Read Time: 10 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court recently acquitted a man accused of murdering his neighbor in 1995, citing significant omissions in the victim’s mother’s testimony, which ultimately led to the prosecution’s failure to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

A bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan emphasized that in cases relying on circumstantial evidence, each circumstance forming the basis of guilt must be fully established. Furthermore, the chain of events must be so complete that it excludes any possibility inconsistent with the accused’s innocence.

According to the prosecution, the deceased, Dharminder, was a neighbor of the appellant. On July 12, 1995, at about noon, the appellant came to the residence of the deceased and called upon him to accompany him. The mother of the deceased enquired with the appellant where they were going. The appellant replied that they would return soon, and they went together by holding each other’s hands. At that time, the father of the deceased was sleeping. 

As the deceased did not return till 1 pm, his mother went to the appellant's house to enquire about his whereabouts. At that time, the appellant told her that the deceased had gone to watch a movie. She waited for the whole night. As the deceased did not turn up, she again went to the appellant's house to enquire about her son. He gave an evasive reply. Then the deceased's parents went to the police to lodge a report. The police went to the appellant's house to find that he, along with his father, was absconding. On July 14, 1995, the deceased's dead body was found in a building.

The court noted the prosecution’s case was based on circumstantial evidence. The evidence of the father of the deceased on the last seen together theory could not be believed as he stated that he was sleeping when allegedly the appellant took the deceased with him.

Having gone through the father's testimony, the court noted an omission that he did not depose that the appellant gave evasive answers when he visited his house.

With regard to the mother's statement, the bench pointed out when she was asked a question for what reasons the appellant may have killed her son, she answered that there was no enmity between the deceased and the appellant, but she suspected that the appellant had killed her son as the appellant had taken her son with him. In her cross-examination, she denied having told the police that the appellant took her son along with him.

"Therefore, even according to her, the motive for the commission of the offence was absent. This is very relevant as the case is based on circumstantial evidence," the bench said.

Court noted there are significant improvements and omissions in the evidence of the mother.

"The omissions are so relevant that they become contradictions in view of the Explanation to Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Thus, it is very difficult to accept the testimony of the mother as reliable. She is not a witness to the theory of last seen together. Therefore, it is not possible to hold that the theory of last seen together was proved by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt," the bench said.

The court pointed out that even the finding of the high court that the appellant gave evasive replies to misguide the parents of the deceased could not be sustained.

In its judgment, the bench flagged a peculiar practice followed by the trial court. Prosecution witnesses father and mother were confronted in the cross-examination with their statements recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC. In the depositions, it was mentioned that the attention of the witness was invited to a particular portion of the prior statement. After recording the answer of the witness, the portion of the prior statement used to contradict the witness had been reproduced in brackets, court noted.

"The law is well settled. The portion of the prior statement shown to the witness for contradicting the witness must be proved through the investigating officer. Unless the said portion of the prior statement used for contradiction is duly proved, it cannot be reproduced in the deposition of the witnesses. The correct procedure is that the Trial Judge should mark the portions of the prior statements used for contradicting the witness. The said portions can be put in bracket and marked as AA, BB, etc. The marked portions cannot form a part of the deposition unless the same are proved," the bench said.

The court allowed the appeal and set aside the Delhi High Court and the trial court's judgments.

Case Title: Vinod Kumar Vs State (Govt of NCT of Delhi)