2018 (10) TMI 2015 - SC - Indian Laws

Murder - case of circumstantial evidence - theory of last seen - last seen theory establishes the presence of the Appellant with the deceased at night - HELD THAT - Normally this Court Under Article 136 of the Constitution, would be reluctant in appeal to interfere with the concurrent findings of two courts by reappreciating the facts and evidence. But in an appropriate case, if this Court finds that there has been erroneous consideration and appreciation of facts and evidence, leading to miscarriage of justice, this Court is duty bound to ensure that ultimately justice prevails. It is a well established principle of criminal jurisprudence that several Accused may go free, but an innocent person should not be punished. The essentials of circumstantial evidence stand well established by precedents and we do not consider it necessary to reiterate the same and burden the order unnecessarily. Suffice it to observe that in a case of circumstantial evidence the prosecution is required to establish the continuity in the links of the chain of circumstances, so as to lead to the only and inescapable conclusion of the Accused being the assailant, inconsistent or incompatible with the possibility of any other hypothesis compatible with the innocence of the Accused. Mere invocation of the last seen theory, sans the facts and evidence in a case, will not suffice to shift the onus upon the Accused Under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872 unless the prosecution first establishes a prima facie case. If the links in the chain of circumstances itself are not complete, and the prosecution is unable to establish a prima facie case, leaving open the possibility that the occurrence may have taken place in some other manner, the onus will not shift to the Accused, and the benefit of doubt will have to be given. Unfortunately neither Trial Court nor the High Court considered it necessary to take notice of, much less discuss or observe with regard to the aforesaid defence by the Appellant Under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure to either accept or reject it. The defence taken cannot be said to be irrelevant, illogical or fanciful in the entirety of the facts and the nature of other evidence available as discussed hereinbefore. The complete non-consideration thereof has clearly caused prejudice to the Appellant. The entirety of the discussion, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of evidence available coupled with the manner of its consideration, leaves us satisfied that the links in the chain of circumstances in a case of circumstantial evidence, cannot be said to have been established leading to the inescapable conclusion that the Appellant was the assailant of the deceased, incompatible with any possibility of innocence of the Appellant. The possibility that the occurrence may have taken place in some other manner cannot be completely ruled out. The Appellant is therefore held entitled to acquittal on the benefit of doubt. The acquittal is ordered - the Appellant is released from custody forthwith, unless wanted in any other case - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Conviction under Section 302 IPC based on circumstantial evidence.
2. Reliability of witness testimonies and contradictions.
3. Adequacy of legal representation for the appellant.
4. Nature and cause of injuries on the deceased.
5. Consideration of the defense under Section 313 CrPC.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Conviction under Section 302 IPC based on circumstantial evidence:
The appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. The case was based on circumstantial evidence, with the trial court and high court relying on the "last seen theory" to establish the appellant's presence with the deceased at night and her alleged unnatural conduct. The Supreme Court emphasized that in cases of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish an unbroken chain of circumstances leading to the only inescapable conclusion of the accused being the assailant, inconsistent with any other hypothesis of innocence.

2. Reliability of witness testimonies and contradictions:
The testimonies of key witnesses (PW-1, PW-2, and PW-3) were found to be contradictory. PW-1 stated that the deceased had a head injury from a fall and did not see other injuries, while CW-1 claimed PW-1 applied Dettol to the deceased's wounds. PW-2 and PW-3 provided conflicting accounts of when they were informed about the injury. The post-mortem report contradicted the witnesses' claims about the deceased's physical condition and the nature of the injuries, suggesting the possibility of multiple assailants.

3. Adequacy of legal representation for the appellant:
The appellant did not have the benefit of a lawyer of her choice and was provided legal assistance by the Legal Services Authority. The Supreme Court noted this as a handicap in establishing her innocence but did not comment on the nature of the defense provided. The court emphasized the importance of adequate legal representation in ensuring a fair trial.

4. Nature and cause of injuries on the deceased:
The post-mortem report revealed multiple chop wounds and a fracture of the temporal bone, which could not have been caused by the small knife recovered. The injuries were deemed to be caused by a moderately heavy sharp cutting weapon and were homicidal in nature. The court found it implausible that the appellant, being a woman, could have inflicted such severe injuries without any resistance from the deceased or suffering any injuries herself.

5. Consideration of the defense under Section 313 CrPC:
The appellant's defense under Section 313 CrPC was not adequately considered by the trial court or the high court. The defense suggested that the deceased was assaulted elsewhere and brought home in an injured condition. The Supreme Court highlighted the importance of considering the defense under Section 313 CrPC, noting that the accused is not required to prove the defense beyond a reasonable doubt but only by a preponderance of probabilities. The non-consideration of the appellant's defense was deemed to have caused prejudice.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court found that the links in the chain of circumstances were not established, leading to the inescapable conclusion that the appellant was the assailant. The possibility that the occurrence took place in some other manner could not be ruled out. Consequently, the appellant was acquitted on the benefit of doubt, and her release from custody was ordered. The appeal was allowed.