Evidence – Charges not proved beyond reasonable doubt – Courts below strongly relying upon the testimonies of three witnesses PW1 (the complainant), PW2 (alleged eyewitness) and PW17 (injured child witness), convicted the appellant for the murder of his wife, two children and sister-in-law and imposed death sentence – Sustainability:
Held: Impugned judgment as well as the judgment of the Trial Court are quashed and set aside – In order to record conviction based on ocular evidence, the testimonies have to be completely credible and trustworthy – However, in the present case, there are major contradictions and embellishments in the testimonies of key prosecution witnesses accompanied by glaring investigative defects/lapses leading to gaps in the evidentiary chain – Nothing to link the appellant to the scene of the crime – Prosecution failed to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt – Appellant acquitted – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 308 and 325. [Paras 38, 41, 43, 44] Evidence Act, 1872 – s.106 – Adverse inference, when cannot be drawn – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 308 and 325 – Appellant-accused was convicted for the murder of his wife, two children and sister-in-law – High Court drew adverse inference against the accused as regards his silence and absence of any alternative explanation about the injuries sustained by him on the day of the incident which led him to getting admitted in the hospital later on the same day causing consequent amputation of his left arm, and presumed that the said injuries were a result of the resistance that he must have faced during the commission of the crime earlier in the day – Sustainability:
Held: Prosecution has not been able to establish the presence of accused at the site of crime through direct, circumstantial, oral or forensic evidence thus, taking recourse to s.106 and employing it against the accused in a detrimental manner in the absence of any foundational facts, is unwarranted – Neither PW1 nor PW2, in their statement stated anything about the accused of having suffered an arm injury while he was allegedly spotted at the crime scene – Therefore, no opportunity arises to shift the burden of proof on the appellant so as to reasonably explain his injury and thereby, no adverse inference can be drawn. [Para 39] Evidence – Contradictions in testimonies, material discrepancies – Testimonies not to be relied upon – Appellantaccused was convicted for the murder of his wife, two children and sister-in-law, relying upon the testimonies of three witnesses PW1 (the complainant), PW2 (alleged eyewitness) and PW17 (injured child witness):
Held: Only such omissions which amount to contradiction in material particulars can be used to discredit the testimony of the witness – Material discrepancies are those which are not normal and not expected of a normal person – When witness testimonies exhibit significant contradictions between their initial statements and trial depositions, they cannot be relied upon unless independently corroborated – In the present case, the contradictions in prosecution witnesses’ testimonies are major ones and carve a gaping hole in the prosecution story altogether – The internal inconsistencies and lack of corroboration cast serious doubts and snatch away the degree of accuracy that is to be attained while determining the culpability of an accused in cases of murder – There are obvious inconsistencies in the depositions of the main witnesses indicating deliberate embellishment and coaching, rendering these testimonies unreliable – Therefore, no credence can be lent to the testimonies of PW1 and PW2 and their account of being “eyewitness” to the incident or having seen the accused is discarded – Statements of PW1 and PW2 inspire no confidence and their presence at the scene of occurrence is disbelieved – Further, the testimony of PW17 (child witness) also cannot be considered as incriminating against the appellant for the lack of having witnessed the actual incident. [Paras 30-34]
Evidence – Motive – Absence of – Appellant-accused was convicted for the murder of his wife, two children and sisterin-law due to an alleged monetary dispute: Held: When there is nothing to link the appellant to the scene of the crime, an alleged monetary dispute between the parties shall not by itself aid the prosecution case enough to frame the accused for a charge of murder on multiple counts – Trial Court held that dacoity or commission of offence by a stranger party has to be ruled out due to the gruesome nature of the crime – However, merely lack of an alternative plausible explanation to the incident is not enough evidence in itself to send a man to the gallows, whose guilt otherwise remains unestablished. [Para 38] Evidence – Alleged recoveries – Evidentiary value, questionable – Failure to conclusively link material objects to the crime:
Held: Neither the arrest of the accused nor the alleged recovery of the blood-stained clothes and the weapon (purportedly based on the disclosure statement of the accused) is supported by any independent witness – Though the recovery may not be wholly discarded due to the lack of a supporting witness, however, it becomes highly questionable, especially with the factum of long delay of two months in the discovery being effected – Furthermore, the investigating agency took minimum pains to link the discovered articles to the incident or the deceased persons through forensic evidence or otherwise. [Paras 36, 37]
Judicial Deprecation – Shoddy investigation; poorly conducted trial – Appellant-accused was convicted for the murder of his wife, two children and sister-in-law and was sentenced to death by the Trial Court holding the case to be rarest of rare – High Court upheld the conviction and confirmed the death sentence – Appellant has undergone incarceration for more than eleven years – Acquitted by Supreme Court holding that the prosecution has failed to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt – Approach of investigating agencies and courts below, deprecated – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 308 and 325. [Para 1]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.