Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | Crl.A. No.-004623-004623 – 2024 |
| Diary Number | 32448/2024 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ MITHAL |
| Bench | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ MITHAL; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASANNA B. VARALE |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority on the application of circumstantial evidence principles |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing precedents on circumstantial evidence |
| Type of Law | Criminal law (IPC Sections 302, 364, 201) |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that convictions based solely on circumstantial evidence must adhere strictly to the five golden principles, leaving no gap in the evidential chain. Here, PW-5 and PW-6 retracted all incriminating testimony and failed to identify the accused or prove any kidnapping. Mere animosity/motive cannot substitute for proof of the accused’s presence or acts. In the absence of direct or properly linked circumstantial proof—especially the “last-seen” link—the conviction cannot stand, warranting acquittal. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon | Reliance on the five golden principles (panchsheel) governing circumstantial evidence and the established standards for the “last-seen” theory. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The deceased auto-driver was allegedly kidnapped and later found murdered. FIRs under Sections 302/364/201 IPC were registered after his body was discovered. Witnesses PW-5 and PW-6 initially told police they saw the accused drag him into an auto but later turned hostile and denied identification or witnessing the alleged kidnapping. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate criminal courts |
| Persuasive For | High Courts hearing criminal appeals |
| Follows | Established principles on circumstantial evidence (five golden principles; last-seen theory) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Strict enforcement of the five golden principles: no conviction if any link in the circumstantial chain is missing.
- Hostile witnesses cannot provide the basis for last-seen inferences—recantation undermines reliance on Section 164/161 statements.
- Motive or prior animosity alone is insufficient to sustain murder charges under Sections 302/364/201 IPC.
- This ruling is a binding precedent for quashing convictions where key eyewitnesses retract and no direct evidence ties the accused to the scene.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Examination of PW-5 and PW-6’s testimony revealed no identification of the accused or proof of kidnapping—only mention of a scuffle (“galata”).
- Both witnesses turned hostile at trial, negating their earlier police statements under Sections 161/164 CrPC.
- Application of the five golden principles of circumstantial evidence:
- Complete chain of events must be established.
- Circumstances should be inconsistent with innocence.
- Accused must be the only one who could have committed the crime.
- Facts must be conclusive in nature.
- Chain of evidence must point to guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
- Analysis of the “last-seen” theory: without proof that the deceased was last seen in the accused’s company or forcefully taken, the theory fails.
- Motive (animosity over earlier FIR) does not replace the need for direct/circumstantial proof of the offence.
- Conclusion: prosecution failed to discharge its burden; convictions and sentences set aside; accused acquitted.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Accused A-1):
- No eyewitness saw A-1 commit murder or kidnapping.
- PW-5 and PW-6 turned hostile; their trial testimony disproved any link.
- Absence of “last-seen” proof or identification breaks the chain of circumstantial evidence.
Respondent-State:
- Accused had motive due to prior FIR by the deceased’s mother.
- Circumstantial evidence (including earlier statements of PW-5/PW-6) sufficed to infer guilt.
- Failure to explain the deceased’s disappearance implicates the accused.
Factual Background
The deceased, an auto-driver, was reported missing on 26.03.2016 after allegedly being dragged into an auto by the appellant and his friends. His body, bearing multiple injuries, was discovered the next day. FIRs were registered under Sections 364 and later amended to include 302 IPC; a cross-FIR also existed. PW-5 and PW-6 initially told police they witnessed the kidnapping but denied it at trial, leading to an appeal by A-1 against his life sentence and concurrent imprisonment.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 302 IPC (Murder): conviction requires proof of intentional killing beyond reasonable doubt.
- Section 364 IPC (Kidnapping or abduction with intent to murder): no evidence proved abduction by the accused.
- Section 201 IPC (Evidence destruction): based on alleged disposal of body evidence; linked to murder charge.
- Court did not expand or narrow statutory language but applied established interpretive standards strictly.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No separate dissenting or concurring opinions; the decision is unanimous.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural guidelines or innovations were issued.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed