Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court and upheld by the Kerala High Court in a case involving allegations of house trespass, sexual assault, robbery, and murder of an elderly woman. This case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence.
After examining all material on record, the Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to prove an unbroken chain of circumstances. Multiple gaps existed in the investigation; crucial witnesses were not examined; scientific evidence linking the accused to the crime was absent; recoveries were doubtful; and last-seen evidence lacked reliability.
The Court held that the findings of the courts below were unsustainable because the evidence produced left open “other plausible hypotheses” and therefore did not meet the high standard of proof required in a circumstantial case. The accused was acquitted and ordered to be released.
Facts
The case arose from the death of an 85-year-old woman living alone in a house near her daughter’s residence. According to the prosecution, she was last seen alive at 9:00 p.m., when dinner was served. At about 5:30 a.m. the next day, she was found lying dead with signs of strangulation by a towel. Two gold bangles normally worn by her were missing.
The FIR was registered shortly thereafter. Investigation involved inspection of the crime scene, seizure of blood-stained items, inquest, and post-mortem. Medical evidence indicated cause of death as asphyxiation due to compression of the neck and signs of sexual assault. However, forensic analysis revealed no semen and no biological trace identifying the assailant.
The prosecution based its case on circumstances: the accused lived temporarily in a nearby compound; he was allegedly seen coming out of the compound around 2:45 a.m.; he allegedly left quietly during the night; and he was arrested three days later. The police claimed to have recovered two gold bangles from him at the hospital after his arrest. The accused denied the prosecution’s story, stating he was picked up earlier and tortured.
Issues
- Whether the circumstantial evidence fulfilled the legal standard of forming a complete and unbroken chain pointing exclusively to guilt.
- Whether last-seen evidence was reliable in establishing the accused’s presence at the scene.
- Whether the recovery of gold bangles was credible.
- Whether failures in investigation created reasonable doubt.
- Whether the accused’s alleged conduct before and after the incident was incriminating.
- Whether the concurrent findings of conviction were perverse and warranted interference.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The convicted individual argued that the prosecution’s case was fabricated and based entirely on conjecture. There was no eyewitness, and no scientific evidence connected him to the crime. He argued that the forensic team found no fingerprints, footprints, hair, skin, or semen linking him to the deceased. He claimed that the alleged recovery of bangles was planted, as it was implausible he would be carrying stolen jewellery three days after the incident.
He further highlighted contradictions: one key person who accompanied him outside at 2:00 a.m. was never examined; the prosecution did not identify or produce the informant who allegedly spotted him; no test identification parade was conducted; and the last-seen witness only saw someone exiting the compound, not the house. He insisted that multiple missing links entitled him to the benefit of doubt.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State argued that the accused had the opportunity to commit the crime and was last seen near the victim’s home around the estimated time of death. They asserted that he absconded, behaved suspiciously, and later confessed at the hospital. The recovery of the victim’s gold bangles was presented as a crucial incriminating link.
The State contended that medical evidence corroborated the nature of the crime and that circumstantial evidence formed an integrated whole. The State urged the Court to defer to concurrent findings of two courts and argued that the accused’s presence in the vicinity, his sudden disappearance, and his behaviour upon arrest established guilt.
Analysis of the Law
The Supreme Court extensively analysed the principles governing conviction based on circumstantial evidence. Drawing from authoritative precedents, the Court reiterated:
• Every link in the chain must be firmly proved;
• Suspicion cannot replace proof;
• Missing links or alternative hypotheses must compel acquittal;
• Last-seen evidence requires narrow time proximity and corroboration;
• Recovery must be credible and voluntary;
• Failure to examine material witnesses gravely undermines the case.
The Court found that the time of death (between 9 p.m. and 2 a.m.) did not conclusively place the accused with the deceased; last-seen testimony was vague and weak; and medical evidence did not narrow identification. The Court also emphasized that withheld witnesses, including the friend who accompanied the accused at 2:00 a.m., significantly weakened the prosecution case.
Precedent Analysis
Karakkattu Muhammed Basheer
Reaffirmed the five foundational “panchsheel” principles of circumstantial evidence. Applied to hold that the chain was incomplete. 18
Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy
Summarised essential standards for circumstantial conviction. The Court relied on these to emphasise that suspicion cannot replace proof.
State of U.P. v. Satish
Explained the narrow application of last-seen theory and need for corroboration. Used to reject the prosecution’s last-seen argument.
Bodhraj v. State of J&K
Warned against convicting solely on last-seen evidence without additional incriminating material. Reinforced acquittal.
Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh
Held that when two views are possible, the one favouring the accused must prevail. This principle was decisive in the present case. 18
Court’s Reasoning
The Court meticulously examined each circumstance presented by the prosecution and found significant gaps:
• The accused was only seen exiting the compound, not the victim’s house.
• No forensic evidence connected him to the offence.
• No test identification parade was conducted.
• The informant who allegedly saw him before arrest was never identified or examined.
• The recovery of gold bangles was doubtful because the accused allegedly kept them for three days and produced them from his pocket in a hospital.
• Failure to examine the friend who was the “last seen” companion created a major lapse.
• Medical evidence proved the occurrence of rape and murder but did not identify the perpetrator.
• The accused’s explanation about being tortured could not be dismissed, especially when the arrest narrative lacked corroboration.
The Court concluded that the prosecution failed to satisfy the legal standard for circumstantial evidence. As multiple views were possible, benefit of doubt had to be extended.
Conclusion
The conviction for murder, rape, robbery, and house trespass was set aside. The prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of circumstances, produced no scientific evidence, and omitted key witnesses. The accused was acquitted and directed to be released unless required in any other case.
Implications
• Reinforces stringent safeguards in circumstantial evidence cases.
• Underscores the importance of forensic linkage.
• Reiterates that last-seen theory alone is insufficient.
• Highlights consequences of investigative lapses and non-examination of material witnesses.
• Strengthens presumption of innocence when reasonable doubt persists.
