Read Time: 11 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has said that the circumstance of being last seen alive in the company of the deceased is a vital link in the chain of circumstances, but on its own strength, it is insufficient to sustain a conviction unless the time gap between being last seen alive with the accused and the recovery of the dead body is so small that the possibility of any other person being the author of the crime is just about impossible.

A bench of Justices J. B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra said that where the time gap is large, intervening circumstances, including acts by some third person, cannot be ruled out, and in such cases, adverse inferences cannot be drawn against the accused merely because he has failed to prove when he parted company with the deceased.

The court also pointed out that if two or more persons are seen walking on a public street, either side by side or behind one another, it is not such a circumstance from which it may be inferred with a degree of certainty that those persons were together or in the company of each other.

"Quite often on a public path a person may happen to walk side by side a stranger for a considerable distance without even talking to him. Likewise, a person may exchange pleasantries with another person walking on the path, but that by itself is not sufficient to infer that the two are in company of each other," the bench said.

The court set aside the Uttarakhand High Court's 2012 judgment, which held Suresh Chandra Tiwari and another accused guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, by modifying the Pithoragarh court's judgment that had found them guilty of murder.

It said that though the prosecution had been successful in establishing that, in the 1996 panchayat elections, the deceased and accused-appellant no. 1 had supported rival candidates, it could produce no concrete evidence regarding any untoward incident precipitating the crime in question. No doubt, evidence about the extension of a death threat in a public meeting of the Gram Sabha held in January 1997 had come, but, admittedly, no such incident was reported to the police, it noted.

"Hence, motive proved is not such as may have a material bearing on the prosecution case. Otherwise also, motive on its own cannot make or break the prosecution case," the bench said.

The case related to the killing of the deceased on the night of February 2, 1997, and the accused-appellants were arrested as they were last seen together on the pathway where the body was recovered.

In the case, the bench said the trial court and the High Court failed to test the evidence on record to find out whether the incriminating circumstances were proved beyond reasonable doubt and whether they were of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused-appellants.

It noted the circumstances of (i) the last seen; (ii) the recovery of a meat bag from near the spot; (iii) the accused-appellants walking on the pathway near Mohan Singh’s shop at night; and (iv) the accused-appellants inquiring about the deceased in the evening of February 2, 1997, are not of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused persons.

With regard to the disclosure statement, the bench said it was not admissible as it did not lead to discovery. The stone, among other items, was allegedly recovered even before the disclosure statement was recorded. That apart, neither the doctor’s statement nor the forensic report could connect them with the crime, it pointed out.

"Disclosure statement was recorded at the police station whereas recovery was made from the place pointed out by the accused enroute to the police station. It was, therefore, a case of recovery from the place allegedly pointed out by the accused and not based on a disclosure statement," the bench said.

Having found several circumstances that created a serious doubt about the presence of the witness at the time and place of the alleged recovery, the bench said, unfortunately, the High Court did not at all advert to these circumstances and relied on the disclosure statement/discovery/recovery without carefully weighing the evidence on record.

In the case, the bench found that the High Court also erred in converting the conviction from one punishable under Section 302 to Section 304 Part I of IPC only because, according to it, the fatal injury could be a result of a solitary blow.

"What it overlooked was that there were multiple injuries on the body of the deceased apart from two incised wounds on the head with underlying fracture of the occipital bone of the skull. In such a scenario, whosoever committed the crime had a clear intention to kill the deceased. Once that is the position, in a case based on circumstantial evidence, when no effort is made on the part of the accused either to take a plea, or lead evidence to show, that their act would fall in any of the exceptions to Section 300 IPC, there was no justification at all to alter the conviction," the bench said.

The court allowed the appeal, holding that the prosecution had failed to establish the chain of incriminating circumstances, and that the accused-appellants were entitled to be acquitted of the charges for which they had been tried and convicted.

Case Title: Suresh Chandra Tiwari & Anr Vs State of Uttarakhand