Circumstantial evidence – Prosecution case of kidnapping and murder based on three circumstances: (a) accusedappellant and victim were last seen together; (b) extrajudicial confession of appellant; and (c) recovery of dead body – None of the circumstances were proved, not to speak of proving the complete chain of circumstances – Conviction by courts below not justified – Penal Code – ss.366(A)/302/201/34: Held: The High Court had erred in discarding the circumstance of extra-judicial confessions made by the appellant before PW Nos.5, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11 on the ground that those confessions were made in the presence of the police and thus would be hit by the provisions of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, 1872 – Therefore, the High Court disbelieved one of the three circumstances relied upon by the prosecution as a part of the chain of evidence to prove the Appellant’s guilt – However, the High Court still convicted the Appellant on the strength of the remaining two pieces of circumstantial evidence – Therefore, it could not be said that the chain of circumstantial evidence was complete and that no other inference except the guilt of the accused was possible therefrom – The Appellant therefore was entitled to benefit of doubt, since his guilt was not established beyond all reasonable doubt. [Paras 23-25] Circumstantial Evidence – Ramu Appa Mahapatar v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 INSC 147 – Discussed:
Held: In Ramu Appa Mahapatar v. State of Maharashtra, this Court dealt with the limitations of an extrajudicial confession which is one of the instances of circumstantial evidence – In that context, this Court following the consistent line of judicial precedents held that circumstantial evidence is not direct to the point in issue but consists of evidence of various other facts which are so closely associated with the fact in issue that taken together, they form a chain of circumstances from which the existence of the principle fact can be legally inferred or presumed – The chain must be complete and each fact forming part of the chain must be proved – Where a case rests on circumstantial evidence, inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person. [Para 22]
Murder – Allegations of – Victim, a minor girl – Circumstance of last seen together with accused – Inference of guilt – If can be drawn:
Held: In Kanhaiya Lal v. State of Rajasthan, (2014) 4 SCC 715, this Court held that circumstances of last seen together does not by itself lead to the inference that the accused committed the offence – There must be something more than mere non-explanation on the part of the accused to establish nexus between him and the crime – In State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran, (2007) 3 SCC 755, this Court held that the circumstance of last seen together may normally be considered to find the accused guilty when the time gap between when the accused and deceased were last seen together alive and when the deceased was found dead is so small that the possibility of any other person being with the deceased is ruled out – However, it cannot be said that evidence of last seen together must be rejected merely due to a time gap – If the prosecution is able to lead evidence making the likelihood of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime impossible, then even with a long duration, last seen together can be considered as part of the chain of circumstances to prove guilt – In Anjan Kumar Sharma v. State of Assam, (2017) 14 SCC 359, it was laid down that where all the other links have been made out satisfactorily and the circumstances point to the guilt of the accused, the circumstances of last seen together, and absence of explanation would provide the complete link to the chain – In the instant case, the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3 clearly shows that there was considerable time gap between the time the appellant and the deceased were last seen together alive and the recovery of the dead body – Therefore, it cannot be said with any degree of certainty that it was the appellant and the appellant alone who had committed the offence. [Paras 30-33]
Motive – Recovery of dead body of minor girl – Accusedappellant and deceased were allegedly in love – Role of, in proving circumstantial evidence – Explained:
Held: In Anwar Ali v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2020) 10 SCC
166 it was observed that in a case where direct evidence of eye witness is available, motive loses its importance – But absence of motive in a case based on circumstantial evidence is a factor that weighs in favour of the accused – Similarly, in Shivaji Chintappa Patil v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 5 SCC 626, it was observed that in case of circumstantial evidence, motive plays an important link to complete the chain of events – In Nandu Singh v. State of M.P., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1454, it was again observed that complete absence of motive assumes a different complexion and such absence definitely weighs in favour of the accused – As in this case there was not any motive for the Appellant to cause death of the deceased, the same is another factor that weighs in favour of the accused. [Paras 48-52]
Confession – In police custody – Evidence Act, 1972 – s.26 – Scope of – Explained:
Held: According to Section 26 of the Evidence Act, no confession made by any person while he is in the custody of a police officer shall be proved as against such person unless it is made in the immediate presence of the Magistrate – This is an exception to the absolute bar of Section 25 which declares that no confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence. [Para 35.1]
Evidence Act, 1872 – s.27 – Scope of – Extra-judicial confessions of accused-appellant – Discovery of dead body of minor girl pursuant thereto – Admissibility of: Held: Section 27 of the Evidence Act is couched in the language of a proviso and immediately follows Section 26, and has to be read conjointly with the latter – While Section 26 deals with confession made by an accused while in custody of police, Section 27 deals with such information received from the accused which may be proved – Section 27 provides that when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved – In Asar Mohammad v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2019) 12 SCC 253, this Court held that the word ‘fact’ occurring in Section 27 of the Evidence Act is not limited to ‘actual physical material object’, but Discovery of fact arises by reason that the information given by the accused exhibited the knowledge or the mental awareness of the informant as to its existence at a particular place which includes discovery of the object, the place from which it is discovered and the knowledge of the accused as to its existence – Applying the law relating to Section 27 of the Evidence Act, it can be seen that the circumstances leading to discovery is intrinsically connected with the circumstance of extra-judicial confessions made by the appellant and the other co-accused before PW-5, PW-6, PW-7, PW-8, PW-10 and PW-11 – We have already noted that the High Court had rejected the circumstance of extra-judicial confessions as being in-admissible evidence. [Paras 35, 35.2, 38, 39]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Raghav Bhatia, Hony. Associate Editor (Verified by: Shibani Ghosh). 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.