The Supreme Court acquitted three in a 2006 policeman murder case, ruling that a conviction cannot stand when the evidence chain is incomplete, the motive unproven, and disclosure statements unreliable.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: In a judgment, the Supreme Court of India on Monday acquitted three individuals convicted in a 2006 murder case of a policeman, citing that the prosecution failed to establish a complete and unbreakable chain of circumstantial evidence. The verdict came from a bench of Justices K. V. Viswanathan and K. Vinod Chandran, which overturned earlier rulings of both the Karnataka High Court and the trial court.
Case Background
The case revolved around the murder of a policeman, allegedly over a loan dispute. According to the prosecution, the deceased had lent Rs. 1 lakh to another policeman (Accused No. 1, A1), who failed to repay. On the night of March 10, 2006, the deceased was allegedly lured to the home of A1 and his wife, Accused No. 2 (A2), supposedly to settle the debt.
At around 2 a.m. on March 11, 2006, the prosecution claimed that A2, her brother (A3), and her brother-in-law (A4) attacked the deceased. They reportedly used chili powder and hacked him with choppers. A2 was also alleged to have confessed to the crime to the police the following morning.
The trial court initially acquitted A1, citing a “perfect alibi,” but convicted A2, A3, and A4 for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Karnataka High Court upheld these convictions.
Arguments Before the Supreme Court
For the Accused:
Counsel for the appellants, Mr. C.B. Gururaj, argued that since A1 was acquitted, the conviction of others under Section 34 (common intention) could not be sustained. He highlighted that eyewitnesses had turned hostile and pointed out significant gaps in the circumstantial evidence.
For the State:
Mr. Nishanth Patil, representing the State of Karnataka, argued that the convictions were justified. He cited the recovery of the body at A2’s house, a proven motive, alleged extra-judicial confessions, and the recovery of a chopper at A4’s instance.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court critically examined the prosecution’s evidence and identified multiple flaws:
1. Motive Not Proven
The court noted inconsistencies in the testimonies regarding the alleged loan. Key witnesses, including the deceased’s wife, provided contradictory statements, and the court deemed the claimed motive unproven. As stated in the judgment, “Absence of motive is a factor that weighs in favour of the accused.”
2. Recovery of the Body Under a Cloud
The location of the body in A2’s house was a crucial aspect of the prosecution’s case. However, witnesses either contradicted earlier statements or turned hostile. The inquest report itself was found to have inconsistencies, weakening the prosecution’s claim.
3. Extra-Judicial Confessions Were Inadmissible
All alleged confessions by A2 to police officers or others while in custody were deemed inadmissible under Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, they could not form the basis of a conviction.
4. Recovery of Weapon Unreliable
The recovery of a chopper at the instance of A4 was found to be unreliable. The court observed confusion regarding who made the disclosure first and noted that witnesses to the recovery turned hostile, signing documents at the police station rather than at the scene.
Final Judgment
After a thorough review, the Supreme Court concluded that the case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, which did not form a complete or unbroken chain. The bench observed:
“The motive projected and the crime itself has not at all been proved, and there is no circumstance leading to the culpability of the accused. The presence of the dead body in the house of the accused is also under a cloud and, in any event, that, with the absence of a proper explanation, cannot by itself bring home a conviction.”
Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions of Nagamma @ Nagarathna (A2), her brother, and her brother-in-law, acquitting them of all charges. The judgment also directed their immediate release if they were not required in any other case.
Case Title:
Nagamma @ Nagarathna & Ors. Versus The State of Karnataka
Criminal Appeal No.425 of 2014
Read Judgment: