Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case Based on Circumstantial Evidence: Rahul vs. State of Haryana (3 March 2021)

Date of the Judgment: 3 March 2021

Citation: Criminal Appeal No. 262 of 2021 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.3449 of 2019)

Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J., R. Subhash Reddy, J.

Can a conviction for murder be sustained when there is no direct eyewitness testimony, relying instead on circumstantial evidence? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a recent case, examining the validity of a conviction based on a chain of events and forensic evidence. This case highlights the importance of circumstantial evidence in criminal trials, especially in cases where direct evidence is lacking.

The Supreme Court, in this case, examined an appeal against a High Court judgment which had upheld the conviction of the appellant for murder. The primary contention of the appellant was that the conviction was based on circumstantial evidence alone, and that the prosecution had not established a clear link between the accused and the crime.

The bench comprised Justices Ashok Bhushan and R. Subhash Reddy, with the majority opinion authored by Justice R. Subhash Reddy.

Case Background

On August 7, 2010, a telephonic message was received at the Charkhi Dadri Police Station, reporting a dead body of a young boy in a pit on panchayat land near the Kaliyana-Jhojhu road. The police found the body of an unknown person with firearm injuries. Two empty brass cartridges with “8 MM PF” markings, a pair of chappals, and blood-stained earth were recovered from the scene. The police noted marks indicating the body had been dragged and tyre marks of a small vehicle.

The deceased had two firearm shots on both sides of his waist, a deep wound on the back of his right ear, and a cut on the left jaw. A case was registered under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959.

On August 14, 2010, the deceased’s mother, Kasturi Devi (PW-12), and brother, Anil Kumar (PW-3), identified the deceased as Jitender, based on news reports. Investigations revealed that the appellant, Rahul, had a suspicion that his wife, Priyanka, had an illicit relationship with Jitender. The prosecution alleged that on August 6, 2010, Rahul, along with his father-in-law Ramesh and brother-in-law Ashok, took Jitender to a secluded location where they murdered him. Rahul was arrested on August 21, 2010. A country-made pistol and two live cartridges were recovered from his aunt’s house on August 24, 2010, based on his disclosure statement.

After investigation, a final report was filed against Rahul and Ramesh. They were charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC, and Rahul was also charged under Section 25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, on 17.10.2012, convicted Rahul and Ramesh under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC, and Rahul under Section 25 of the Arms Act. Both were sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 20,000 each, with an additional two years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000 for Rahul under the Arms Act. The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, on 06.12.2016, upheld Rahul’s conviction but acquitted Ramesh, stating the prosecution failed to prove its case against Ramesh beyond a reasonable doubt.

Legal Framework

The case involves the following legal provisions:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section defines the 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 (IPC): This section deals with 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.”
• Section 25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959: This section specifies the punishment for possessing prohibited arms.

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The murder was a blind one, and the conviction was solely based on circumstantial evidence.
• PW-3 (Anil) and PW-12 (Kasturi), the brother and mother of the deceased, were interested witnesses, and their testimonies contained improvements and contradictions. PW-3 was even declared hostile.
• The motive was introduced for the first time by these witnesses, stating that a panchayat was held against the deceased for calling Priyanka.
• The alleged recovery of the weapon was not proven, and no independent witness was called to substantiate it.
• Suspicion, however grave, cannot replace proof. The tests for conviction based on circumstantial evidence were not met.
• The ‘last seen together’ theory does not necessarily lead to the inference that the accused committed the crime.

The counsel for the appellant relied on the following cases:

• State of Goa etc. v. Sanjay Thakran & Anr. Etc. [ (2007) 3 SCC 755 ] to argue that the tests for circumstantial evidence were not satisfied.
• Kanhaiya Lal v. State of Rajasthan [(2014) 4 SCC 715] to argue that ‘last seen together’ does not by itself lead to the inference that the accused committed the crime.
• Wakkar & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2011) 3 SCC 306] to argue that the evidence and circumstances must form a chain of events to prove guilt based on circumstantial evidence.

State’s Submissions:

• Apart from PW-3 and PW-12, several other witnesses were examined to prove the appellant’s guilt.
• The motive was established: the deceased had a relationship with the appellant’s wife.
• The forensic report supported the prosecution’s case, confirming the recovered weapon was used in the crime.
• The testimonies of PW-3 and PW-12 should not be discarded as they are corroborated by other evidence.
• The prosecution has proved the chain of events, and the post-mortem report and recoveries lead to the conclusion that the appellant committed the offense.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issue:

1. Whether the circumstantial evidence on which the conviction of the appellant (Rahul) is recorded, establishes the guilt of the accused or not.

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 authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court distinguished State of Goa etc. v. Sanjay Thakran & Anr. Etc. [(2007) 3 SCC 755], stating that while the tests for circumstantial evidence were laid down, they were satisfied in this case.
• The Court distinguished Kanhaiya Lal v. State of Rajasthan [(2014) 4 SCC 715], stating that there was something more to establish the connection between the accused and the crime.
• The Court distinguished Wakkar & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2011) 3 SCC 306], stating that the prosecution had established a complete chain of events to prove guilt based on circumstantial evidence.
• The Court followed Kanhaiya Lal & Ors. etc. v. State of Rajasthan [(2013) 5 SCC 655], Hari Obula Reddy v. State of A.P. [(1981) 3 SCC 675], Kartik Malhar v. State of Bihar [(1996) 1 SCC 614], Ram Chander & Ors. v. State of Haryana [(2017) 2 SCC 321], Dalbir Kaur v. State of Punjab [(1976) 4 SCC 158] and Harbans Kaur v. State of Haryana [(2005) 9 SCC 195], stating that the evidence of interested witnesses can be relied upon if it is intrinsically reliable or inherently probable and that relatives are not untruthful witnesses.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court, in upholding the conviction, placed significant weight on the following aspects:

• Complete Chain of Circumstantial Evidence: The Court emphasized that the prosecution had successfully established a complete chain of events that pointed towards the appellant’s guilt. This included the fact that the deceased was last seen with the appellant, the recovery of the murder weapon based on the appellant’s disclosure, and the forensic evidence linking the weapon to the crime.
• Reliability of Witness Testimony: Despite the fact that PW-3 and PW-12 were related to the deceased, the Court found their testimonies to be reliable and corroborated by other evidence. The Court noted that close relatives are natural witnesses and their testimonies should not be discarded solely on the basis of their relationship.
• Forensic Evidence: The forensic report was critical in establishing the link between the recovered weapon and the crime. The fact that the bullet extracted from the deceased’s body matched the weapon recovered at the instance of the appellant was a significant factor in the Court’s decision.
• Motive: The Court also considered the motive behind the crime, i.e., the appellant’s suspicion of his wife’s illicit relationship with the deceased. Although motive alone cannot be the sole basis for conviction, in this case, it was a supporting factor that strengthened the prosecution’s case.

The Court’s reasoning was a combination of fact and law, with a notable emphasis on the factual circumstances and the chain of evidence.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court rejected the argument that the ‘last seen together’ theory was insufficient, stating that it was a crucial link in the chain of evidence, and it was corroborated by other evidence. The Court also dismissed the argument that the recovery of the weapon was unreliable, stating that the disclosure statement of the appellant and the testimony of the investigating officer were sufficient to prove the recovery.

The Supreme Court held that the prosecution had successfully proven the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court found that the circumstantial evidence, including the ‘last seen together’ theory, the recovery of the weapon, and the forensic evidence, formed a complete chain that pointed towards the appellant’s guilt.

The Court stated, “If we closely scrutinize the oral evidence on record coupled with the documentary evidence, we are of the considered view that there is a complete chain of evidence which would lead to irresistible conclusion that the appellant-accused has committed the offence and none else.”

The Court further observed, “From the evidence on record, we are of the considered view that prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt by leading cogent evidence. Further, the motive is also proved by the prosecution.”

The Court also noted, “Even the recoveries are sufficiently proved with the cogent evidence.”

Key Takeaways

• Circumstantial evidence can be the basis of conviction if it forms a complete chain pointing towards the guilt of the accused.
• The testimony of close relatives is admissible and can be relied upon if it is credible and corroborated by other evidence.
• Forensic evidence plays a crucial role in establishing the link between the accused and the crime.
• The ‘last seen together’ theory, when supported by other evidence, is a significant factor in proving guilt.
• Motive, though not essential for conviction, can strengthen the prosecution’s case.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellant, after completing 14 years of sentence, is at liberty to make a representation for remission of sentence. The concerned authority/Jail Superintendent is to send the representation to the Government, which is to be considered in accordance with the policy of the State.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that a conviction can be based on circumstantial evidence if the prosecution establishes a complete chain of events that points towards the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. This case reinforces the principle that circumstantial evidence, when strong and consistent, can be as compelling as direct evidence in establishing guilt in criminal cases. The Supreme Court did not change any previous position of law, but rather reaffirmed the existing legal principles regarding circumstantial evidence and the admissibility of testimony from interested witnesses.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction of the appellant, Rahul, for murder. The Court concluded that the prosecution had successfully established a complete chain of circumstantial evidence, including the ‘last seen together’ theory, the recovery of the weapon, and the forensic evidence, which proved the appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This case underscores the importance of circumstantial evidence in criminal trials and the validity of convictions based on such evidence when it is strong and consistent.