Supreme Court: In a criminal appeal against the order of Punjab and Haryana High Court, wherein the conviction and life sentence order under Section 302 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC') of the Trial Court to the accused/ convict was upheld by the High Court, the Division Bench of Sudhanshu Dhulia* and Sanjay Kumar, JJ., allowed the convict's appeal and set aside the life sentence under Section 302 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC') of the convict as the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
Factual Matrix
The deceased, on the morning of 08-05-2000, left his village on tractor and met his sister and brother-in-law. He was with them till 5:30 PM. However, the deceased never returned back to his village. Three days later, the deceased's brother went to enquire about his brother where he was told that the deceased already left his sister's place at 5:30 PM on 08-05-2000. Thereafter, an FIR was registered, and the deceased brother stated before the police that while searching his brother, his neighbor/ prosecution witness, told him that he saw the deceased with the co-accused and the present convict. He also stated that both the co-accused and the convict were missing since 08-05-2000, and they were vagabonds who kidnapped the deceased to rob him of his tractor. Thereafter, a case was registered under Section 364 of the IPC. The body of the deceased was recovered on 12-05-2000 from a canal. The co-accused was arrested on 12-05-2000 and the convict was arrested on 14-05-2000, and based on circumstantial evidence, the Trial Court convicted the accused persons (co-accused and the convict) for offences under Sections 302, 364, 392, 394 and 201 read with Section 24 of the IPC. Both the accused persons were sentenced to life sentence by the Trial Court. Thereafter, separate appeals were filed before the High Court by the accused persons. However, during the pendency of the appeal, the co-accused passed away on 24-10-2004.
The appeal of the convict was dismissed by the High Court and the life sentence by the Trial Court was upheld. Thus, aggrieved by the High Court's decision, the convict appealed before the Court.
Analysis, Law and Decision
The Court noted that the case of the prosecution rested on two circumstantial evidences, firstly, the disclosure given in the policy custody and the discovery based on it, secondly on the evidence of the prosecution witness's last seen. The Court said that in case of circumstantial evidence, motive is of significance and in the present case, the prosecution's case was that the two accused persons killed the deceased only to steal his tractor. However, the Court noted that the accused had abandoned the tractor and did nothing to recover it till one of the accused was caught on 12-05-2000. Thus, the Court said that ‘motive' in the present case was not very convincing.
The Court perused section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and said that the provision shows that discovery should be of a distinct fact. The Court noted that the disclosure made by the convict while he was in police custody, which led to certain discoveries, such as the place where the stolen tractor was abandoned, the place where the alleged crime was committed, and the place where the body was thrown in the canal, and also the discovery of ‘Parna', burnt hair, wrist watch, and currency notes of Rs.250/, were already in the knowledge of the police in the earlier discovery made by the co- accused. The Court said that if the disclosure has been made by the convict to the police while he was in their custody and such a disclosure leads to discovery of a fact then that discovery is liable to be read as evidence against the accused in terms of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. However, such a discovery must lead to the discovery of a “distinct fact”. Thus, the Court said that any disclosure and discovery made thereafter cannot be read against the convict. The Court said that there cannot be a “discovery” of an already discovered fact.
For the purpose of analysing the ‘last seen' evidence by the prosecution witness, who allegedly saw convict and the co-accused with the deceased on 08-05-2000 at about 7:30 PM in the evening, the Court said that the evidence of last seen becomes an extremely important piece of evidence in case of circumstantial evidence, particularly when there is a close proximity of time between when the convict was last seen with the deceased and the discovery of the body of the deceased, or in this case the time of the death of the deceased. The Court further said that this does not mean that in cases where there is a long gap between the time of last seen and the death of the deceased the last seen evidence loses its value. However, then a very heavy burden is placed upon the prosecution to prove that during this period of last seen and discovery of the body of the deceased or the time of the death of the deceased, no other person but the convict had access to the deceased. The Court said that the circumstances of last seen together in the present case by itself could not form the basis of guilt.
The Court said that, in the present case when there was no close proximity between circumstances of last seen together and the approximate time of death, thus, the evidence of last seen was weak.
The Court also noted that the postmortem examination of the body shows that rigor mortis was present in all four limbs of the deceased's body but was not present in the neck. The Court said that the rigor mortis disappears late in bodies which are immersed in cold water. In the present case, the body of the deceased was recovered from a canal, and therefore the possibility that rigor mortis would still remain the body cannot be entirely ruled out, but this was nowhere explained by the prosecution. The prosecution's case was that the deceased was murdered on 08-05-2000, by the accused persons. The Court said that if this was the case, then the rigor mortis had remained in the body for about 90 hours, which was unusual.
The Court said that the Trial Court as well as the High Court had lost sight of the vital aspect of the matter. Both the Courts relied on Section 106 of the Evidence Act and held that since the convict was last seen with the deceased and he was not able to give any reasonable explanation of his presence with the deceased in his statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, it was read against the convict and therefore counted it as an additional link in the chain of circumstantial evidence. The Court said that both the Courts had completely misread Section 106 of the Evidence Act.
The Court said that Section 106 of the Act, only comes into play when other facts have been established by the prosecution, however, in the present case the evidence of last seen itself was on a weak footing, considering the long gap of time between last seen by prosecution witness and the time of death of the deceased. Thus, section 106 of the Evidence Act would not be applicable under the present circumstances of the case.
The Court said that in a criminal trial, the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It becomes even more difficult in the case of circumstantial evidence and in the present case, the nature of circumstantial evidence was weak. The Court said that to establish a charge of guilt on the convict, the chain of evidence must be completed, and the chain must point out to one and only one conclusion, which is that it was only the convict who committed the crime and no one else. The Court said that the prosecution was not able to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
Further, the Court said that the evidence of last seen only leads up to a point and no further, it failed to link it further to make a complete chain. The evidence of last seen, lost much of its weight under the circumstances of the case, due to the long duration of time between last seen and the possible time of death. The discovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, is the discovery of ‘parna' and ‘watch' of the deceased, which itself was not sufficient to fix guilt on the convict. The Court said that the evidence collected by the prosecution must complete the chain, which should point to only one conclusion which is that it is the convict who committed the crime. Thus, the evidence placed by the prosecution in the present case did not pass the standard required in a case of circumstantial evidence.
[Dinesh Kumar v. State of Haryana, Criminal Appeal No.530 of 2022, Decided on 04-05-2023]
*Judgment Authored by: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia
