In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India acquitted two individuals convicted of murder, emphasizing the need for corroborative evidence. The Court critiqued the “last seen theory,” citing a substantial time gap and weak circumstantial evidence. It reiterated that proof beyond reasonable doubt is essential for convictions, reiterating the necessity for solid evidence in criminal cases.
New Delhi: In a pivotal judgment, the Supreme Court of India, consisting of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra, acquitted two individuals convicted of murder under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The ruling, in the case of Suresh Chandra Tiwari & Anr. v. State of Uttarakhand (Criminal Appeal No. 1902 of 2013), has drawn attention for its critical analysis of the “last seen theory” and its emphasis on the need for corroborative evidence in cases built on circumstantial grounds.
The case involved the murder of Suresh Upreti, whose body was discovered on February 3, 1997, in a shop verandah in Pithoragarh, Uttarakhand. The prosecution based its argument on circumstantial evidence, including the “last seen theory”, alleged motive stemming from past enmity, and recoveries linked to the crime scene.
The trial court convicted the appellants under Sections 302/34 and 201 IPC, primarily relying on the deceased being last seen with the accused. The High Court later modified the conviction to Section 304 Part I, reducing the sentence to seven years of rigorous imprisonment. Dissatisfied, the appellants appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court addressed three critical issues:
- Applicability of the Last Seen Theory: Could the deceased being last seen with the accused conclusively establish guilt?
- Circumstantial Evidence: Was there an unbroken chain of evidence leading to the sole inference of guilt?
- Admissibility of Recovery Statements: Did the recovered items meet the standards of admissibility under Section 27 of the Evidence Act?
The Supreme Court acquitted the appellants, providing detailed reasoning:
1. Limitations of the Last Seen Theory
- The Court emphasized that for the theory to be valid, the time gap between the deceased being last seen alive with the accused and the discovery of the body must be minimal. In this case, a gap of 16 hours and the lack of proximity between the last sighting and the body’s location undermined the prosecution’s case.
- “If two or more individuals are merely seen walking together in a public space, it cannot conclusively establish companionship or intent,” the Court remarked.
2. Chain of Circumstantial Evidence
- The Court reiterated that circumstantial evidence must form a complete and unbroken chain leading solely to the guilt of the accused. In this case, the evidence was fragmented and inconclusive, with missing links weakening the prosecution’s narrative.
3. Recovery and Disclosure Statements
- The recovery of a blood-stained stone, allegedly at the instance of the accused, was deemed inadmissible. The Court noted that the disclosure statements were recorded after the recovery, rendering them invalid under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
- Additionally, forensic examinations failed to conclusively link the recovered items to the crime.
4. Suspicion vs. Proof
- Underscoring the importance of proof beyond reasonable doubt, the Court stated, “Suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute proof.” The judgment highlighted the necessity for conclusive evidence to secure a conviction.
Setting aside the convictions, the Supreme Court acquitted the appellants, criticizing the High Court for diluting the charges to Section 304 IPC without adequate justification. It also emphasized that the injuries on the deceased’s body pointed to homicidal intent but lacked credible evidence tying the accused to the crime.
This landmark judgment reaffirms the importance of robust evidence in criminal cases, particularly those based on circumstantial evidence. It underscores the judiciary’s role in ensuring that convictions are rooted in proof, not conjecture, protecting the fundamental principle of justice in the Indian legal system.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
