1. Conviction for murder and causing disappearance of evidence under Sections 302 and 201, IPC, based on circumstantial evidence. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 )
Back
Next 
2023 Supreme(SC) 1131
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY S. OKA, PANKAJ MITHAL, JJ.
Sharanappa @ Sharanappa - Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.1673 Of 2011
Decided On : 04-10-2023
Important Points
In cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances. Conviction cannot be sustained if key links, such as 'last seen together' and recovery of the weapon, are not proven or rely on unreliable testimony, even if the accused's conduct is suspicious.
Subject
Criminal Law - Circumstantial Evidence
Act Referred
Headnote
IPC - Conviction under Sections 302 and 201 - [302, 201] - The court discussed the circumstantial evidence, including last seen together and recovery of the weapon, and found them unreliable, leading to the acquittal of the appellant.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code based on circumstantial evidence, including last seen together and recovery of the weapon.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the evidence of last seen together and recovery of the weapon to be unreliable, leading to the acquittal of the appellant.
Issues: Reliability of circumstantial evidence, including last seen together and recovery of the weapon.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the duty of the prosecution to establish all circumstances forming a part of the chain in a case based on circumstantial evidence. It found the evidence of last seen together and recovery of the weapon to be unreliable, leading to the acquittal of the appellant.
Final Decision: The appeal succeeded, and the appellant was acquitted of the offences alleged against him. The bail bonds of the appellant were cancelled.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. D.N.Goburdhun, Sr. Adv. Mrs. Rajani.K.prasad, Adv. Mr. B.krishna Prasad, Adv. Mr. T. V. Ratnam, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Prateek K Chadha, A.A.G. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Manendra Pal Gupta, Adv. Mr. Sreekar Aechuri, Adv. Ms. Pragya Ganjoo, Adv. Ms. Muskaan Singla, Adv.
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. D.N.Goburdhun, Sr. Adv. Mrs. Rajani.K.prasad, Adv. Mr. B.krishna Prasad, Adv. Mr. T. V. Ratnam, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Prateek K Chadha, A.A.G. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Manendra Pal Gupta, Adv. Mr. Sreekar Aechuri, Adv. Ms. Pragya Ganjoo, Adv. Ms. Muskaan Singla, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Dispute over the reliability of the last-seen witness and the validity of weapon recovery versus the significance of the accused's conduct. (Para 7 , 8 )
3. The last-seen witness's testimony was a complete improvement over the police statement, and recovery witnesses failed to support the prosecution's case. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 )
4. Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires the prosecution to establish every link in the chain; failure to prove key circumstances precludes conviction. (Para 9 , 13 )
5. Appeal allowed, impugned judgments set aside, and appellant acquitted of all charges. (Para 14 , 15 )
6. What is the burden of proof in cases based on circumstantial evidence?
The prosecution bears the duty to establish all circumstances forming a part of the chain to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 9 , 13 )
7. How does a significant contradiction between a witness's court testimony and their police statement affect the case?
If the testimony provided during examination-in-chief is a complete improvement over the statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the testimony is considered unreliable. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 )
8. Can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of the accused's conduct when other circumstantial links fail?
No, if primary circumstances such as last-seen evidence and the recovery of the weapon of offence are not established, the accused cannot be convicted solely on the basis of their conduct. (Para 13 )
JUDGMENT :
(Abhay S. Oka, J.)
Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent-State.
2. The appellant was convicted by the Trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC"). For the offence under Section 302, the Trial Court sentenced the appellant to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand). In the appeal, by the impugned judgment, the High Court has confirmed the conviction.
3. Reference to few relevant facts will be necessary. The deceased is Meenakshi with whom the appellant married on Basavajayanti day in the year 2003 in a mass marriage programme. The appellant was working as a Coolie at Mangalore. About 3-4 months prior to the date of incident, the appellant took the deceased to Mangalore and started residing together in a rented room owned by PW-10.
4. The case of the prosecution is that on 28th May, 2004 PW-3 Alfred Mathai saw the appellant in the company of the deceased near Mariyapura Bus Stop. On 30th May, 2004 a body of a female person was recovered in a decomposed state. The body was identified as that of the deceased wife of the appellant.
5. The prosecution case is that on 28th May, 2004 itself, the appellant informed his father-in-law that his wife was missing. However, he did not file a missing complaint. The appellant filed a missing complaint on 31st May, 2004. The First Information Report was registered on the basis of the complaint filed by appellant's father-in-law on 1st June, 2004. The allegation made therein was that the appellant suspected that his wife was living an adulterous life and that was pleaded as a motive to kill the deceased.
6. The case is based on circumstantial evidence. The first circumstance is of last seen together. The second circumstance is of the recovery of knife allegedly used as a weapon of offence by the appellant, at the instance of the appellant. The third circumstance is that though even according to the appellant, the deceased was missing since 28th May, 2004, he never filed a missing complaint till 31st May, 2004 and he did so after getting the knowledge of the fact that the dead body of his wife was found on earlier day.
7. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant has taken us through the evidence of PW-3 Alfred Mathai and submitted that the evidence of the said witness is wholly unreliable. He also invited our attention to the evidence of the alleged witnesses to the Recovery Memorandum of alleged recovery of the knife at the instance of the appellant. He submitted that both the witnesses have not supported the prosecution. His submission is that both the important circumstances which constitute the chain of circumstances against the appellant have not been established.
8. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent-State, while supporting the impugned judgment, submitted that the Trial Court and the High Court have analyzed the evidence of PW-3 and found that his version was reliable. His submission is that the appellant has not explained a very important circumstance against him that from 28th May, 2004 to 31st May, 2004 he did not lodge even a missing report with the police. He submitted that only after he came to know about the recovery of body of his wife, he lodged missing complaint.
9. As stated earlier, the case is based on circumstantial evidence. Therefore, it is the duty of the prosecution to establish all the circumstances forming a part of the chain. The first and the most important circumstance relied upon by the prosecution was of last seen together. The only witness examined to prove the said circumstance was PW-3 Alfred Mathai. According to his version in the examination-in-chief, the appellant used to come for work as a helper for fitting tiles and therefore, he had seen the appellant. He stated that he was a Electrical Contractor. H
