Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | Crl.A. No.-003738 of 2023 |
| Diary Number | 47207/2023 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR |
| Bench | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. VINOD CHANDRAN |
| Precedent Value | Binding |
| Overrules / Affirms | Overrules the High Court’s judgment reversing the Trial Court’s acquittal; restores Trial Court’s order of acquittal |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law (IPC, CrPC, Evidence Act) |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | A student went missing on 18.02.2006; a missing-person enquiry led to arrest of two accused (A1, A2), discovery of the body at a graveyard, recovery of a rope and personal belongings, and confessions under Section 164 CrPC. The Trial Court acquitted; the High Court convicted under Sections 302 and 201 IPC; the Supreme Court restored the acquittal. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts |
| Overrules | The High Court’s conviction order in Criminal Appeal No.3738 of 2023 |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that the “last seen together” link must be proximate to the victim’s time of death.
- Confirms recoveries under Section 27 Evidence Act must be from concealment; open-scene finds are inadmissible as disclosure.
- Emphasises strict compliance with Section 164 CrPC: magistrate must offer legal aid, record in proper language without date discrepancies.
- Holds that voluntary confession alone, when retracted or exculpatory in parts, cannot sustain a conviction without independent corroboration.
- Clarifies that appellate courts should not disturb acquittals unless the circumstantial chain excludes every hypothesis of innocence beyond reasonable doubt.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Principles of Circumstantial Evidence – Applied Sharad Sarda’s five golden principles; found no proximate last-seen proof, incomplete chain, hypothesis of innocence not excluded.
- Appellate Powers on Acquittals – Followed Chandrappa: acquittal carries strong presumption of innocence; High Court erred in substituting its own inferences.
- Recoveries Under Section 27 Evidence Act – Rope was seized openly at the exhumation spot; no statement recording concealment by accused; inadmissible as disclosure.
- Medical Evidence on Cause and Time of Death – Post-mortem showed both hanging and strangulation possibilities; uncertain time of death further undercut last-seen theory.
- Confessions Under Section 164 CrPC – Procedural lapses: no offer of legal aid, date discrepancies, inconsistency in recording language; confessions were partly exculpatory and required corroboration.
- Requirement of Corroboration – Following Pyarelal Bhargava and Kanda Pandyachi, Court held that a confession must be supported by other valid evidence before forming basis of conviction.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Accused)
- Trial Court’s well-reasoned acquittal should stand; High Court substituted inferences without dispelling reasonable doubt.
- Last-seen evidence was unproven and not time-proximate; medical and forensic findings inconclusive.
- Rope and other recoveries lacked proper Section 27 statements and forensic linkage.
- Confessions were inconsistent, involuntary, procedurally flawed, and retracted; no corroboration.
Respondent (State)
- Incriminating circumstances: last seen theory, discovery of body, rope recovery, personal items, and confessions form a complete chain.
- Confessions voluntarily made under Section 164 CrPC, even if retracted, are admissible and corroborate prosecution story.
- High Court correctly reversed acquittal and convicted under Sections 302 and 201 IPC.
Factual Background
A college student went missing on 18 February 2006. A missing-person complaint (PW1) led to arrest of two friends—A1 and A2—on 20–23 February 2006. The body was exhumed from a graveyard; a rope and the victim’s personal items were seized. Confession statements under Section 164 CrPC implicated both accused. At trial, 34 prosecution witnesses were examined; the Trial Court acquitted. On State appeal, the High Court convicted under IPC 302 and 201. The Supreme Court restored the Trial Court’s acquittal.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 302 IPC (Murder) and Section 201 IPC (Causing disappearance of evidence).
- Section 164 CrPC: recording of confessions; must be voluntary, with magistrate offering legal aid.
- Section 27 Evidence Act: disclosure statements by accused leading to discovery; requires proof of concealment.
- Articles 21 and 22(1) Constitution; Section 304 CrPC; Article 39A – right to legal aid.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Affirms established rules on circumstantial evidence and admissibility of confessions under Section 164 CrPC.