2025 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 19643

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Vinit Kumar Mathur, Anuroop Singhi, JJ
Arjun Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
D.B. Murder Reference No. 03/2023 | D.B. Criminal Appeal (Db) No. 60/2024

In crimes prosecuted on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of incriminating circumstances inconsistent with the innocence of the accused. In the absence of established motive, reliable recovery, or conclusive scientific evidence, a conviction cannot be sustained, and the benefit of doubt must be granted.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 and 376AB - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 5m/6 and 3/4 - Circumstantial evidence - Conviction - Requirement of a complete chain of evidence - Prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt - Held, conviction on circumstantial evidence requires chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for conclusion consistent with innocence of accused. (Paras 12.2, 12.3, 12.4)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 313 - Statement of accused - Evidentiary value - Statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is not a substantive piece of evidence - It cannot form sole basis of conviction when prosecution has failed to establish chain of events or independent evidence. (Para 18.12)

(C) Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 27 - Recovery - Requirement of independent witnesses - Absence of independent witnesses where remaining evidence is weak or doubtful erodes credibility of recovery - Recovery must be unimpeachable to sustain guilt. (Paras 18.3, 18.5)

Facts of the case:
The convict was charged with double murder and sexual assault. The prosecution relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, specifically the recovery of a weapon and clothing at the instance of the accused after his arrest several days post-incident. There were no eye-witnesses, the motive attributed by the prosecution was not supported by evidence, and the scientific examination regarding the weapon failed to corroborate the case.

Findings of Court:
The Court found the prosecution's case suffered from significant gaps: the motive was unsubstantiated, the recovery memos lacked independent witnesses, the weapon allegedly used showed no blood stains, and the DNA evidence was inconclusive or improperly admitted. The chain of circumstances was incomplete.

Issues: The main issues were whether a conviction could be sustained on the basis of circumstantial evidence in the absence of a complete chain and whether the provided recoveries and expert reports sufficiently established the guilt of the accused.

Ratio Decidendi: In a case based on circumstantial evidence, every link in the chain of events must be established to exclude any hypothesis of innocence. If the prosecution fails to establish a motive, the weapon/recovery evidence is doubtful, and the scientific/medical proof is inconclusive, the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused.

Result: Appeal allowed; Judgment of conviction and sentence of death set aside; Accused acquitted.