Date of the Judgment: 12 February 2019
Citation: (2019) INSC 123
Judges: A.M. Khanwilkar, J. and K.M. Joseph, J.
Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on circumstantial evidence? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in the case of Sukhpal Singh vs. State of Punjab. The Court examined the validity of a conviction based on the “last seen” theory, the recovery of a murder weapon, and forensic evidence, ultimately upholding the High Court’s decision. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench consisting of Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and Justice K.M. Joseph, with the opinion authored by Justice K.M. Joseph.
Case Background
On June 27, 1993, an unidentified body was discovered near a canal. Following an investigation, the appellant, Sukhpal Singh, and another individual were charged with murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and also under Section 201 of the IPC for causing disappearance of evidence of the offence. The trial court convicted Sukhpal Singh while acquitting the co-accused. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana affirmed the conviction and sentence. The case against Sukhpal Singh rested on circumstantial evidence, including the “last seen” theory, the recovery of a .38 caliber gun, and forensic evidence.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 26 June 1993 | The deceased was last seen with the accused by PW7, PW8 and PW9. |
| 27 June 1993 | An unidentified body was discovered near a canal. |
| 9 July 1993 | The appellant was arrested along with co-accused. The Maruti van belonging to the deceased was also recovered. |
| 11 July 1993 | A .38 bore revolver, 2 empty cartridges and 3 live cartridges were recovered from the appellant’s house. |
| 26 July 1993 | A bullet was recovered from the deceased’s body during the post-mortem. |
Course of Proceedings
The Trial Court convicted the appellant, while acquitting the co-accused. The High Court upheld the trial court’s decision, affirming the conviction and sentence of the accused-appellant. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The case primarily revolves around Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which defines the punishment for murder. Section 302 of the IPC states:
“Punishment for murder.—Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or 1[imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine.”
The prosecution also invoked Section 34 of the IPC, which deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. Section 34 of the IPC 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.”
Section 201 of the IPC, which deals with causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender, was also invoked. Section 201 of the IPC states:
“Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender.—Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine;
and if the offence which he knows or believes to have been committed is punishable with death, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine;
and if the offence which he knows or believes to have been committed is punishable with imprisonment for life, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
The case also involves the principle of circumstantial evidence, where guilt is inferred from a chain of circumstances rather than direct evidence. The “last seen” theory is a part of this principle, suggesting that if a person was last seen with the deceased, it can be a relevant circumstance in establishing guilt. The court also considered the forensic evidence linking the bullet recovered from the deceased’s body to the appellant’s gun.
Arguments
Appellant’s Arguments:
- The case is based solely on circumstantial evidence.
- An alleged extra-judicial confession was not accepted by the trial court or the High Court.
- The “last seen” theory is not reliable due to contradictions in the testimonies of PW7, PW8, and PW9.
- The recovery of the gun and cartridges is suspicious.
- There was no motive for the appellant to commit the murder.
- The appellant was suspended and had deposited his revolver and ammunition at the Police Lines, Faridkot, prior to the incident.
Respondent’s Arguments:
- The circumstances form a complete chain pointing to the appellant’s guilt.
- The deceased’s van was recovered at the instance of the appellant.
- Forensic evidence establishes that the bullet recovered from the deceased’s body was fired from the gun recovered from the appellant.
- The recovery included the gun, empty cartridges, and live cartridges.
- Injuries noted in the post-mortem suggest a fight between the deceased and the appellant, indicating a possible motive.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions | Party |
|---|---|---|
| Circumstantial Evidence | Case is based only on circumstantial evidence. | Appellant |
| Circumstances form a complete chain pointing to the appellant’s guilt. | Respondent | |
| In a case of circumstantial evidence, motive assumes great significance. Absence of evidence of any motive with the appellant to do away with the deceased, is fatal to the prosecution case. | Appellant | |
| Last Seen Theory | The “last seen” theory is not reliable due to contradictions in the testimonies of PW7, PW8, and PW9. | Appellant |
| The prosecution has been able to establish that the appellant was indeed last seen with the deceased before his death and recovery of the body. | Respondent | |
| The evidence of three witnesses relating to last seen has been relied upon by two courts. It may be true that there may be certain minor contradictions. | Respondent | |
| Recovery of Weapon | The recovery of the gun and cartridges is suspicious. | Appellant |
| The van belonging to the deceased was recovered at the instance of the appellant. | Respondent | |
| The gun was recovered from him and the bullet which has been found to have caused the fatal injury to the deceased and which was recovered from the body of the deceased has been fired from the appellant’s gun. | Respondent | |
| Motive | There was no motive for the appellant to commit the murder. | Appellant |
| Injuries noted in the post-mortem suggest a fight between the deceased and the appellant, indicating a possible motive. | Respondent | |
| Suspension of Appellant | The appellant was suspended and had deposited his revolver and ammunition at the Police Lines, Faridkot, prior to the incident. | Appellant |
| There appears to be no evidence to show that the appellant was actually placed under suspension as is sought to be claimed by him in the questioning under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. | Respondent |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section, but the issues can be inferred from the arguments and the court’s analysis:
- Whether the conviction can be sustained solely on circumstantial evidence?
- Whether the “last seen” theory was established beyond reasonable doubt?
- Whether the recovery of the gun and cartridges was valid and reliable?
- Whether the forensic evidence linking the bullet to the appellant’s gun was conclusive?
- Whether the absence of a proven motive is fatal to the prosecution’s case?
- Whether the appellant’s claim of suspension and prior surrender of the gun is credible?
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the conviction can be sustained solely on circumstantial evidence? | Yes | The court found that the circumstantial evidence, when considered together, formed a complete chain pointing towards the guilt of the appellant. |
| Whether the “last seen” theory was established beyond reasonable doubt? | Yes | The court relied on the testimonies of PW7, PW8, and PW9, finding them credible despite minor contradictions. |
| Whether the recovery of the gun and cartridges was valid and reliable? | Yes | The court found the recovery of the gun and cartridges from the appellant’s house to be credible, based on the testimony of PW15. |
| Whether the forensic evidence linking the bullet to the appellant’s gun was conclusive? | Yes | The Forensic Science Laboratory report confirmed that the bullet recovered from the deceased’s body was fired from the appellant’s gun. |
| Whether the absence of a proven motive is fatal to the prosecution’s case? | No | The court held that while motive can strengthen the prosecution’s case, its absence is not fatal when other circumstantial evidence is strong. |
| Whether the appellant’s claim of suspension and prior surrender of the gun is credible? | No | The court found no evidence to support the appellant’s claim of suspension and prior surrender of the gun. |
Authorities
The court relied on the following authorities:
Cases:
- No specific cases were cited in the judgment.
Legal Provisions:
- Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Defines the punishment for murder.
- Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
- Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Deals with causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender.
| Authority | Type | How it was used by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Legal Provision | The court relied on this provision to establish the crime of murder. |
| Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Legal Provision | The court relied on this provision to establish that the accused acted in furtherance of a common intention. |
| Section 201, Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Legal Provision | The court relied on this provision to establish the offence of causing disappearance of evidence. |
Judgment
| Submission | How it was treated by the Court |
|---|---|
| The case is based solely on circumstantial evidence. | The court found that the circumstantial evidence, when considered together, formed a complete chain pointing towards the guilt of the appellant. |
| The “last seen” theory is not reliable due to contradictions in the testimonies of PW7, PW8, and PW9. | The court relied on the testimonies of PW7, PW8, and PW9, finding them credible despite minor contradictions. |
| The recovery of the gun and cartridges is suspicious. | The court found the recovery of the gun and cartridges from the appellant’s house to be credible, based on the testimony of PW15. |
| There was no motive for the appellant to commit the murder. | The court held that while motive can strengthen the prosecution’s case, its absence is not fatal when other circumstantial evidence is strong. |
| The appellant was suspended and had deposited his revolver and ammunition at the Police Lines, Faridkot, prior to the incident. | The court found no evidence to support the appellant’s claim of suspension and prior surrender of the gun. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court:
- The court relied on Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 to establish the crime of murder.
- The court relied on Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 to establish that the accused acted in furtherance of a common intention.
- The court relied on Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 to establish the offence of causing disappearance of evidence.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following points:
- The consistent testimonies of PW7, PW8, and PW9, which established the “last seen” circumstance, were crucial. The court found these witnesses to be credible despite minor contradictions.
- The recovery of the .38 bore revolver, along with empty and live cartridges, from the appellant’s house was a significant factor.
- The forensic report conclusively linked the bullet recovered from the deceased’s body to the appellant’s revolver, providing strong evidence of his involvement.
- The court emphasized that while motive is relevant, its absence is not fatal when other circumstantial evidence is strong and forms a complete chain.
- The court rejected the appellant’s claim of suspension and prior surrender of the gun due to lack of evidence.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Last Seen Theory | 30% |
| Recovery of Weapon | 35% |
| Forensic Evidence | 30% |
| Lack of Evidence for Suspension | 5% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 60% |
| Law | 40% |
Logical Reasoning:
Issue: Whether the conviction can be sustained solely on circumstantial evidence?
Evidence: “Last seen” theory, recovery of weapon, forensic report.
Analysis: Credibility of witnesses, reliability of recovery, conclusive forensic link.
Conclusion: Circumstantial evidence forms a complete chain pointing towards guilt.
Issue: Whether the “last seen” theory was established beyond reasonable doubt?
Evidence: Testimonies of PW7, PW8, and PW9.
Analysis: Credibility of witnesses, minor contradictions not fatal.
Conclusion: “Last seen” theory established beyond reasonable doubt.
Issue: Whether the recovery of the gun and cartridges was valid and reliable?
Evidence: Testimony of PW15, recovery from appellant’s house.
Analysis: Credibility of investigating officer, proper procedure followed.
Conclusion: Recovery of the gun and cartridges was valid and reliable.
Issue: Whether the forensic evidence linking the bullet to the appellant’s gun was conclusive?
Evidence: Forensic Science Laboratory report.
Analysis: Bullet from deceased’s body matched appellant’s gun.
Conclusion: Forensic evidence was conclusive.
Issue: Whether the absence of a proven motive is fatal to the prosecution’s case?
Evidence: Lack of established motive.
Analysis: Motive strengthens but not essential when other evidence is strong.
Conclusion: Absence of motive not fatal to the prosecution’s case.
Issue: Whether the appellant’s claim of suspension and prior surrender of the gun is credible?
Evidence: Appellant’s statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
Analysis: No evidence to support claim of suspension or prior surrender.
Conclusion: Appellant’s claim not credible.
The court rejected the appellant’s defense that he had surrendered his gun, stating, “We are not inclined to place any reliance on appellant’s version that the gun was actually surrendered by him and making use of the gun, a shot was fired and he has been implicated particularly as he has not proved that he has been placed under suspension.”
The court also noted the importance of the forensic evidence, stating, “The report of the forensic laboratory is clinching. The report of the forensic laboratory reads as follows: ‘One point .38 inch jacketed bullet marked B/1 contained in parcel ‘A’ has been fired from .38 inch revolver No.A-673.’”
Regarding motive, the court clarified, “But the question is whether in a case of circumstantial evidence inability on the part of the prosecution to establish a motive is fatal to the prosecution case. We would think that while it is true that if the prosecution establishes a motive for the accused to commit a crime it will undoubtedly strengthen the prosecution version based on circumstantial evidence, but that is far cry from saying that the absence of a motive for the commission of the crime by the accused will irrespective of other material available before the court by way of circumstantial evidence be fatal to the prosecution.”
Key Takeaways
- Conviction can be based on circumstantial evidence if it forms a complete chain pointing to the guilt of the accused.
- The “last seen” theory is a relevant circumstance in cases of circumstantial evidence.
- Forensic evidence linking the weapon to the crime is crucial.
- While motive is relevant, its absence is not fatal if other evidence is strong.
Directions
No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that a conviction can be sustained on circumstantial evidence alone if it forms a complete and unbroken chain that unerringly points to the guilt of the accused. The court reiterated that while motive is a relevant factor, its absence is not fatal to the prosecution’s case if other circumstances are established beyond a reasonable doubt. This judgment reinforces the established principles of circumstantial evidence and the importance of forensic evidence in criminal cases. There is no change in the previous positions of law.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Sukhpal Singh, affirming the High Court’s decision. The judgment underscores the significance of circumstantial evidence, the “last seen” theory, and forensic evidence in establishing guilt in criminal cases. The court found that the prosecution had successfully established a chain of circumstances that pointed to the appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The absence of a proven motive was not considered fatal to the prosecution’s case, given the strong circumstantial and forensic evidence.