interrogated multiple times before confessing, which indicated coercion. This made the recovery evidence inadmissible.
• Lack of Proper Identification Procedures: The identification of the recovered ornaments was not done correctly. The recovered jewelry was not mixed with similar items, and there was no clear proof that the identified ornaments belonged to the pledgors. The police also took an active role in the identification process, raising suspicion.
• Weak Forensic Evidence: The forensic evidence was not conclusive. The blood stains on the accused’s clothes were of human blood, but the blood group was not conclusively linked to the deceased. The fingerprint evidence was also considered unreliable due to the absence of a magisterial order and the possibility of tampering.
• Flawed Investigation: The court noted that the investigation was not properly conducted. The delay in arresting the accused, despite their known addresses, and the multiple interrogations before confessions, raised serious doubts about the integrity of the investigation.
• Prejudice due to DIG’s Inference: The court noted that the inference made by the DIG of Police at the scene of the crime, that the crime was committed by three electricians, likely prejudiced the investigation and the case against the accused.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning

The Court emphasized that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The circumstantial evidence was weak, and the recovery of incriminating materials was found to be based on involuntary statements, which rendered them inadmissible. The Court also noted the flawed investigation and the lack of proper identification procedures. In light of these factors, the Court concluded that the High Court’s decision to acquit the accused was justified.

The Court quoted from Selvi v. State of Karnataka, (2010) 7 SCC 263:
“The concerns about the “voluntariness” of statements allow a more comprehensive account of this right. If involuntary statements were readily given weightage during trial, the investigators would have a strong incentive to compel such statements—often through methods involving coercion, threats, inducement or deception.”

The Court quoted from Kathi Kalu Oghad [AIR 1961 SC 1808 : (1961) 2 Cri LJ 856 : (1962) 3 SCR 10]:
“If the self-incriminatory information has been given by an accused person without any threat, that will be admissible in evidence and that will not be hit by the provisions of clause (3) of Article 20 of the Constitution for the reason that there has been no compulsion.”

The Court quoted from Sonvir v. State (NCT) of Delhi, (2018) 8 SCC 24:
“The observation cannot be read to mean that this Court held that under Section 4 police officers are not entitled to take fingerprints until the order is taken from the Magistrate. The observations were made that it is desirable to take the fingerprints before or under the order of the Magistrate to dispel any suspicion…”

The Court also noted that a reasonable suspicion or doubt persisted regarding the guilt of the accused, and in such a scenario, the scales of criminal justice tilt in favor of the acquittal of the accused.

Key Takeaways

• Importance of Voluntary Confessions: Confessions extracted under coercion or pressure are inadmissible and cannot be used to secure a conviction. This highlights the need for fair and ethical investigation practices.
• Reliability of Circumstantial Evidence: Cases based on circumstantial evidence require a strong chain of evidence. Minor inconsistencies or doubts can weaken the prosecution’s case and lead to acquittal.
• Proper Identification Procedures: Identification procedures must be conducted fairly and in accordance with established protocols. Any deviation can raise suspicion and undermine the credibility of the evidence.
• Role of Forensic Evidence: Forensic evidence must be conclusive and reliable. Inconclusive or improperly obtained forensic evidence cannot be relied upon for conviction.
• Need for Thorough Investigation: A thorough and unbiased investigation is crucial. Any prejudice or preconceived notions can lead to a flawed investigation and a miscarriage of justice.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not issue any specific directions in this judgment, other than dismissing the appeals and upholding the acquittal of the accused.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that convictions based on circumstantial evidence require a strong and reliable chain of evidence, and that confessions obtained under coercion are inadmissible. The judgment reinforces the importance of adhering to proper procedures during investigations and highlights the need for reliable forensic evidence. There was no change in the previous position of law, but the judgment provided a detailed analysis of the application of existing legal principles in the context of circumstantial evidence and involuntary confessions.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the High Court’s acquittal of the accused in a triple murder and robbery case. The Court found the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution to be weak and unreliable, particularly the “last seen” evidence, the recovery of stolen property, and the forensic evidence. The Court emphasized that confessions obtained under coercion are inadmissible and that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The judgment underscores the importance of a thorough and unbiased investigation and the need for reliable evidence to secure a conviction.