Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | Crl.A. No.-003738 – 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 authority |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Trial Court acquittal; overrules Meghalaya High Court conviction |
| Type of Law | Criminal law |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Supreme Court reiterated that to disturb an acquittal the prosecution must establish a complete, unbroken chain of circumstances excluding every hypothesis of innocence. “Last seen” evidence must be proximate and reliable, recoveries under Section 27 must follow valid recorded statements, and confessions under Section 164 CrPC must be voluntary, properly dated, and corroborated before they can support conviction. A confession exculpating the maker or accusing co-accused cannot supply the missing link. An appellate court cannot substitute its own inferences and lightly displace the presumption of innocence. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Missing-person complaint led to arrests, exhumation of body, recovery of rope and victim’s belongings, and two Section 164 confessions. Trial Court acquitted for lack of proof; High Court convicted under Sections 302 and 201 IPC on circumstantial chain and confessions. Supreme Court found medical evidence inconclusive, “last seen” and recovery theories unproved, confessions inconsistent, improperly recorded and uncorroborated, warranting restoration of acquittal. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and trial courts in criminal appeals |
| Overrules | Judgment of the Meghalaya High Court reversing Trial Court’s acquittal |
| Follows | Sharad Birdhichand Sarda; Chandrappa; principles in Kasab; Manoharan; Pyarelal Bhargava; Kandaswamy |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reinforces that an appellate court must respect acquittal unless it finds a complete, unbroken chain of circumstances excluding all innocence.
- Confessions under Section 164 CrPC must be contemporaneously dated, voluntary, in proper language, and accompanied by an offer of legal assistance to be admissible.
- Recoveries under Section 27 Evidence Act are inadmissible if not based on a recorded disclosure statement made before a magistrate or magistrate‐approved officer.
- “Last seen together” evidence must be proximate to time of death and supported by direct testimony or formal identification procedures.
- Trial Court’s detailed acquittal reasoning gains reinforcing weight; High Court cannot lightly substitute its own inferences absent compelling reason.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Applied five golden principles for circumstantial evidence (Sharad Birdhichand Sarda) and appellate restraint in acquittal appeals (Chandrappa).
- Examined medical evidence: inconclusive on homicide vs hanging; time of death broadens window beyond alleged “last seen” date.
- Dissected “last seen together” proof: no proximate eyewitness, no proper identification parade, no clarity on third occupant.
- Analyzed recoveries: rope from open graveyard without disclosure statement under Section 27; belongings seized not identified to victim.
- Scrutinized confessions: exculpatory or co-accused incriminating, date discrepancies, lack of record on right to counsel, no corroboration—hence inadmissible for conviction.
- Concluded that circumstantial chain lacked a single valid incriminating link; acquittal must be restored.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Trial Court’s acquittal was well-reasoned; High Court substituted its own inferences without showing Trial Court’s view was impermissible.
- “Last seen” evidence not proximate; time of death uncertain.
- Recovery of rope and belongings unproven and unconstrained by Section 27 safeguards.
- Confessional statements inconsistent, involuntary, undated/mismatched, made without offer of counsel, and self-exculpatory.
- Investigation lapses compounded lack of incriminating circumstances.
Respondent
- Incriminating circumstances: last seen theory, discovery of body, recovery of rope and victim’s possessions.
- Confessions were voluntary and corroborative of prosecution story.
- High Court rightly reversed acquittal; conviction under Sections 302 and 201 IPC should stand.
Factual Background
A student went missing on 18.02.2006; police arrested two friends, led to exhumation of a buried body, recovered a rope allegedly used for strangulation, and seized the victim’s personal effects. Both accused gave Section 164 confessions. Trial Court acquitted for lack of proof; High Court reversed and convicted them for murder and concealment of evidence. On appeal, Supreme Court found fatal gaps in circumstantial proof and confessions, restored acquittal, and ordered release.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 302 IPC: offence of murder.
- Section 201 IPC: causing disappearance of evidence.
- Section 164 CrPC: recording of confessional statements—requires voluntariness and right to counsel.
- Section 27 Evidence Act: admissibility of discoveries must follow a valid confession or disclosure.
- Section 482 CrPC: inherent power circumscribes but does not override mandatory standards for conviction and appellate review.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
Unanimous bench; no separate dissent or concurrence was issued.
Procedural Innovations
Reiterates magistrate’s duty under Article 22(1) and CrPC 304 to inform accused of right to legal aid before recording Section 164 statements; failure to do so renders confessions suspect.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – reaffirms established tests for circumstantial evidence and confession admissibility.
- ✔ Precedent Followed – upholds Supreme Court’s prior rulings on appellate restraint in acquittal appeals.