2018 (4) TMI 1968 - SC - Indian Laws

Conviction based upon a retracted confession - circumstantial evidence - whether the High Court was right in dismissing the appeals preferred by the Appellants-Accused? - HELD THAT - The law is well settled that each and every incriminating circumstance must be clearly established by reliable and clinching evidence and the circumstances so proved must form a chain of events from which the only irresistible conclusion about the guilt of the Accused can be safely drawn and no other hypothesis against the guilt is possible. In a case depending largely upon circumstantial evidence, there is always a danger that conjecture or suspicion may take the place of legal proof. The court must satisfy itself that various circumstances in the chain of events must be such as to Rule out a reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the Accused. When the important link goes, the chain of circumstances gets snapped and the other circumstances cannot, in any manner, establish the guilt of the Accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The court has to be watchful and avoid the danger of allowing the suspicion to take the place of legal proof for sometimes, unconsciously it may happen to be a short step between moral certainty and legal proof. There is a long mental distance between may be true and must be true and the same divides conjectures from sure conclusions. The Court in mindful of caution by the settled principles of law and the decisions rendered by this Court that in a given case like this, where the prosecution rests on the circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must place and prove all the necessary circumstances, which would constitute a complete chain without a snap and pointing to the hypothesis that except the Accused, no one had committed the offence, which in the present case, the prosecution has failed to prove. Both the courts below have erred in relying that part of the statement which can be termed as confession which were given to the police officer while they were in custody and it will be hit by Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and only that part of the statement which led to the discovery of various materials would be permissible. Hence, in the absence of any other material evidence against the Appellants-Accused, they cannot be convicted solely on the basis of evidence of last seen together with the deceased. The judgment and order dated 23.11.2009 passed by the High Court is set aside - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the High Court's dismissal of the appeals.
2. Reliance on retracted confessions.
3. Circumstantial evidence and its sufficiency.
4. Identification of the accused.
5. Admissibility of statements made in police custody.
6. Recovery of material objects and their relevance.
7. Last seen theory and its evidentiary value.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the High Court's Dismissal of the Appeals:
The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was right in dismissing the appeals preferred by the appellants-accused. The High Court had upheld the conviction and sentences handed down by the Fast Track Court No. II, Salem, under Sections 302 read with Section 34, Section 364, and Section 379 of the IPC.

2. Reliance on Retracted Confessions:
The appellants contended that the conviction could not be based on retracted confessions and should only be used in support of other evidence. The Supreme Court noted that the lower courts had erred in relying on confessions made to police officers while in custody, which are inadmissible under Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act.

3. Circumstantial Evidence and Its Sufficiency:
The prosecution's case was based heavily on circumstantial evidence, given the absence of direct evidence. The prosecution relied on three main circumstances: the last seen theory, the recovery of material objects from the accused, and the identification of the dead bodies based on information provided by the accused. The Supreme Court emphasized that each incriminating circumstance must be clearly established and form a complete chain of events pointing solely to the guilt of the accused.

4. Identification of the Accused:
The pivotal evidence was the testimony of PW-11, who claimed to have last seen the accused with the deceased. The appellants argued that no identification parade was conducted, and PW-11 identified the accused in court after a significant lapse of time. The Supreme Court noted that while identification parades are corroborative, the testimony of PW-11 was credible and untainted by enmity or bias.

5. Admissibility of Statements Made in Police Custody:
The Supreme Court discussed the admissibility of statements made in police custody under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, which allows for the derivative use of such statements if they lead to the discovery of new facts. However, the Court found that the statements in this case did not lead to the discovery of any new facts that could be reliably linked to the crime.

6. Recovery of Material Objects and Their Relevance:
The prosecution failed to prove that the recovered objects, such as a Yashika camera and a mobile phone, belonged to the deceased. The Supreme Court noted that the material objects recovered did not have a direct bearing on the case and could have been planted by the police. The absence of a connecting link between the crime and the recovered objects weakened the prosecution's case.

7. Last Seen Theory and Its Evidentiary Value:
The last seen theory was a crucial part of the prosecution's case. The Supreme Court noted that while this theory is significant, it cannot solely establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt without corroboration. The Court emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to establish a complete chain of events pointing to the accused's guilt.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the lower courts had erred in relying on inadmissible confessions and circumstantial evidence that did not form a complete and unbroken chain pointing solely to the guilt of the accused. The judgment and order dated 23.11.2009 passed by the High Court were set aside, and the appeals were allowed. The appellants were ordered to be released forthwith unless required in any other criminal case.