1. Appeal against conviction for murder and causing disappearance of evidence under Sections 302 and 201 read with 34, IPC, following reversal of trial court acquittal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 )
Back
Next 
2017 Supreme(SC) 565
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. NAGESWARA RAO, NAVIN SINHA, JJ.
Anjan Kumar Sarma & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State of Assam – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 560 of 2014
Decided On : 23-05-2017
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINTS
Judgment of acquittal should not be reversed unless perverse.
Last seen theory and absence of explanation u/s 313, CrPC, without anything else, cannot be made basis for conviction.
Chain of evidence should be complete for convicting an accused.
Suspicion cannot take the place of legal proof.
Judgment of acquittal should not be reversed unless perverse.
Last seen theory and absence of explanation u/s 313, CrPC, without anything else, cannot be made basis for conviction.
Chain of evidence should be complete for convicting an accused.
Suspicion cannot take the place of legal proof.
Subject
Criminal Law - Murder
Act Referred
Headnote
(a) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 378 – Appeal against acquittal – Judgment of acquittal – Should not be reversed unless perverse. (Para 12)
(2011) 6 SCC 288 – Relied upon
(b) Criminal trial – Circumstantial evidence – Last seen theory and absence of explanation u/s 313, CrPC – Would provide additional link if other circumstances are proved – Cannot be made basis for conviction. (Para 21)
(2003) 3 SCC 106; (1955) 2 SCR 570 – Relied upon
(c) Criminal trial – Circumstantial evidence – Chain of evidence should be complete – Showing that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. (Para 13)
(1984) 4 SCC 116; AIR 1963 SC 200 – Relied upon
(d) Criminal jurisprudence – Suspicion – Cannot take the place of legal proof – May be true and must be true and conjectures and conclusions – Distinction – Inferences by court must be based on facts and not conjectures. (Para 15, 16)
(1991) 3 SCC 27; (2013) 12 SCC 406 – Relied upon
(e) Criminal trial – Circumstantial evidence – Last seen theory – Cannot by itself form basis of holding the accused guilty of the offence. (Para 18)
(2014) 4 SCC 715 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
The Appellants along with Jitendra Nath Kakati alias Jit Kakati were charged for committing offences under Section 302, 376(2)(g), 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Accused Jit Kakati was separately charged under Section 366-A IPC. The Appellants and Jit Kakati were acquitted of all the charges framed against them. The High Court reversed the acquittal and convicted the Appellants and Jit Kakati for offences under Section 302, 201 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment after acquitting them for an offence under Section 376(2)(g) read with Section 34 IPC. Jit Kakati was acquitted for offences under Section 366-A IPC.
The acquittal of the Appellants under Section 376(2)(g) was confirmed by the High Court which remains unchallenged.
Finding of the Court:
Impugned judgment based on conjectures cannot be sustained.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Judgement Key Points
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
-
The judgment of acquittal should not be reversed unless it is found to be perverse or unjustified (!) .
-
The last seen theory and the absence of an explanation under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, without additional evidence, cannot by themselves form the basis for conviction (!) .
-
A complete chain of evidence is essential for establishing guilt in a circumstantial evidence case. The circumstances must be fully established, consistent only with the guilt of the accused, conclusive, and must exclude any reasonable hypothesis of innocence, forming a complete chain (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
-
Suspicion alone cannot replace legal proof. Inferences by the court must be based on facts and not conjectures, and suspicion should not be the foundation for a conviction (!) (!) .
-
The circumstance of last seen together, without other corroborative evidence, is insufficient to establish guilt. It must be supported by additional circumstances that create a complete and convincing chain of evidence (!) (!) (!) (!) .
-
The absence of a motive, along with other factors, weakens the case for guilt, especially when the relationship between the accused and the victim was cordial and there was no prior indication of animosity (!) .
-
The prosecution must prove that the accused were last seen with the victim in a manner that makes it highly improbable for any other person to have committed the crime, and the time gap should be such that the likelihood of other persons being involved can be ruled out (!) .
-
In cases of circumstantial evidence, the evidence must be such that all reasonable doubts are eliminated, and the guilt of the accused must be the only logical conclusion from the established facts (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
-
When the prosecution fails to establish the necessary links in the chain of evidence, or when the evidence is not sufficient to exclude all reasonable hypotheses of innocence, the court should acquit the accused (!) .
-
The overall assessment of the evidence led to the conclusion that the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution did not definitively prove guilt, resulting in the reversal of the conviction and the acquittal of the accused (!) (!) .
These points underscore the importance of a complete and convincing chain of evidence in circumstantial cases and the necessity of establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt before reversing an acquittal.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. State contends last seen theory and failure to explain under Section 313 CrPC establish guilt, especially given the isolated location of the incident. (Para 14 )
3. The court found a significant time gap between the last seen event and death, and the recovery of the weapon was not legally established. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 15 , 16 , 17 )
4. Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires a complete chain; last seen theory and absence of explanation alone are insufficient without other established incriminating links. (Para 13 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 )
5. High Court judgment set aside and Appellants acquitted of charges under Sections 302 and 201 read with 34, IPC. (Para 22 , 23 )
6. What are the essential requirements for conviction based on circumstantial evidence?
The circumstances must be fully established, consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt, conclusive in nature, exclude every other possible hypothesis, and form a complete chain of evidence leaving no reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. (Para 13 )
7. Does the circumstance of being last seen together with the deceased automatically lead to an inference of guilt?
No, the last seen theory does not by itself necessarily lead to the inference that the accused committed the crime. There must be additional evidence establishing connectivity between the accused and the crime to complete the chain of circumstances. (Para 18 )
8. Is the failure of an accused to offer an explanation under Section 313 CrPC sufficient to establish guilt?
No, the failure to offer an explanation in a statement under Section 313 CrPC alone is not sufficient to establish a charge. It can only serve as an additional link if other links in the chain are already satisfactorily made out. (Para 19 , 20 )
9. How does the time gap between the last seen event and the discovery of the body affect the last seen theory?
The time gap is a material consideration. If the gap is small enough to rule out other persons' involvement, it is strong evidence. However, if a significant gap exists and no other links are proved, it cannot be the sole basis for conviction. (Para 16 , 21 )
JUDGMENT :
L. Nageswara Rao, J.
The Appellants along with Jitendra Nath Kakati alias Jit Kakati were charged for committing offences under Section 302, 376(2)(g), 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’). Accused Jit Kakati was separately charged under Section 366-A IPC. The Appellants and Jit Kakati were acquitted of all the charges framed against them. The High Court reversed the acquittal and convicted the Appellants and Jit Kakati for offences under Section 302, 201 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment after acquitting them for an offence under Section 376(2)(g) read with Section 34 IPC. Jit Kakati was acquitted for offences under Section 366-A IPC. Aggrieved by the conviction under Section 302 read with 34 IPC, the Appellants have filed these Appeals. It is relevant to mention here that Jit Kakati filed Criminal Appeal No.1305 of 2014 which abated due to his death.
2. Appellant 1, 2 and Jit Kakati worked as Assistant Managers of Gotanga tea estate at the relevant time. Appellant No.3 was working as a welfare officer of Sangsua tea estate and Appellant No.4 was working as the Assistant Manager of Gobindapur tea estate. Both Gotanga and Sangsua tea estate were under the same management. Jit Kakati and Anjan Kumar Sharma, the first Appellant, were living in bungalow No.17 in Gotanga tea estate. Jit Kakati was staying in one part of the Director’s bungalow situated in Sangsua tea estate when he was working as Assistant Manager at Sangsua tea estate prior to his transfer to Gotanga tea estate. Even after his transfer and allotment of bungalow No. 17 in Gotanga tea estate, Jit Kakati was still in occupation of the Director’s bungalow at Sangsua tea estate.
3. Rekha Dutta was residing in a house situated near the Director’s bungalow at Sangsua tea estate. Jit Kakati developed intimacy with Rekha Dutta. On 27.12.1992 Rekha Dutta went inside the Director’s bungalow of Sangsua tea estate to fetch water. Jit Kakati called her inside the bungalow and Rekha Dutta stayed in the bungalow for a considerable period of time. Sarumai Halwai (PW-1) informed Jibon Dutta (PW-20) the elder brother of Rekha Dutta about his sister spending considerable time inside the bungalow along with Jit Kakati. PW-20 who was working as a Chowkidar at Sangsua tea estate at the relevant time sent his sister Jun Moni Dutta (PW-2) to the Director’s bungalow to see whether Rekha Dutta was in the bungalow. PW-2 visited the bungalow and found that Rekha Dutta was sitting in a room along with Jit Kakati. On the basis of the said information, PW-20 went to the Director’s bungalow and questioned the conduct of Jit Kakati. Jit Kakati informed PW-20 that he proposes to marry Rekha Dutta. PW-20 told Jit Kakati that a decision regarding the marriage can be taken only after consultation with his relatives. As per the prosecution version, PW-20 sent one Ranjit Halwai to call his relatives. All the accused along with Rekha Dutta left the Director’s bungalow of Sangsua tea estate on two motor cycles before the relatives of PW-20 reached the spot. They went to bungalow No.17 in the adjacent Gotanga tea estate. Rekha Dutta was seen at bungalow No.17 on the evening of 27.12.1992 till 9:00 pm by Fulu Turi (PW-4) and Bhai Turi (PW-5). As the whereabouts of Rekha Dutta thereafter were not known to PW-20 and her other family members, they started making enquires on 28.12.1992. As they could not locate Rekha Dutta, PW-20 approached the officer in charge Pulibar Police Station, District Jorhat and submitted an ejahar (F.I. statement). PW-20 stated in the ejahar that Jit Kakati eloped with Rekha Dutta at 4:30 pm on 27.12.1992 and thereafter her whereabouts were not known.
4. An FIR was registered at 10:15 am on 29.12.1992. The Investigating Officer (PW-21) commenced his investigation by going to the Sangsua tea estate and started examining witnesses. At about 1:50 pm he received information about a dead body l
