Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(BOM) 2572
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
M. S. Sonak, Bharat P. Deshpande, JJ
Aman Kavitiya – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 9 OF 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Rohan Desai
For the Respondents: S. G. Bhobe
Convictions based on circumstantial evidence require an unbroken chain of facts excluding all theories of innocence. Evidence of discovery under the Evidence Act is inadmissible if items are tampered with or if the investigation lacks material precision, rendering weak and circumstantial cases insufficient for conviction.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 394, 201 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 374 - Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 27 - Murder, robbery, and destruction of evidence - Conviction based on circumstantial evidence - Requirements for establishing guilt - Chain of circumstances must be complete, unbroken, and point only to the guilt of the accused - Principles for circumstantial evidence reiterated. (Paras 56, 70)
(B) Evidence - Circumstantial Evidence - Reliability - Discovery/Recovery - Disclosure and recovery under the law must be established with precision; exact words attributed to the accused must be proven - Tampering with recovered items by investigative agencies invalidates the evidence of discovery. (Paras 53, 57, 61)
(C) Criminal Investigation - Duty of Investigator - Incompetent, lackadaisical, or biased investigation vitiates the prosecution's case - Suspicion, however strong, cannot replace legal proof - Requirement of 'sterling quality' evidence if lapses occur. (Paras 54, 55, 69, 71)
Facts of the case:
An appeal was filed against a conviction under the penal code for offenses of murder, robbery, and destruction of evidence. The prosecution relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, including the recovery of a weapon and other articles through disclosure statements, last-seen theory, and witness testimonies. The trial court found the accused guilty, sentencing the individual to life imprisonment.
Findings of Court:
The appellate court found the investigation process was fundamentally flawed, characterized by serious lapses, including the tampering of recovered evidence and the lack of a coherent, unbroken chain of events. Witness testimonies were deemed unreliable, and the prosecution failed to establish a credible motive or connect the accused to the crime through admissible and untainted evidence.
Issues: The main issue was whether the prosecution succeeded in establishing an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, and whether the alleged discovery of incriminating objects was valid under the law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that circumstantial evidence must be of a conclusive nature, consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, and must exclude every possible alternative hypothesis. Disclosure and recovery of material objects require the prosecution to prove the exact words of the accused and establish that the articles were not tampered with. Since the evidence was riddled with serious procedural irregularities and tampering, the substratum of the prosecution case failed.
Result: Appeal allowed; judgment and conviction set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural background and trial history of the criminal appeal. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. summary of party contentions regarding the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. detailed factual narrative of the investigation and trial proceedings. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. assessment of evidence tampering and invalidity of section 27 recovery discoveries. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 5. discrediting of the last seen theory and unreliable witness testimony. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50) |
| 6. required standards for circumstantial evidence and section 27 disclosures. (Para 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60) |
| 7. final evaluation of investigation flaws leading to acquittal. (Para 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71) |
| 8. formal order setting aside the lower court conviction. (Para 72) |
ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per Bharat P. Deshpande, J)
By way of present appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C., the appellant/accused is challenging the Judgment and order dated 23/12/2021 arising out of Sessions Case No.10/2018 decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Margao whereby the appellant was found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302, 394 and 201 of I.P.C. and accordingly sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of ₹1,00,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two years. Similarly, for the offence punishable under Section 394 of IPC, the accused has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 10 years and to pay a fine of ₹25,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. For the offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC, the accused is directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of ₹10,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. All the above sentences are directed to run concurrently.
2. On 09/03/2022, the appeal was admitted and the Registry was directed to prepare a paper book as early as possible and to place the matter for final hearing. Records and proceedings were also called. Accordingly, after the preparation of the paper book, the matter was taken up for final disposal.
3. We have heard the learned Counsel Shri Rohan Desai, appearing for the accused and learned Public Prosecutor Shri S.G. Bhobe appearing for the State at length. With the assistance of the learned Counsels, we perused the record and more specifically reasons of the learned Trial Court while convicting the accused on all counts.
4. The learned Counsel Shri Rohan Desai strenuously urged that the case of prosecution is entirely based on circumstances and prosecution has miserably failed to prove the circumstances linking the accused to the commission of the offence and forming a chain so as to consider him guilty. He submitted that on all counts prosecution has failed and evidence brought on record is not admissible and unacceptable in the eyes of law. In spite of this the accused is found guilty on the reasons which cannot be forming any conclusion about the involvement of the accused in such offence. While elaborating such arguments he submitted that the only material which has been relied upon by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is the so-called recovery at the instance of the accused. According to him, recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act at the instance of the accused has been totally disproved. The witnesses who deposed before the Trial Court nowhere disclosed the exact words uttered by the accused while making such disclosure statements before the recovery could be effected.
5. The learned Counsel Shri Rohan Desai then submitted that prosecution tried to implicate the accused on the basis of last seen theory which is also unacceptable. The witnesses examined in this respect are totally shaken durin
