Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court set aside the conviction of three men who had been sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of a ten-year-old boy in Uttarakhand. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances leading only to the guilt of the accused.
Emphasizing that “suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof,” the Bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Satish Chandra Sharma acquitted all the appellants, holding that the lower courts had erred in relying upon inconsistent and unreliable circumstantial evidence while overlooking glaring investigative lapses.
The Court found that the omission of the accused’s names from the FIR, failure to conduct a test identification parade (TIP), inconclusive forensic reports, and lack of motive cumulatively destroyed the prosecution’s case.
Facts
The case originated from the murder of a ten-year-old boy who went missing after going to guard his family’s mango orchard in June 2007. His body was discovered the next morning with a rope around his neck, his hands tied, and a bloodstained axe nearby.
The father of the deceased lodged an FIR against six co-villagers with whom he had enmity. Notably, two of the three appellants were not named in the FIR. During investigation, they were later implicated under Sections 302, 201, 377, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The trial court convicted three accused under Sections 302, 201, and 120B IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment, while acquitting five others. The High Court upheld the conviction, finding that the testimonies of key witnesses established a complete chain of circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court was approached thereafter in appeal.
Issues
- Whether the omission of the appellants’ names from the FIR vitiated the prosecution’s case.
- Whether the prosecution successfully established a complete chain of circumstantial evidence pointing exclusively to the guilt of the accused.
- Whether the failure to conduct a Test Identification Parade (TIP) and the inconclusive DNA report rendered the conviction unsustainable.
- Whether the High Court had properly appreciated the evidence and addressed investigative deficiencies.
Petitioner’s Arguments
Counsel for the appellants argued that the case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence and that the chain of circumstances was incomplete. The appellants’ names were missing from the FIR despite their familiarity with the complainant, suggesting subsequent false implication.
They submitted that PW-2, the scribe of the FIR, later claimed to have overheard a “conspiracy” meeting but had not mentioned it in the FIR or to the complainant. This belated claim was inherently improbable, as conspiracies are rarely hatched publicly at social gatherings.
It was further argued that the “last seen” witnesses (PW-3 and PW-4) were unreliable—no TIP was conducted despite their unfamiliarity with the accused. The omission to examine PW-3’s wife and son, who were allegedly present, created further doubts.
The appellants also pointed out that the forensic report was inconclusive, with no DNA match linking them to the crime, and that the axe and rope were never properly examined. These lapses, they contended, showed serious investigative negligence.
They additionally claimed juvenility at the time of the incident, supported by school records and medical evidence, which was rejected in violation of Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State defended the concurrent findings of guilt by the lower courts, asserting that the chain of evidence was complete and unbroken. It maintained that PW-2, PW-3, and PW-4 were trustworthy and natural witnesses, and their testimonies were sufficient to establish the appellants’ guilt.
The State argued that non-mention of names in the FIR was not fatal and could be explained by initial confusion. The failure to obtain a complete DNA profile, according to the State, was due to sample degradation over time and did not negate other circumstantial evidence.
It was further submitted that motive—revenge for an insult to a co-accused’s sister—was clear and supported by testimony.
Analysis of the Law
The Supreme Court reiterated the well-settled principles governing convictions based on circumstantial evidence, laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116, known as the “five golden principles” or panchsheel of circumstantial evidence.
To convict an accused, the circumstances must be fully established, consistent only with guilt, conclusive in nature, and exclude every possible hypothesis of innocence, forming a complete and unbroken chain.
Applying these principles, the Court held that the omission of the appellants’ names from the FIR, the failure to conduct TIP, and the contradictory testimonies of key witnesses rendered the prosecution’s case unreliable.
The Court observed:
“When important facts are omitted in the FIR, such omissions are relevant under Section 11 of the Indian Evidence Act in judging the veracity of the prosecution case.” (Ram Kumar Pandey v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1975) 3 SCC 815).
The Court further emphasized that in cases resting entirely on circumstantial evidence, courts must apply heightened scrutiny, and when scientific evidence tilts in favour of the accused, it cannot be brushed aside as inconsequential.
Precedent Analysis
- Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Laid down the five principles governing circumstantial evidence.
- Ram Kumar Pandey v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1975) 3 SCC 815 – Held that omission of crucial facts in the FIR undermines the prosecution’s case.
- P. Sasikumar v. State (2024) 8 SCC 600 – Stressed that identification without prior TIP is unreliable and fatal when witnesses are strangers to the accused.
- State of U.P. v. Satish (2005) 3 SCC 114 – Clarified limits of the “last seen” theory; conviction cannot be based solely on this without corroboration.
- Hatti Singh v. State of Haryana (2007) 12 SCC 471 and Chattar Singh v. State of Haryana (2008) 14 SCC 667 – Reiterated that the last-seen circumstance is a weak form of evidence.
- Krishan Kumar v. State of Haryana (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1180) – Warned against indirect or presumptive application of the last-seen theory.
- Padman Bibhar v. State of Odisha (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1190) – Held that inconclusive forensic evidence cannot sustain conviction.
- Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh (1973) 2 SCC 808) – Established that where two views are possible, the one favouring the accused must be adopted.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found that PW-2’s claim of overhearing a conspiracy was improbable, given that he kept silent despite being the FIR scribe. His explanation that he dismissed the conversation as “loose talk” was deemed implausible.
The last-seen evidence was held unreliable:
- PW-3 admitted unfamiliarity with the accused and had a limited view obstructed by sugarcane crops.
- PW-4’s testimony surfaced only at trial and was absent from the FIR.
No Test Identification Parade was held, rendering their in-court identification unsafe.
The Court also noted that the time gap between the alleged sightings and discovery of the body was too long to exclude third-party involvement.
Further, the DNA and forensic reports were inconclusive, providing no link between the accused and the crime. The axe and rope, central to the case, were not examined promptly, constituting a defective investigation.
The alleged motive of revenge was found speculative and unsupported by evidence.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court acquitted all appellants, holding that the prosecution had failed to establish a consistent, complete, and unbroken chain of circumstances. The conviction under Sections 302, 201, and 120B IPC was set aside.
The Court observed:
“Suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof.”
Since the appellants were already on bail, their bonds were discharged. The Court also observed that the High Court’s failure to independently reappreciate evidence further justified intervention.
Implications
This judgment reaffirms the high evidentiary threshold required in cases based on circumstantial evidence. It warns courts against filling evidentiary gaps with conjecture or sympathy and emphasizes that scientific evidence must be given due weight.
The ruling will guide future cases where defective investigations or inconclusive forensic findings coexist with weak circumstantial chains, ensuring the constitutional right to presumption of innocence is preserved.
FAQs
1. Can conviction be based solely on circumstantial evidence?
Yes, but only if the chain of evidence is complete and leaves no room for any hypothesis consistent with innocence.
2. Is identification in court valid without a Test Identification Parade?
No. When witnesses are unfamiliar with the accused, failure to conduct a TIP renders in-court identification unreliable.
3. What happens when DNA or forensic evidence is inconclusive?
Inconclusive forensic findings cannot be ignored; when they fail to link the accused to the crime, they strengthen the presumption of innocence.
