2012 (5) TMI 852 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Circumstantial Evidence
2. Fingerprint Evidence
3. Test Identification Parade
4. Extra-Judicial Confession
5. Statements u/s 313 CrPC

Summary:

Circumstantial Evidence:
The case is based on circumstantial evidence with no direct witness to the crime. The prosecution must establish a complete chain of events pointing only towards the guilt of the accused. The prosecution examined 49 witnesses, including forensic experts, neighbours, and the sole surviving family member, Meenal Seth (PW12), to establish the chain of events. The principles governing circumstantial evidence were outlined, emphasizing the need for each circumstance to be conclusively established and consistent only with the guilt of the accused.

Fingerprint Evidence:
The High Court's reliance on fingerprint evidence was challenged. PW-38, the fingerprint expert, lifted chance fingerprints from the crime scene, which matched the fingerprints of Accused Nos. 1 and 2. Despite the defense's contention, the courts found the fingerprint evidence reliable and corroborated by other evidence, including the recovery of stolen items identified by PW-12.

Test Identification Parade:
The identification parade was conducted months after the arrest of the accused, raising concerns of delay. However, the court held that delay alone does not invalidate the identification parade if conducted properly. The identification parade served as corroborative evidence, and the witnesses also identified the accused in court.

Extra-Judicial Confession:
The High Court did not rely on extra-judicial confessions made to various persons but considered the admissible parts under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The confessions led to the recovery of incriminating articles, which formed a valid piece of evidence. The court emphasized that extra-judicial confessions must be voluntary, true, and corroborated by other evidence.

Statements u/s 313 CrPC:
The statements of the accused u/s 313 CrPC were scrutinized. The accused failed to provide satisfactory explanations for their conduct and injuries. The court noted that false or incorrect answers given by the accused could lead to adverse inferences against them. The court concluded that the accused's conduct and lack of proper explanation supported the prosecution's case.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the judgments of the lower courts, finding no merit in the appeals. The prosecution successfully established the chain of circumstances, corroborated by reliable evidence, leading to the conviction of the accused. The appeal was dismissed.