Circumstantial Evidence – Missing links in the chain of circumstances – Appellant was held guilty of the offences punishable u/ss.302, 201 and 377, IPC based on circumstantial evidence and the theory of ‘last seen together’– Interference with:
Held: There are several missing links in the chain of the prosecution case which do not establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was the person who committed the offence – Prosecution has clearly failed to establish beyond any reasonable doubt, the connection between the accused and the victim (a minor boy); presence of the victim in the company of the accused at the relevant point of time and even the very presence of the accused or any connection of the accused with the place of the incident – There are serious doubts regarding the veracity of the prosecution case – This doubt is further fortified by the testimony of the prosecution witnesses who deposed that the accused was brought by the police two days prior to the alleged extra judicial confession – Trial Court erred in holding that the prosecution had proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and in convicting the accused – High Court also erred in upholding the conviction of the accused – Impugned judgment and the judgment of conviction and order on sentence are set aside – Benefit of doubt extended to the appellant. [Paras 46-48]
Extra-judicial Confession – Weak piece of evidence, cannot be made the sole basis for conviction:
Held: Extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and per se without any independent and cogent corroborative circumstance or evidence cannot be made the sole basis for conviction – Wherever the court, upon due appreciation of the entire prosecution evidence, intends to base a conviction on an extrajudicial confession, it must ensure that the same inspires confidence and is corroborated by other prosecution evidence – If, however, the extra-judicial confession suffers from material discrepancies or inherent improbabilities and does not appear to be cogent as per the prosecution version, it may be difficult for the court to base a conviction on such a confession – In such circumstances, the court would be fully justified in ruling such evidence out of consideration – The presence of the accused at the spot of incident at the relevant time is sought to be established by mere presence of an open packet of namkeen which, in the evidence of the prosecution has been established, is a packet which is readily available and sold in thousands all over the village – The prosecution has failed to establish a connection between the packet of namkeen recovered from the spot and the accused – The theory of the prosecution of the last seen has been propounded to corroborate the alleged extra-judicial confession – There is no plausible explanation of the prosecution as to why the accused would make an extra-judicial confession to the Sarpanch of the village with whom neither he nor the victim had any connection – Further, on the one hand, the High Court held that the prosecution cannot rest its case on the theory of “seen together” and no conclusion of inculpation can be drawn from the testimony of PW7 and on the other, still went on to uphold the conviction on the basis of the theory of “seen together” – High Court has further erred, on the one hand in holding that the testimony of both PW7 and PW8 does not establish the last seen theory, and on the other, merely because of a suggestion by the defense counsel that there was a child accompanying the accused read along with the extra-judicial confession, held that the same clinches the guilt – There is a possibility that the Sarpanch may not be deposing truthfully and there could be several reasons for the same – It could be because the Sarpanch wanted to protect someone or wanted to help the police in showing that the crime had been solved – A child from the village lost his life and had been subjected to brutal treatment before his death and it is natural for the villagers to be highly agitated – With a view to pacify the villagers, it is possible that the police came up with a story that the case had been solved and the culprit caught – On the other hand, accused was a poor labourer and may not have the sympathy of the villagers. [Paras 32, 41-43]
Circumstantial Evidence – Theory of ‘last seen together’ – Not proved:
Held: The theory of the prosecution that the accused and the deceased were last seen together is clearly not borne out from the testimony of the witnesses – The factum of child accompanying the accused at the relevant point of time is also not established by conclusive evidence. [Para 36]
Circumstantial Evidence – DNA Test – Not conducted to match the semen found on the underwear of the accused and the semen obtained from the rectal swab of the deceased minor boy:
Held: Although semen was detected on the underwear of the victim, there was no DNA test conducted to match the semen found on the underwear of the accused and the semen obtained from the rectal swab of the deceased – Trial Court held that, since the accused was not married, there was no explanation given by him to explain the presence of semen in his underwear – Further, since the prosecution failed to establish any link between the semen found on the underwear of the accused and that found in the rectal swab of the victim, the onus could not have been shifted to the accused to establish that there was no connection – Without any evidence produced by the prosecution, the High Court has presumed both to be the same and placed the onus upon the accused to establish that they were different. [Para 45] Evidence Act, 1872 – s.27 – Disclosure statement, when cannot be considered:
Held: Confession made to a police officer is not admissible, except in terms of s.27, Evidence Act, 1872 which lays down that when there is a discovery of a fact, in consequence of information received from an accused, so much of an information as distinctly related to the fact thereby discovered may be proved – In the present case no new fact is discovered – As per the prosecution the accused is alleged to have identified the spots, which were already in the knowledge of the prosecution – Thus, the alleged disclosure statement cannot be taken into consideration – High Court erred in repeatedly holding that the disclosure statement (Ex. PW2), led to the discovery of the body (Ex. PU), which is clearly incorrect – The Disclosure statement (Ex. PT) was recorded on 14.03.2007, whereas the body of the deceased was discovered on 12.03.2007, i.e., two days prior to the disclosure statement. [Paras 40, 44]
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.