Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 34 – Constitution of India – Article 20(3) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.161 – Evidence Act – ss.25, 27 – Murder of old aged person – Circumstantial Evidence – Appellants were convicted u/s.302 r/w s.34 and sentenced to life imprisonment – Order of conviction and sentence upheld by High Court – On appeal, held: In a case of circumstantial evidence, the entire chain of evidence must be complete and the conclusions arrived after examining the chain of evidence must point towards the culpability of the accused and to no other conclusion – However, in the present case this is clearly missing from the case of the prosecution – Entire case of the prosecution is built upon the confessional/voluntary statements made by the accused persons before the police and the recovery of the alleged weapon of murder recovered at the pointing out of the accused and the recovery of alleged stolen gold material from a jewelry shop, again on pointing out of the accused – Under Article 20(3) of the Constitution, an accused cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself – Further, u/s.25, Evidence Act , a confessional statement given by an accused before a Police officer is inadmissible as evidence – Both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court wrongly placed reliance on the voluntary statements of the accused and their videography statements – Orders passed by Trial Court and High Court set aside - Appellants be released from jail, unless wanted in some other crime. Criminal Law – Evidence – Circumstantial Evidence – Duty of Court – Held: In a case of circumstantial evidence, the Court has to scrutinize each and every circumstantial possibility, which is placed before it in the form of an evidence and the evidence must point towards only one conclusion, which is the guilt of the accused – A very heavy duty is cast upon the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD : 1.1 There is no direct evidence in the case. There is no forensic or scientific evidence which links any of the present appellants to the crime. The so-called discovery of the weapon of crime and the discovery of stolen gold material is also severely flawed. It is thus in sum and substance entirely a case of circumstantial evidence. It is a case of circumstantial evidence and in a case of circumstantial evidence, the entire chain of evidence must be complete and the conclusions which is arrived after examining the chain of evidence must point towards the culpability of the accused and to no other conclusion. This is clearly missing from the case of the prosecution. The entire case of the prosecution is based on the confessional statements or voluntary statements given by accused Nos. 1 to5 (all the present appellants) while they were in police custody. Statement given by an accused to police under Section 161 of CrPC is not admissible as evidence. The evidence discovered under section 27 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, i.e., the recovery of stolen items and the recovery of the weapon are also very doubtful. In a case of circumstantial evidence, the Court has to scrutinize each and every circumstantial possibility, which is placed before it in the form of an evidence and the evidence must point towards only one conclusion, which is the guilt of the accused. In other words, a very heavy duty is cast upon the prosecution to prove its case, beyond reasonable doubt. [Paras 10-12][425-B-G]
Hanumant Govind Nargundkar & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1952 SC 343 : [1952] SCR 1091; Musheer Khan @ Badshah Khan & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2010) 2 SCC 748 : [2010] 2 SCR
119 – relied on.
Tufail (Alias) Simmi v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1969) 3 SCC 198; Ram Gopal v. State of Maharashtra (1972) 4 SCC 625; Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 : [1985] 1 SCR 88 – referred to.
1.2 In the case at hand the entire case of the prosecution is built upon the confessional/voluntary statements made by the accused persons before the police and the recovery of the alleged weapon of murder recovered at the pointing out of the accused and the recovery of alleged stolen gold material from a jewelry shop, again, on pointing out of the accused. As per the police, all the accused were arrested from a school building on 31.01.2001 and formally arrested on 01.02.2001. They confessed to as many as 24 crimes committed by them. Their confessions of how they planned and executed the murders has been captured on a video, which was also exhibited before the court. The Court has taken this evidence of voluntary statements made by the accused and hence admitted it as evidence. This was done both by the Sessions Court as well as the High Court. The High Court affirmed the finding of the Sessions Court and the admissibility of the voluntary statement of the accused and the videography placed before the Court. Both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court went completely wrong in placing reliance on the voluntary statements of the accused and their videography statements. Under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, an accused cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself. Again, under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; a confessional statement given by an accused before a Police officer is inadmissible as evidence. As far as the recovery of gold ingot is concerned, PW-1, i.e., the son-in-law and the complainant has said in his evidence before the Court that he does not recognize the ingot and it does not belong to his father-in-law. Therefore, the gold which has been recovered has not been identified as the one which was stolen from the house of the deceased. The recovery of knife is also doubtful. Firstly, Venkatesh who had led the discovery had mentioned about the knife and its disposal on 01.02.2001 when he was arrested. The recovery, however was made on 15.05.2001 i.e., four and a half months later. Why such a belated recovery was made has not been explained. Secondly, the independent witness to this recovery PW-10 Murugan, had also turned hostile during cross examination as he said that he does not recognize Venkatesh (accused) on whose pointing out the alleged recovery was made. So much for the recovery of the murder weapon. [Para 13][428-G-H; 429-A-B; 430-D; 431-C; 432-A-D]
Shri N. Sri Rama Reddy, Etc. v. Shri V.V. Giri AIR 1971 SC 1162 : [1971] 1 SCR 399 – held inapplicable.
1.3 Some of the accused who were before this Court were also facing another trial of similar nature in which they were convicted on 17.09.2010 and sentenced to death. Thereafter in Appeal their conviction was upheld, but the sentence was converted to life imprisonment by the High Court. They finally came before this Court in Appeal. The course of investigation and the appreciation of evidence by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court had taken a similar course as they have in the present case. While hearing their Criminal Appeal (Nos. 14761477 of 2018) this Court made certain observations, which are equally relevant for the present case as well. This Court in its order dated 19.04.2022 has allowed the above appeal and has set aside the order of the Sessions Judge as well as of the High Court which had placed its reliance almost completely on the statement made by the accused before the Police under Section 161 of CrPC. This is exactly what has been done in the present case as well and consequently this too must meet the same fate. Indeed, it was also the case of the prosecution that the appellants belong to a gang which commits crime of this nature and that the modus operandi is by and large the same in all cases. It was alleged that the appellants are involved in as many as 20-25 such cases. But what was given before the Court was a chart giving description of offences, numbers and Sections under which such offences had been allegedly committed. No documents in the nature of chargesheet or any other proof was submitted. Therefore, this factor cannot be taken into account. Ordinarily, this Court does not interfere with concurrent findings of facts as they are in the present case. But, then in the present case it has become necessary to interfere with the findings for the reasons that both the High Court as well as the Sessions Court have ignored the well-established principles of criminal jurisprudences and have relied upon facts and evidences which are clearly inadmissible in a court of law. The crime indeed was ghastly, to say the least. Yet, linking the crime to the present appellants is an exercise which was to be undertaken in the court of law under established principles of law. The appeals are allowed, the order of the Sessions Judge dated 19.03.2003 and the High Court dated 31.08.2010 are hereby set aside, the appellants shall be released from jail, unless they are wanted in some other crime. [Paras 1417][432-D-F; 435-A-E; 436-A]
Venkatesh @ Chandra v. The State of Karnataka 2022 SCC OnLine SC 765 – 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.