2022 (5) TMI 1593 - SC - Indian Laws

Murder - case of the prosecution herein has remained that the Trial Court and the High Court have rightly convicted A2 since the prosecution could successfully establish that there was a motive for the murder - HELD THAT - The conviction of A2 is based only upon circumstantial evidence. Hence, in order to sustain a conviction, it is imperative that the chain of circumstances is complete, cogent and coherent. This court has consistently held in a long line of cases that where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused. The circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances. In Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab 1954 (2) TMI 24 - SUPREME COURT , it was laid down that where the case depends upon the conclusion drawn from circumstances, the cumulative effect of the circumstances must be such as to negate the innocence of the accused and bring the offence home beyond any reasonable doubt. Upon thorough application of the above settled law on the facts of the present case, it is held that the circumstantial evidence against the present appellant i.e. A2 does not conclusively establish the guilt of A2 in committing the murder of the deceased children. The last seen theory, the arrest of the accused, the recovery of material objects and the call details produced, do not conclusively complete the chain of evidence and do not establish the fact that A2 committed the murder of the children of PW5 - The High Court fell in grave error when it fallaciously drew dubious inferences from the details of the call records of A1 and A2 that were produced before them. The High Court inferred from the call details of A2 and A1 that they shared an abnormally close intimate relation. The court further inferred from this, that unless they had been madly in love with each other, such chatting for hours would not have taken place. The electronic evidence produced before the High Court should have been in accordance with the statute and should have complied with the certification requirement, for it to be admissible in the court of law. As rightly stated above, Oral evidence in the place of such certificate, as is the case in the present matter, cannot possibly suffice as Section 65B(4) is a mandatory requirement of the law. To conclude, the tripod stand of Motive, Last Seen Theory and Recovery, that supported the conviction of A2 according to the High Court, is found to be non conclusive and the evidence supporting the conviction of A2 is marred with inconsistencies and contradictions, thereby making it impossible to sustain a conviction solely on such circumstantial evidence. The impugned order of the High Court is set aside to the extent that it convicts A2 under section 302 and 364 of the Indian Penal Code - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Conviction based on circumstantial evidence.
2. Admissibility of electronic evidence without certification.
3. Validity of the last seen theory.
4. Establishment of motive.
5. Inconsistencies in witness testimonies.
6. Recovery of material objects.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Conviction based on circumstantial evidence:
The Supreme Court highlighted that a conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence requires a complete, cogent, and coherent chain of circumstances. The Court cited multiple precedents, including *Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan* and *Eradu v. State of Hyderabad*, emphasizing that the inference of guilt must be justified only when all incriminating facts and circumstances are incompatible with the innocence of the accused. The Court found that the circumstantial evidence against the appellant (A2) did not conclusively establish his guilt in committing the murder of the children, as the chain of evidence was incomplete and non-coherent.

2. Admissibility of electronic evidence without certification:
The Court addressed the admissibility of electronic evidence, specifically call records, under sections 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. It referred to *Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal*, which reiterated that the certificate required under Section 65B(4) is a condition precedent to the admissibility of electronic records. The Court noted that the call records produced did not meet this requirement, rendering them inadmissible.

3. Validity of the last seen theory:
The prosecution's last seen theory was based on the testimonies of PW6 and PW7, who claimed to have seen A2 and A3 with the deceased children. However, the Court found inconsistencies in their testimonies, such as discrepancies regarding the timing and presence of the accused at the CIA staff. These contradictions weakened the prosecution's case, making the last seen theory non-conclusive.

4. Establishment of motive:
The High Court had inferred that A2's motive was his infatuation with A1, leading to the murder of the children. However, the Supreme Court found this inference to be based on dubious extrapolation of facts. The Court emphasized that the alleged intimacy between A1 and A2 was not established by direct evidence, and the motive inferred by the High Court was speculative and unsupported by concrete evidence.

5. Inconsistencies in witness testimonies:
The Court noted several inconsistencies in the testimonies of key witnesses, particularly PW6 and PW7. These included contradictions about the timing of the accused's presence at the CIA staff and the relationship between the witnesses and the complainant (PW5). Such inconsistencies rendered the evidence unreliable and insufficient to uphold the conviction of A2 based on circumstantial evidence.

6. Recovery of material objects:
The prosecution claimed that a school bag was recovered based on A2's disclosure statement. However, the Court found contradictions in the testimonies regarding the recovery of the bags. PW6 and PW5 testified that both bags were found beside the dead bodies, while PW12 (the Investigating Officer) stated that one bag was recovered from the spot and the other based on A3's disclosure. These inconsistencies undermined the prosecution's claim of recovery at A2's instance.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the evidence against A2 was marred with inconsistencies and contradictions, making it impossible to sustain a conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence. The appeal filed by A2 (Ravinder Singh) was allowed, and his conviction under sections 302 and 364 IPC was set aside. The acquittal of A1 and A3 by the High Court was upheld, and the appeals filed by the State challenging their acquittal were dismissed. The Court directed that A2 be immediately set at liberty unless required in any other case.