Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case Based on Circumstantial Evidence: Surajdeo Mahto vs. State of Bihar (2021)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 04 August 2021

Citation: (2021) INSC 443

Judges: N.V. Ramana, CJI, Surya Kant, J., Aniruddha Bose, J.

Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on circumstantial evidence? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case where the primary evidence was the ‘last seen’ theory and the conduct of the accused. This judgment examines the standards required for conviction based on circumstantial evidence and the importance of a complete chain of evidence. The bench comprised of Chief Justice N.V. Ramana, Justice Surya Kant, and Justice Aniruddha Bose, with the majority opinion authored by Justice Surya Kant.

Case Background

On April 5, 1987, Arun (the deceased) and Sunder Prasad (PW-17) were at Arun’s house in Manawan village when Surajdeo Mahto (Appellant No. 1) and Raj Kumar asked Arun to join them for a movie in Nawada village. Initially hesitant, Arun agreed when Surajdeo offered to pay for the expenses. Sunder Prasad also accompanied them. After the movie, Raj Kumar and Sunder Prasad returned to Manawan on April 6, 1987, but Arun and Surajdeo Mahto did not.

When Arun did not return, his father, Ramji Mahto (PW-16), inquired with Raj Kumar, who stated that Arun and Surajdeo had gone to Arun’s in-laws’ place in Amwa village. As Arun remained missing, Ramji sent Raj Kumar to bring him back and also requested Kailash Mahto (PW-1) to assist in the search. They learned that Arun and Surajdeo had visited Arun’s in-laws on April 6, 1987, staying until April 8, 1987, and then proceeded to Dopta village, where Surajdeo’s sister was married.

Surajdeo returned to Manawan on April 10, 1987, without Arun. When questioned, Surajdeo provided no information about Arun’s whereabouts and subsequently disappeared for a few days. Kailash Mahto (PW-1) visited Dopta on April 10, 1987, but could not find Arun. Ramji Mahto then informed the police, leading to Sanha Entry No. 227 on April 11, 1987.

Meanwhile, Ram Brikch Paswan (PW-8), a Chowkidar, heard rumors of a dead body in Ram Sagar Ahar near Kakolat. On April 11, 1987, he discovered the body, along with an iron dagger and two lungis. The police were informed, and Ramchandra Singh (PW-18), Officer-In-Charge, prepared the inquest report. Additional items, including slippers, a handkerchief, a knife, and a jerrycan, were seized. The body was sent for post-mortem examination.

On April 12, 1987, Ramji Mahto identified the body as his son, Arun, at the Govindpur Police Station. Following the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against Surajdeo Mahto (Appellant No. 1), Prakash Mahto (Appellant No. 2), Chando Mahto, Shankar Mahto, and Raj Kumar Mahto. Charges were framed under Sections 364, 120B, and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

Timeline:

Arguments

The appellants argued that the case rested solely on circumstantial evidence, with no eyewitnesses to the alleged crime. They contended that the prosecution relied on the testimony of relatives and close friends of the complainant, rather than independent witnesses. The defense also questioned the credibility of witnesses who claimed to have seen the deceased with the accused, particularly the identification of Appellant No. 2 in the dark. The failure to send the recovered knife for forensic examination was also highlighted as a flaw in the prosecution’s case. Furthermore, Appellant No. 1 claimed to be a juvenile at the time of the incident, presenting school documents as evidence.

The State of Bihar argued that the concurrent findings of guilt by the lower courts were based on a thorough examination of evidence and did not warrant interference. They asserted that the chain of circumstances was complete, pointing to the established motive, the fact that the deceased was last seen with the appellants, their false statements about the deceased’s whereabouts, and the recovery of incriminating material. The State also argued that the principles of res gestae applied, making statements made by witnesses admissible. They contested the claim of Appellant No. 1 being a juvenile, citing discrepancies in the submitted documents and the delay in raising the plea.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the circumstantial evidence led in the instant case is so impeachable that it establishes the guilt of the appellants beyond any reasonable doubt?
2. Whether Appellant No. 1 was a juvenile on the date of the occurrence?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

Cases

• Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116: This case laid down the five cardinal principles for conviction based on circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court of India referred to this case to reiterate the conditions that must be satisfied before a conviction can be based on circumstantial evidence.
• Mohd. Younus Ali Tarafdar v. State of W.B, (2020) 3 SCC 747: This case reiterated the five cardinal principles for conviction based on circumstantial evidence as laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda. The Supreme Court of India referred to this case to reiterate the conditions that must be satisfied before a conviction can be based on circumstantial evidence.
• R. Damodaran v. State Represented by the Inspector of Police, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 134: This case also reiterated the five cardinal principles for conviction based on circumstantial evidence as laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda. The Supreme Court of India referred to this case to reiterate the conditions that must be satisfied before a conviction can be based on circumstantial evidence.
• Satpal v. State of Haryana, (2018) 6 SCC 610: This case discussed the “last seen” theory and its evidentiary value. The Supreme Court of India referred to this case to explain that the fact of the deceased being last seen in the company of the accused is a weak piece of evidence by itself, but when coupled with other circumstances, it can form the basis of a conviction.
• State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram, (2006) 12 SCC 254: This case dealt with the presumption that arises when the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused. The Supreme Court of India referred to this case to state that once the fact of last seen is established, the accused must offer some explanation as to the circumstances in which he departed the company of the deceased.
• Sukhar v. State of U.P., (1999) 9 SCC 507: This case discussed the admissibility of statements under the principle of res gestae. The Supreme Court of India referred to this case to support that the statements made by one witness to another are admissible in evidence.
• Badruddin Rukonddim Karpude v. State of Maharashtra, (1981) Supp SCC 1: This case also discussed the admissibility of statements under the principle of res gestae. The Supreme Court of India referred to this case to support that the statements made by one witness to another are admissible in evidence.
• Malkhansingh v. State of M.P., (2003) 5 SCC 746: This case discussed the effect of the absence of a Test Identification Parade (TIP). The Supreme Court of India referred to this case to state that the absence of a TIP is not fatal to the prosecution’s case.
• Abuzar Hossain alias Gulam Hossain v. State of West Bengal, (2012) 10 SCC 489: This case discussed the procedure to be followed to determine a claim of juvenility. The Supreme Court of India referred to this case to state that the documents referred to in Rules 12(3)(a)(i) to (iii) of the Juvenile Justice Act shall be sufficient for prima facie satisfaction of the court about the age of the delinquent.
• Ravinder Singh Gorkhi v. State of U.P., (2006) 5 SCC 584: This case dealt with the rejection of a plea of juvenility due to inordinate delay in raising the plea. The Supreme Court of India referred to this case to state that the plea of juvenility was rejected because, inter alia, there was an unexplained inordinate delay in raising the plea.
• Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu v. John David, (2011) 5 SCC 509: This case discussed the permissibility of conviction in cases of circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court of India referred to this case to state that conviction in cases of circumstantial evidence is permissible.

Legal Provisions

• Section 302, Indian Penal Code: This section defines the punishment for murder. The appellants were charged under this section for the murder of Arun.
• Section 34, Indian Penal Code: This section defines the concept of common intention in criminal acts. The appellants were charged under this section for committing the murder with common intention.
• Section 364, Indian Penal Code: This section defines the punishment for kidnapping or abducting in order to murder. Appellant No. 1 was charged under this section.
• Section 120B, Indian Penal Code: This section defines the punishment for criminal conspiracy. The appellants were charged under this section.
• Section 106, Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This section deals with the burden of proving facts especially within the knowledge. The Court referred to this section to state that the accused must offer some explanation as to the circumstances in which he departed the company of the deceased.
• Section 35, Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This section deals with the relevancy of entry in public record. The Court referred to this section to state that the documents submitted by the Appellant No. 1 had not been proved in terms of this section.
• Section 7A, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000: This section sets out the procedure to be followed by a court to determine the claim of juvenility. The Court referred to this section to state that the claim of juvenility can be raised before any court at any stage.

Judgment

The Supreme Court, after considering the evidence and arguments, partly allowed the appeal. The Court upheld the conviction and sentence of Surajdeo Mahto (Appellant No. 1) but acquitted Prakash Mahto (Appellant No. 2). The Court found that the prosecution had successfully established the chain of circumstances against Appellant No. 1, but the evidence was insufficient to prove the guilt of Appellant No. 2 beyond a reasonable doubt.

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [CITATION]: The Court used this case to define the standards for conviction based on circumstantial evidence.
• Mohd. Younus Ali Tarafdar v. State of W.B [CITATION]: The Court relied on this case to reiterate the cardinal principles for conviction based on circumstantial evidence.
• R. Damodaran v. State Represented by the Inspector of Police [CITATION]: The Court used this case to reiterate the cardinal principles for conviction based on circumstantial evidence.
• Satpal v. State of Haryana [CITATION]: The Court used this case to explain the “last seen” theory and its evidentiary value.
• State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram [CITATION]: The Court used this case to state that once the fact of last seen is established, the accused must offer some explanation.
• Sukhar v. State of U.P. [CITATION]: The Court used this case to support that the statements made by one witness to another are admissible in evidence.
• Badruddin Rukonddim Karpude v. State of Maharashtra [CITATION]: The Court used this case to support that the statements made by one witness to another are admissible in evidence.
• Malkhansingh v. State of M.P [CITATION]: The Court used this case to state that the absence of a TIP is not fatal to the prosecution’s case.
• Abuzar Hossain alias Gulam Hossain v. State of West Bengal [CITATION]: The Court used this case to discuss the procedure to be followed to determine a claim of juvenility.
• Ravinder Singh Gorkhi v. State of U.P. [CITATION]: The Court used this case to state that the plea of juvenility was rejected because of inordinate delay in raising the plea.
• Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu v. John David [CITATION]: The Court used this case to state that conviction in cases of circumstantial evidence is permissible.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the strength of the circumstantial evidence against Appellant No. 1, particularly the ‘last seen’ theory, the established motive, and the false information provided by him. The Court also considered the medical evidence, which corroborated the prosecution’s timeline of events. The Court emphasized that the chain of evidence was complete enough to exclude any reasonable doubt about Appellant No. 1’s guilt. However, the Court found that the evidence against Appellant No. 2 was not as robust, lacking a clear motive and sufficient corroborating circumstances.

The Court’s reasoning was based on a careful analysis of the facts presented, combined with the application of relevant legal principles and precedents. The court emphasized that the prosecution’s case must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the chain of evidence must be complete. The Court also considered the conduct of the accused, including their behavior after the crime.

Final Order

The Supreme Court’s final order was as follows:

1. The appeal of Surajdeo Mahto (Appellant No. 1) was dismissed, and his conviction and sentence were upheld.
2. The appeal of Prakash Mahto (Appellant No. 2) was allowed, and he was acquitted of all charges.

The Court found that the chain of circumstances was complete and strong enough to establish the guilt of Surajdeo Mahto beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the evidence against Prakash Mahto was deemed insufficient to establish his guilt.

Implications

This judgment underscores the importance of a complete chain of circumstantial evidence in criminal cases. It reiterates that while circumstantial evidence can be the basis for a conviction, each link in the chain must be established beyond a reasonable doubt. The judgment also highlights the evidentiary value of the ‘last seen’ theory, particularly when coupled with other incriminating circumstances. The Court’s decision to acquit Appellant No. 2 demonstrates that the burden of proof remains on the prosecution, and mere suspicion is not enough to warrant a conviction.

The case also clarifies the procedure for determining a claim of juvenility, emphasizing that the burden of proof rests on the claimant. The Court’s rejection of Appellant No. 1’s juvenility claim due to lack of credible evidence and delay in raising the plea serves as a reminder that such claims must be substantiated with reliable documents and raised in a timely manner.

In summary, this case provides a clear example of how courts should approach cases based on circumstantial evidence, emphasizing the need for a meticulous examination of each piece of evidence and the importance of a complete chain of circumstances.