2022 Supreme(SC) 1112

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Uday Umesh Lalit, CJI., Bela M. Trivedi, J.
S. KALEESWARAN - APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE POLLACHI TOWN EAST POLICE STATION, COIMBATORE DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU - RESPONDENT(S)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 160 OF 2017
WITH
JOHN ANTHONISAMY @ JOHN - APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE, REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE POLLACHI TOWN EAST POLICE STATION, COIMBATORE DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU - RESPONDENT(S)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 410 of 2017
Decided On : 03-11-2022

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) When extra judicial confession is not duly proved, or does not inspire confidence or is not corroborated by any other reliable evidence, conviction could not be based solely on such weak piece of evidence.
(2) Murder – Though identification of deceased through superimposition is an acceptable piece of opinion evidence, however, courts generally do not rely upon opinion evidence as sole incriminating circumstances, given its fallibility and superimposition technique cannot be regarded as infallible.
(3) Circumstantial evidence – There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for conclusion consistent with innocence of accused and must show that in all human probability act must have been done by accused.
(4) Motive – Evidentiary value – Though in a case of direct evidence, motive would not be relevant, in a case of circumstantial evidence, motive plays an important link to complete chain of circumstances.

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 120(B), 147, 364 and 302 read with 120(B)/149, 201 and 396 – Conspiracy, kidnapping, murder and robbery – Conviction and sentence – Circumstantial evidence – When extra judicial confession is not duly proved, or does not inspire confidence or is not corroborated by any other reliable evidence, conviction could not be based solely on such weak piece of evidence – High Court rightly discarded alleged extra judicial confession made by accused no.1 – If there is considerable time gap between persons seeing together and proximate time of crime, circumstances of last seen together, even if proved cannot clinchingly fasten guilt of accused – When there was huge time gap of about more than six months between date of incident and date of recording of statements of witnesses by Investigating Officer, Test Identification Parade would have assisted police in identifying accused – No such TI Parade was held by Investigating Officer – Failure of accused, in a case based on circumstantial evidence which included “last seen together theory”, to explain under Section 313, Cr.P.C. as to under what circumstances victim suffered death, would also not be a ground to arrive at irresistible conclusion that accused were involved in commission of alleged crime – Though identification of deceased through superimposition is an acceptable piece of opinion evidence, however, courts generally do not rely upon opinion evidence as sole incriminating circumstances, given its fallibility and superimposition technique cannot be regarded as infallible – Since super-imposition report was not supported by any other reliable medical evidence like a DNA report or post-mortem report, it would be very risky to convict accused believing identification of dead body of victim through super-imposition test – In case based on circumstantial evidence, if entire chain is duly proved by cogent evidence, conviction could be recorded even if corpus is not found, but when as per case of prosecution, dead body of victim was discovered from place shown by accused, it is imperative on part of prosecution to prove that dead body or skeleton found at instance of accused was that of victim and of none else – Prosecution had also failed to prove motive of accused for committing alleged crime – Circumstances relied upon by prosecution did not complete chain to dispel hypothesis of innocence of appellants-accused – Judgments and orders of conviction and sentence passed by Trial Court and confirmed by High Court set aside – Both appellants-accused, and other three accused who have not filed any appeal, acquitted. (Paras 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16)

(B) Criminal Law – Motive – Evidentiary value – Though in a case of direct evidence, motive would not be relevant, in a case of circumstantial evidence, motive plays an important link to complete chain of circumstances. (Para 14)

Facts of the case:

Trial Court had convicted present appellants along with the other three Accused for the offence under Sections 120(B), 147, 364 and 302 read with 120(B)/149, 201 and 396 I.P.C., and sentenced them. High Court while dismissing appeals has confirmed the judgment and order dated 22nd July, 2014 passed by Sessions Judge.

Findings of Court:

Prosecution having failed to establish through clinching, clear, cogent and consistent evidence, chain of events, on the basis of which the guilt of the appellants-accused could be established, Courts below had committed error in accepting the case of prosecution and convicting them for the alleged crime.

Result : Appeals allowed. Accused acquitted.