Supreme Court Acquits Appellant in Murder Case: "Unbroken Chain of Circumstantial Evidence Not Established; Flawed Recovery Process and Procedural Lapses Undermine Prosecution's Case"

Share this article

Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court of India set aside the conviction of the appellant under Sections 302 (Murder) and 201 (Causing Disappearance of Evidence) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

The key reasons for the acquittal were:

Inconsistencies in the prosecution’s version of events.
Doubts regarding the credibility of witness statements.
Serious procedural lapses in the recovery of alleged incriminating material.
Failure to establish motive or corroborate key evidence.

The Court ruled that since the entire case was based on circumstantial evidence, every link in the chain must conclusively establish guilt—a standard which the prosecution failed to meet. Consequently, the Court overturned the High Court’s judgment and ordered the immediate release of the appellant unless detained in any other case.

Facts

1. Incident and Discovery of the Deceased’s Body

The deceased left home on November 29, 2013, and did not return.
His father lodged a missing person’s report on November 30, 2013.
On December 1, 2013, a dead body was found floating in a pond at a stone quarry in Village Dondekala Matia.
Police registered a MERG Intimation (Ex. P-17) on December 2, 2013, and an FIR (No. 228/2013) on December 3, 2013.
Post-mortem confirmed homicidal death caused by head injuries from both sharp and blunt objects.

2. Prosecution’s Allegations Against the Appellant

The prosecution claimed that:

The appellant had a financial dispute with the deceased over borrowed money.
He, along with a co-accused (later acquitted), took the deceased in an auto-rickshaw to the crime scene.
The appellant and the co-accused assaulted the deceased with an iron pipe and a battleaxe (Gandasa).
After the murder, they smashed his head with a stone, removed his pants, tied a rope around his waist, and threw his body into the pond to destroy evidence.

3. Alleged Evidence Against the Appellant

The murder weapon (a stone and a Gandasa) was allegedly recovered from Kachna Pond at the appellant’s instance.
Two gold chains belonging to the deceased were allegedly found on the appellant’s rooftop.
A forensic report confirmed human blood on the recovered stone.
Witnesses claimed to have seen the deceased last in the company of the appellant.

4. Trial and Conviction

The Trial Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to life imprisonment for murder (Section 302 IPC) and five years imprisonment for destruction of evidence (Section 201 IPC).
The High Court upheld the conviction, holding that the presence of human blood on the stone and the unexplained possession of the deceased’s gold chains by the appellant were sufficient to prove guilt.
The appellant challenged the conviction in the Supreme Court.

Issues Considered by the Supreme Court

Did the prosecution establish an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence to prove the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt?
Was the recovery of the alleged murder weapon and gold chains legally admissible and reliable?
Was the “last seen” theory sufficiently corroborated to link the appellant to the crime?
Was the appellant entitled to the benefit of doubt due to procedural lapses in the investigation?

Petitioner’s Arguments (Defense of the Appellant)

1. Unreliable and Contradictory Evidence in Recovery Process

The alleged recoveries were not credible because:
- Witness PW-22 admitted he signed documents without reading them.
- Multiple documents were signed at the police station, not at the crime scene, raising doubts about police fabrication.
- The gold chains were recovered from an open rooftop, accessible to anyone.
- No witness confirmed that the appellant was present during the recovery.

2. Weakness of the “Last Seen” Theory

The testimonies of prosecution witnesses contradicted each other regarding:
- Where and when the deceased was last seen with the appellant.
- The statement of PW-23 was not corroborated by other key witnesses.
The Court has previously held that the last-seen theory alone is insufficient to prove guilt without corroborating evidence.

3. Failure to Prove Motive

The prosecution claimed that the appellant had a financial dispute with the deceased but provided no evidence of the alleged loan.
Testimony from PW-2 did not directly link the appellant to the alleged enmity with the deceased.

4. Flaws in the Test Identification Parade (TIP) of the Gold Chains

The witness who identified the chains contradicted police claims about the process followed.
The gold chains had no unique identification marks.
The deceased’s wife received the chains from police before the TIP, making the identification process unreliable.

Respondent’s Arguments (Prosecution’s Case)

The recovery of the murder weapon (stone and Gandasa) was made at the appellant’s instance.
Human blood was found on the stone, proving its use in the crime.
The appellant failed to explain how he possessed the deceased’s gold chains.
The last-seen theory was corroborated by witness testimony.

Analysis of the Law

1. Circumstantial Evidence Standard

The Supreme Court relied on Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116, which established that circumstantial evidence must:
- Be fully established.
- Be consistent only with the accused’s guilt.
- Exclude every possible hypothesis of innocence.
- Form a complete chain leading to the accused’s guilt.

2. Recovery Under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act

Recovery statements are admissible only if they directly lead to a discovery.
Delhi Administration v. Bal Krishan (1972) 4 SCC 659 – Recovery statements must be corroborated by independent evidence.

3. Reliability of “Last Seen” Theory

Mustkeem v. State of Rajasthan (2011) 11 SCC 724 – Last-seen evidence alone cannot establish guilt unless strongly corroborated.

4. Legality of Recovery Process

Varun Chaudhary v. State of Rajasthan (2011) 12 SCC 545 – If recovery memos are signed at the police station instead of the recovery site, their credibility is significantly weakened.

Court’s Reasoning

The prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of evidence.
The recovery process was highly questionable, with multiple procedural lapses.
The last-seen theory was unreliable due to contradictions in witness testimonies.
The Test Identification Parade (TIP) of the gold chains was flawed and not legally admissible.
Since the case rested solely on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution’s failure to prove an unbroken chain warranted acquittal.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The conviction was set aside, and the appellant was directed to be released immediately, unless detained in another case.

Implications of the Judgment

Reinforces strict legal standards for convictions based on circumstantial evidence.
Emphasizes the need for proper police procedures in evidence recovery.
Strengthens safeguards against wrongful convictions based on unreliable evidence.

S4 Download

Also Read – Bombay High Court Modifies Murder Conviction to Culpable Homicide: “Incident Was a Sudden Quarrel Without Premeditation; Prosecution Failed to Prove Murder Beyond Reasonable Doubt”

Supreme Court Acquits Appellant in Murder Case: “Unbroken Chain of Circumstantial Evidence Not Established; Flawed Recovery Process and Procedural Lapses Undermine Prosecution’s Case”