Supreme Court Acquits Appellants in Murder Case, Citing Failure to Prove Circumstantial Evidence: ”Prosecution Must Establish a Complete Chain of Events to Shift Burden Under Section 106 of Evidence Act”

Court’s Decision:

The Supreme Court of India acquitted the accused-appellants Nusrat Parween, Ahmad Khan, and Abdul Rahman Khan, reversing their convictions for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish a complete and conclusive chain of circumstances to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Citing the principles of criminal jurisprudence, the Court emphasized that circumstantial evidence must be so complete that it excludes all other hypotheses except guilt. The Court extended the benefit of this judgment to Abdul Rahman Khan, who had not appealed, under Article 142 of the Constitution.

Facts:

1. Background of the Incident:
   • The deceased, Hamida Parween, was the widow of Abdul Hamid Khan and lived in Holding No. 13 with her three children and the accused persons.
   • The property was the subject of a dispute between the deceased and the accused, who allegedly pressured her to relinquish her share.
   • A complaint had been lodged earlier by the deceased under Section 107 read with Section 116(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) against the accused.
2. The Crime:
   • On 11th March 1997, the deceased was found dead in her locked home. The post-mortem revealed signs of asphyxia caused by strangulation, confirming homicidal death.
3. Investigation:
   • A missing person’s report was filed by her brother, who suspected foul play.
   • The FIR alleged that the accused had a motive to kill the deceased to usurp her property.
   • The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, primarily the motive and the “last seen together” theory.

Issues:

1. Whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to convict the accused for murder.
2. Whether the prosecution adequately established the accused’s motive and their presence at the crime scene to justify shifting the burden of proof under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act.

Petitioner’s Arguments:

1. Failure to Prove Motive:
   • The prosecution failed to produce credible evidence linking the accused to a property dispute or establishing any immediate cause for the murder.
   • The alleged complaint by the deceased was neither presented nor proved in court.
2. Flaws in the “Last Seen Together” Theory:
   • Witnesses, including the deceased’s son and neighbors, did not confirm seeing the accused with the deceased on the day of the incident.
   • There was no evidence to establish the exclusive presence of the accused in the house.
3. Misplaced Reliance on Section 106:
   • The prosecution could not establish foundational facts to justify shifting the burden of proof to the accused.
4. Lack of Evidence:
   • Key witnesses were not examined, and testimonies were inconclusive.
   • The prosecution’s case was based on conjectures and lacked corroboration.

Respondent’s Arguments:

1. Motive Established:
   • The ongoing property dispute and prior complaints indicated a motive for the accused to murder the deceased.
2. Circumstantial Evidence:
   • The accused were last seen quarreling with the deceased on the morning of the incident and fled after locking the house.
3. Medical Evidence:
   • The post-mortem confirmed that the cause of death was strangulation, aligning with the prosecution’s theory.
4. Shifting the Burden of Proof:
   • The accused failed to explain the circumstances under which the deceased was found dead, justifying the invocation of Section 106 of the Evidence Act.

Analysis of the Law:

1. Circumstantial Evidence:
   • The Court reiterated that circumstantial evidence must form a complete and unbroken chain leading exclusively to the guilt of the accused. It must exclude all reasonable hypotheses of innocence.
2. Section 106 of the Evidence Act:
   • The burden to explain facts within the special knowledge of the accused arises only after the prosecution establishes foundational facts.
3. Reliance on Precedents:
   • The Court relied on Sharad Birdhichand Sharda v. State of Maharashtra and other judgments to stress the high standard required for convictions based on circumstantial evidence.

Precedent Analysis:

• In Sharad Birdhichand Sharda v. State of Maharashtra, the Court held that all circumstances in a chain must be proven conclusively to convict based on circumstantial evidence.
• In Shambu Nath Mehra v. State of Ajmer, it was emphasized that the burden of proof remains with the prosecution, and Section 106 applies only in exceptional cases.

Court’s Reasoning:

1. Failure to Prove Motive:
   • The alleged property dispute was not substantiated by concrete evidence.
   • The complaint filed by the deceased against the accused was neither presented nor proved in court.
2. Weakness of “Last Seen Together” Theory:
   • Key witnesses, including the deceased’s son and neighbors, did not corroborate the presence of the accused in the house on the day of the incident.
   • The prosecution failed to establish that the accused were exclusively present with the deceased before her death.
3. Inapplicability of Section 106:
   • The prosecution did not establish the foundational facts required to invoke Section 106 and shift the burden of proof to the accused.
4. Failure of Investigation:
   • The prosecution’s case was riddled with gaps, including the absence of key witnesses and the failure to produce critical evidence.

Conclusion:

The Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It criticized the trial and High Courts for overlooking the deficiencies in evidence and acquitted the accused, granting them the benefit of doubt.

Implications:

1. Strengthened Standards for Circumstantial Evidence:
   • The judgment reinforces that convictions cannot be based on incomplete or speculative circumstantial evidence.
2. Safeguard Against Miscarriages of Justice:
   • The decision highlights the importance of rigorous scrutiny in cases based solely on circumstantial evidence to prevent wrongful convictions.
3. Clarification on Section 106:
   • The judgment underscores that Section 106 cannot be used to compensate for gaps in the prosecution’s case.

Also Read – Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court Appoints Arbitrator for Disputes Air Force, Highlights Design Changes and Delays by Respondents as Grounds for Arbitration During Contract’s Currency, Emphasizes Timely Resolution Essential for Fair Contractual Progress