Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court set aside the conviction of the appellant who had been found guilty under Sections 302, 364, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code by the Trial Court and whose conviction was affirmed by the High Court. The Court held that there was no direct or credible circumstantial evidence linking the appellant to the alleged kidnapping and murder. It ruled that both courts below erred in convicting the appellant based on misreading of evidence and failure to apply the settled principles of circumstantial evidence. The appellant was acquitted of all charges and ordered to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.
Facts
The deceased was an auto driver residing in Nellore with his family. The appellant, also associated with the auto business, was known to them. On 22 March 2016, a complaint was filed by the deceased’s mother against the appellant and his friends for passing obscene remarks and threatening women. An FIR was registered, and a cross FIR was lodged by the appellant.
On 26 March 2016, while the deceased was returning in his auto, it was alleged that the appellant and others forcibly dragged him into another auto near a banyan tree at Talpagiri Colony. The following day, his body was discovered near Sarvepalli Reservoir with multiple injuries. Based on the complaint of the deceased’s father, an FIR was registered for kidnapping, later altered to include murder under Section 302 IPC.
The prosecution’s case primarily rested on the statements of two witnesses (PW-5 and PW-6), who allegedly saw the deceased being dragged by the accused. However, during trial, they turned hostile and admitted only to witnessing a commotion (‘galata’) without identifying anyone involved.
Issues
- Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 302, 364, and 201 IPC was sustainable in the absence of direct eyewitness testimony.
- Whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution satisfied the “five golden principles” (panchsheel) governing proof of cases based on circumstantial evidence.
- Whether motive and prior animosity could alone establish guilt without corroborating evidence.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The appellant argued that there was no direct eyewitness account linking him to the kidnapping or murder. The entire conviction was based on circumstantial evidence, particularly the testimony of PW-5 and PW-6. Both witnesses turned hostile, retracting earlier claims and admitting they did not see the accused drag the deceased or identify any person involved in the alleged abduction.
It was further submitted that there was no evidence to support the “last seen together” theory, and without proof of the deceased being last seen in the appellant’s company, the conviction was unsustainable. The defence emphasized that mere prior enmity arising from earlier complaints could not substitute for legally admissible evidence proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State argued that there was a clear motive for the crime stemming from prior disputes and FIRs between the families. It maintained that even though PW-5 and PW-6 had turned hostile, circumstantial evidence still pointed towards the appellant’s involvement. The State relied on the principle that when a person is last seen with the deceased, the burden shifts upon him to explain what happened thereafter. Since the appellant and his friends allegedly abducted the deceased and failed to explain his death, they should be held responsible.
The State urged that the circumstantial chain, though partly weakened, was sufficient to uphold conviction.
Analysis of the Law
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that conviction based on circumstantial evidence must satisfy the five golden principles laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116:
- The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn must be fully established.
- All facts must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt.
- The circumstances must exclude every possible hypothesis except the one sought to be proved.
- The chain of evidence must be complete.
- There must be no reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with innocence.
The Court found that in this case, the prosecution had failed on every count. The testimonies of PW-5 and PW-6 did not establish kidnapping or abduction. No evidence proved that the deceased was last seen with the appellant. Mere proof of prior animosity or motive was insufficient without substantive evidence.
Precedent Analysis
- Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116: Cited to emphasize the “panchsheel” of circumstantial evidence, mandating strict adherence before convicting.
- The Court implicitly distinguished prior rulings where the last seen theory, supported by corroborative evidence, sustained convictions. Here, the absence of credible last seen evidence or recovery connecting the accused to the crime rendered the chain incomplete.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court carefully reviewed the evidence of PW-5 and PW-6 and concluded that their testimonies only confirmed witnessing a commotion, not the identity of the persons involved. They did not corroborate the prosecution’s theory of abduction or provide any account of the deceased being in the appellant’s company.
It observed: “In the absence of such evidence and the fact that both PW-5 and PW-6 have turned hostile, it cannot be held that A-1 was involved in the incident and that he was responsible for the killing of the deceased, on the basis of the last seen theory.”
Further, the Court stressed that while motive was established, it was not enough without supporting evidence. The High Court and Trial Court, therefore, erred in misreading the evidence and convicting the appellant.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments of the Trial Court and High Court, and acquitted the appellant of all charges under Sections 302, 364, and 201 IPC. He was directed to be released immediately, unless required in any other case. The Court concluded that “the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the commission of the offence” and reiterated that convictions must not rest on speculation or incomplete circumstantial chains.
Implications
This ruling underscores the judiciary’s commitment to safeguarding against wrongful convictions in cases dependent on circumstantial evidence. It reaffirms that motive, suspicion, or hostility cannot substitute for concrete proof. The judgment strengthens the precedent that unless the chain of evidence is complete and satisfies the five golden principles, courts must lean towards acquittal. This decision serves as a caution to lower courts against misreading hostile witness testimony or stretching the “last seen” theory without corroboration.
FAQs
1. What are the five golden principles of circumstantial evidence?
They were laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) and require that circumstances be fully established, consistent only with guilt, exclude all other hypotheses, form a complete chain, and leave no room for innocence.
2. Why was the appellant acquitted in this case?
The key witnesses turned hostile and failed to prove kidnapping or last seen evidence. With the chain of circumstantial evidence broken, the Court held that guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
3. Can motive alone justify conviction for murder?
No. The Supreme Court clarified that while motive may explain why a crime was committed, it cannot by itself establish guilt without direct or circumstantial evidence linking the accused to the crime.
