Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | Crl.A. No.-000715-000715 – 2018 |
| Diary Number | 4247/2018 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA |
| Bench |
|
| Precedent Value | Binding |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing precedent |
| Type of Law | Criminal law; Evidence |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | The Supreme Court held that convictions based solely on circumstantial evidence must rest on an unbroken chain of facts that exclude every hypothesis except guilt. Omission of accused’s names in the FIR, belated conspiracy testimony, dock identification without TIP and wide intervals in “last-seen” sightings undermine the chain. Inconclusive scientific results cannot be brushed aside. Where these deficiencies exist, even serious offences cannot be sustained on mere suspicion. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | A ten-year-old boy vanished while guarding a mango orchard; his body was found under a mulberry tree with a rope around his neck and axe wounds. FIR named six villagers but omitted two present appellants. At trial, three witnesses (PW-2 overheard a conspiracy, PW-3 and PW-4 gave last-seen testimony) were relied upon. Trial and High Courts convicted under Sections 302, 201, 120-B IPC. DNA tests on rope and axe were inconclusive; appeal allowed and convictions quashed. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts |
| Persuasive For | High Courts and trial courts across India |
| Follows | Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra; Ram Kumar Pandey v. State of Madhya Pradesh; P. Sasikumar v. State; State of U.P. v. Satish; et al. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Emphasises that omission of an accused’s name in the FIR, when the complainant was familiar with them, is a material omission under Section 11 Evidence Act and may vitiate circumstantial proof.
- Reiterates that any witness identifying a stranger for the first time in court requires a test identification parade; dock identification alone is insufficient.
- Confirms that the “last-seen” theory demands a narrow time gap; wide intervals and lack of corroboration render it unsafe.
- Underlines that inconclusive or neutral scientific evidence cannot be disregarded; it must be weighed and may tilt the balance in favour of the accused.
- Reinforces that an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Reaffirmed five golden principles from Sharad Birdhichand Sarda: facts must be fully established, consistent only with guilt, conclusive in nature, exclude every hypothesis except guilt, and form a complete chain leaving no reasonable ground for innocence.
- Held omissions in the FIR naming two appellants—despite familiarity—raised a legitimate inference of afterthought implication (Ram Kumar Pandey).
- Discredited PW-2’s conspiracy testimony as inherently improbable, belated, and suppressed from the FIR.
- Found PW-3 and PW-4’s “last-seen” identifications unreliable: both were strangers, no TIP was conducted (P. Sasikumar), and wide intervals allowed possibility of third-party intervention (State of U.P. v. Satish).
- Determined medical evidence proved homicide but did not link to appellants; FSL report on rope and axe was inconclusive and bore exculpatory value.
- Concluded no established motive; accused entitled to benefit of doubt where chain of circumstances incomplete and suspicion cannot substitute proof.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- FIR omitted the names of Nazim and Aftab, though complainant knew them.
- PW-2’s conspiracy testimony surfaced only at trial, was implausible and unreported at material times.
- PW-3 and PW-4 were strangers, no TIP conducted; natural witnesses (spouse, son, fellow labourer) were not examined.
- Inconclusive DNA from rope and axe undercuts forensic link; failure to test weapon at outset reflects defective investigation.
- Medical evidence did not tie injuries specifically to appellants; motive of revenge against a child unproven.
- Juvenility plea raised but summarily rejected.
- Chain of circumstances is incomplete; convictions should be quashed.
Respondent
- PW-2, PW-3, PW-4 gave consistent, credible testimony establishing conspiracy and “last-seen” presence.
- Recovery of rope and axe from scene, post-mortem injuries, and bloodstains provided corroboration.
- Inconclusive DNA is not exculpatory; sample degradation is common and non-match does not absolve.
- Omission in FIR was due to initial enmity suspicion; later investigation implicated appellants.
- Absence of express motive is not fatal when chain of circumstances is complete.
Factual Background
In June 2007, a ten-year-old boy guarding his family’s mango orchard went missing and was found dead under a mulberry tree, strangled and hacked. His father filed FIR No. 966/2007 under Section 302 IPC, naming six villagers but omitting two who were later implicated. At trial, two appellants and one co-accused were convicted based on circumstantial evidence—overheard threat and two last-seen testimonies—and sentenced to life. The High Court affirmed. On appeal, the Supreme Court quashed the convictions for lack of an unbroken chain and unreliable evidence.
Statutory Analysis
- Sections 302, 201 and 120-B IPC: offences of murder, destruction of evidence, and criminal conspiracy respectively.
- Section 11, Evidence Act: omissions in earlier statements (FIR) are relevant for assessing veracity.
- Panchsheel of circumstantial evidence: requires a complete and exclusive chain of proof (Sharad Birdhichand Sarda).
- No novel statutory interpretation; the judgment applies established principles strictly.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed