Penal Code, 1860 : ss. 302/34, 201 – Murder – Circumstantial evidence – Information received from one of the prosecution witness that his nephew was missing since the previous evening – Victim had gone on his bike but did not return – On further investigation, his mother informed that the victim had gone out with two friends – Both the friends alleged to have confessed their crime before the investigating officer – One of them being juvenile, tried under Juvenile Act – As regards the other the trial court held that the prosecution had fully established his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and convicted him – Said order upheld by the High Court – On appeal, held : Instant case is of circumstantial evidence as no one saw the commission of crime – Basic links in the chain of circumstances starts with motive, then move on to last seen theory, recovery, medical evidence, expert opinions if any and any other additional link which may be part of the chain of circumstances – Prosecution did not come forward with any motive whatsoever as to why the appellant and the juvenile would commit the said crime – Dead body not recovered – Only a limb was recovered but no DNA testing was carried out to establish that the limb was that of the victim – As such the entire case of the prosecution proceeds on presumption that the victim died – Mother of the victim was the main witness of the last seen – In her cross-examination she stated that no such statement was there, though she had told the Investigating Officer that she had seen the appellant and the juvenile at her gate – Recoveries have been from an open place – It was not a place which could be in the exclusive knowledge of the appellant – Conviction is based upon, apart from the prosecution witnesses, on the extra-judicial confession of the appellant and the juvenile – According to both the confessions, the appellant as also juvenile were waiting at a culvert near the market where victim came on his bike and from there all three of them left on the bike – No corroborating evidence found to support the extra-judicial confession, rather the evidence led by prosecution is inconsistent with the same – Thus, major links of the chain of circumstances not proved by the prosecution evidence and as such it would be unjust to uphold the conviction of the appellant – Appellant entitled to benefit of doubt and is acquitted of all the charges – Evidence.
Evidence:
Circumstantial evidence – General principles – Discussed. Circumstantial Evidence – Motive – Importance and role of, in case of direct and circumstantial evidence – Stated. Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra 1984 (4) SCC 116 : [1985] 1 SCR 88; Sailendra Rajdev Pasvan and Others vs. State of Gujarat Etc. AIR 2020 SC 180 : [2019] 14 SCR 270; Kuna Alias Sanjaya Behera vs. State of Odisha (2018) 1 SCC 296 : [2017]
11 SCR 179; Ranganayaki vs. State by Inspector of Police (2004) 12 SCC 521 : [2004] 5 Suppl. SCR 452 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. 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.