2019 (1) TMI 2068 - SC - Indian Laws

Affirmation of conviction u/s 302 and other with the aid of Section 120 B of the Indian Penal Code - conspiracy to commit murder - case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence - benefit of doubt - HELD THAT - On an analysis of the overall fact situation in the instant case and considering the chain of circumstantial evidence relied upon by the prosecution and noticed by the High Court in the impugned judgment to prove the charge is visibly incomplete and incoherent to permit conviction of the appellants on the basis thereof without any trace of doubt. Though the materials on record hold some suspicion towards them but the prosecution has failed to elevate its case from the realm of may be true to the plane of must be true as is indispensably required in law for conviction on a criminal charge. It is trite to state that in a criminal trial suspicion howsoever grave cannot substitute proof. That apart in the case of circumstantial evidence two views are possible on the case of record one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other his innocence. The accused is indeed entitled to have the benefit of one which is favourable to him. All the judicially laid parameters defining the quality and content of the circumstantial evidence bring home the guilt of the accused on a criminal charge there are no difficulty to hold that the prosecution in the case in hand has failed to meet the same. Conclusion - The appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt. Appeal allowed.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

- Whether the appellants are guilty of the offence under Section 302 IPC (murder) and Section 120-B IPC (criminal conspiracy) based on the circumstantial evidence presented.

- Whether the extra judicial confession attributed to one of the appellants (Babu Lal) can be relied upon to establish guilt.

- Whether the prosecution has successfully established a complete and coherent chain of circumstantial evidence excluding every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

- Whether the recovery of torn leaf from the 'Bahi' (ledger) and other material evidence recovered at the instance of the appellants sufficiently connect them to the crime.

- Whether the trial and High Court judgments affirming conviction and sentence can be sustained in light of the evidentiary record and legal principles governing circumstantial evidence.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Guilt of the appellants under Sections 302 and 120-B IPC based on circumstantial evidence

The prosecution's case rests primarily on circumstantial evidence, as direct evidence was lacking. The core facts include the disappearance and subsequent discovery of the deceased's dead body near a dry well, circumstantial links involving the appellants' movements and actions around the time of the incident, and recovery of incriminating material. The complainant and family members of the deceased (PWs 2, 5, and 10) provided testimony regarding prior disputes over money and property between the deceased and the appellants, establishing motive.

The legal framework for evaluating circumstantial evidence was extensively cited, particularly the principles laid down in the seminal decision on circumstantial evidence, which requires:

• Full establishment of the circumstances from which guilt is to be inferred;
• Consistency of facts only with the hypothesis of guilt;
• Conclusive nature and tendency of the circumstances;
• Exclusion of every other hypothesis except guilt;
• A complete chain of evidence leaving no reasonable ground for innocence.

The Court noted that while the prosecution presented several suspicious circumstances, these did not collectively establish a chain of events that conclusively pointed to the appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence was found to be incomplete and incoherent to sustain conviction. The Court emphasized that suspicion, no matter how grave, cannot substitute proof in criminal trials.

Issue 2: Reliance on extra judicial confession of accused Babu Lal

The prosecution sought to rely on an extra judicial confession made by accused Babu Lal to a witness (PW-3). However, the Court reiterated the settled principle that extra judicial confession is inherently weak evidence and must be corroborated by other cogent circumstances before it can ground a conviction. In this case, the confession was not recorded under Section 164 CrPC, and the witness did not mention it in his formal statement. No additional corroborative circumstances existed to support reliance on the confession. Consequently, the Court held that the confession could not be treated as a reliable piece of evidence.

Issue 3: Recovery and evidentiary value of the torn leaf from the 'Bahi' and other material evidence

The prosecution placed reliance on the recovery of a torn leaf from a ledger ('Bahi') containing the deceased's signature, which was allegedly torn from a book recovered from accused Babu Lal and subsequently found in possession of accused Devi Lal. The leaf was recovered from a narrow space ("Darraj") at the instance of Devi Lal. The Court observed that the original 'Bahi' was never produced, raising questions about provenance and authenticity of the torn piece. The forensic examination (FSL report) cast doubt on the similarity of ink used on the torn leaf and the ledger. The Investigating Officer admitted discrepancies regarding the ink analysis. Moreover, the prosecution failed to explain how the torn leaf came into the possession of Devi Lal or the source of certain sums of money recovered from Babu Lal. These lacunae weakened the evidentiary value of the recovered material.

The Court also noted bloodstains of human blood group 'A' found on clothes and premises linked to Babu Lal, but these facts, while suspicious, were insufficient to conclusively establish guilt.

Issue 4: Treatment of competing arguments and overall evaluation of evidence

The appellants challenged the sufficiency and reliability of the prosecution's evidence. The Court carefully examined the trial and High Court findings, witness testimonies, and forensic reports. It found that the prosecution's case did not rise above suspicion to the required standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The absence of the deceased's signatures on critical documents at relevant times, the lack of direct evidence implicating Devi Lal in the conspiracy, and the failure to produce the original 'Bahi' were significant gaps. The Court also highlighted that the initial complaint and FIR did not name Devi Lal, and statements under Section 164 CrPC did not implicate him in conspiracy.

The Court applied the principle that where two views are possible-one of guilt and one of innocence-the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused. The circumstances, when viewed collectively, did not exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

"The circumstances which emerged and taken note of under the impugned judgment in itself gives a suspicion in completing the chain of commission of crime beyond doubt, being committed by the accused appellants."

"The prosecution has failed to elevate its case from the realm of 'may be true' to the plane of 'must be true' as is indispensably required in law for conviction on a criminal charge."

"In a criminal trial, suspicion, howsoever grave, cannot substitute proof."

"Two views are possible on the case of record, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other his innocence. The accused is indeed entitled to have the benefit of one which is favourable to him."

"Extra judicial confession is, on the face of it, a weak evidence and the Court is reluctant, in the absence of a chain of cogent circumstances, to rely on it, for the purpose of recording a conviction."

Core principles reaffirmed include the stringent requirements for conviction based on circumstantial evidence, the need for a complete and coherent chain of circumstances excluding all other hypotheses, and the cautious approach towards extra judicial confessions.

Final determinations:

• The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt under Sections 302 and 120-B IPC.
• The conviction and sentence affirmed by the High Court were set aside.
• The appellants were acquitted and released, with bail bonds discharged where applicable.