Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court set aside the conviction of a man sentenced to life imprisonment for allegedly murdering his mother, holding that the prosecution failed to prove homicidal death beyond reasonable doubt. The Court emphasized that the “chain of circumstances was incomplete, motive was unproven, and the medical evidence left open the possibility of suicide.”
A Bench of Justices K.V. Viswanathan and K. Vinod Chandran observed that the courts below erred in convicting the appellant solely on circumstantial evidence without meeting the five golden principles laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116.
The Court declared:
“Death by suicide cannot be ruled out; there is no definite medical opinion of homicide. Conviction based on conjecture would be disregarding settled caution.”
Facts
The prosecution alleged that the appellant strangled his mother to death and attempted to cremate her secretly. A Deputy Superintendent of Police received a call about a suspicious death in Talani village. Upon arrival, officers found the deceased’s body on a funeral pyre with visible neck marks and a head injury.
The police halted the cremation, conducted an inquest, and later registered an FIR. The autopsy indicated “asphyxia due to strangulation,” and a post-mortem report showed abrasions and a ligature mark around the neck. The prosecution claimed that the appellant’s motive was to inherit property and that his behavior—arranging an “illegal cremation” and failing to inform authorities—was incriminating.
At trial, he and another accused (his relative) were convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. The High Court upheld the conviction, even though it acquitted the co-accused, citing insufficient evidence.
Issues
- Whether the deceased’s death was homicidal or suicidal.
- Whether the prosecution proved an unbroken chain of circumstances consistent only with the guilt of the accused.
- Whether the recovery of articles and forensic reports were reliable.
- Whether failure to investigate key leads and delay in recording witness statements fatally weakened the prosecution’s case.
- Whether the principle under Section 106 of the Evidence Act (burden of explanation on the accused) was correctly applied.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The appellant’s counsel, Senior Advocate K. Parmeshwar, argued that the medical evidence was inconclusive. The postmortem doctor admitted that absence of ligature marks on the back of the neck was possible in hanging cases, suggesting potential suicide.
He highlighted that the deceased had a medical history of schizophrenia, supported by a hospital certificate dated 26 September 1989, which the prosecution deliberately withheld from evidence.
The defense contended that the recovery of an iron pipe and rope was unreliable, as the panch witness (PW-2) had been influenced by the deceased’s brother, who had property disputes with the family. The same witness admitted he could not read Marathi, signed documents written by police, and was contradictory about his presence during recovery.
It was further argued that the co-accused’s acquittal on identical evidence proved the prosecution’s inconsistencies. The defense also pointed to delayed witness statements, lack of DNA or blood group analysis, and contradictions in testimonies of investigating officers, thereby undermining the credibility of the case.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State maintained that the evidence established homicide and that the appellant’s conduct—attempting to cremate his mother secretly—showed guilt under Section 8 of the Evidence Act.
It argued that the appellant’s silence and failure to report the incident indicated complicity, as “no son would remain indifferent to his mother’s death.” The prosecution cited Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra (2006) 10 SCC 681, contending that when death occurs in the accused’s house, the burden shifts on him to explain how it happened.
The State also relied on the FSL report, stating that the nylon rope bore bloodstains matching the appellant’s blood group, and on PW-3’s testimony alleging that the appellant wanted to sell his mother’s property. The State urged the Court not to disturb concurrent findings of the lower courts.
Analysis of the Law
The Court reiterated the established “five golden principles” for circumstantial evidence from Sharad Birdhichand Sarda:
- Circumstances must be fully established.
- Facts must be consistent only with guilt.
- Circumstances must be conclusive.
- All other hypotheses must be excluded.
- The chain must be complete and leave no reasonable doubt.
Applying these tests, the Court found several critical lapses:
- No proof of homicidal death: Medical evidence was ambiguous; the postmortem noted that ligature marks were not continuous, which is inconsistent with strangulation.
- Failure to investigate the cremation crowd: The police never identified or examined any of the persons present when the cremation was being attempted.
- Unreliable recoveries: The panch witness contradicted himself and was politically associated with PW-3, the deceased’s brother.
- No proof of common residence: The Investigating Officer himself admitted that the appellant was living separately at another person’s house. Thus, invoking Section 106 Evidence Act was unjustified.
- Motive unproven: The alleged property motive was speculative, as other family members were alive and would share inheritance.
Precedent Analysis
- Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Set out the five principles for circumstantial evidence; applied to show the prosecution failed to satisfy them.
- Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra (2006) 10 SCC 681 – Distinguished; burden-shifting under Section 106 applies only when the accused resided with the victim. Here, evidence showed he lived separately.
- Ramaiah alias Rama v. State of Karnataka (2014) 9 SCC 365 – Held that even unexhibited documents produced by prosecution can be relied upon by defense; cited for reliance on the schizophrenia certificate.
- Shambu Nath Mehra v. State of Ajmer (1956 SCR 199) – Quoted for the principle that Section 106 does not relieve the prosecution’s burden of proof.
- Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1952) 2 SCC 71 – Cited for caution against speculative reasoning in circumstantial evidence.
- Hodge, In re (1838) 2 Lewin 227 – Quoted approvingly: courts must resist the temptation to “fill missing links by conjecture.”
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found that the postmortem evidence created doubt about homicide. The doctor (PW-6) admitted that the absence of ligature marks on the back of the neck could occur in hanging, not strangulation. Injuries could also be self-inflicted during a schizophrenic episode.
The Court criticized the investigation for failing to examine witnesses from the crowd present at the attempted cremation, ignoring the caller who first reported the death, and not verifying whether the deceased had any mental illness.
It observed that the prosecution’s theory of motive was “manufactured” by PW-3, who himself had an ongoing property dispute with the deceased’s family and orchestrated witness statements. His statement was suspiciously recorded 50 days after the incident.
The Bench held that the courts below had “fallen into serious error” by convicting the appellant despite glaring inconsistencies and missing links. The acquittal of the co-accused further demonstrated selective reliance on weak evidence.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant, setting aside the High Court and Sessions Court judgments. It held that the prosecution failed to prove homicidal death or an unbroken chain of circumstances pointing only to guilt.
The Court concluded:
“Convicting the appellant would be disregarding the caution repeatedly urged in cases based on circumstantial evidence. Death by suicide cannot be excluded; therefore, benefit of doubt must go to the accused.”
The appellant’s bail bonds were discharged.
Implications
This judgment underscores the importance of medical certainty and investigative diligence in cases resting solely on circumstantial evidence. It cautions courts against speculative conclusions and reinforces the presumption of innocence when ambiguity exists.
By emphasizing that even an unexhibited document can assist the defense, the Court strengthened procedural fairness and due process. The ruling serves as a precedent against convicting based on incomplete forensic or testimonial chains.
FAQs
1. Can a conviction stand if the cause of death is medically uncertain?
No. When medical evidence leaves room for reasonable doubt about the cause of death, the accused is entitled to acquittal.
2. Does Section 106 of the Evidence Act shift the burden to the accused automatically?
No. It applies only when facts are exclusively within the accused’s knowledge. It cannot be used to relieve the prosecution’s duty to prove guilt.
3. Can the defense rely on documents filed by the prosecution but not exhibited in trial?
Yes. The Supreme Court in Ramaiah v. State of Karnataka held that such documents can be used by the defense to challenge the prosecution’s version.
