Read Time: 13 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court recently acquitted a man accused in a 2013 case of abduction and murder, concluding that none of the incriminating factors—such as the alleged motive of an extramarital affair, recovery of a skeleton, or DNA profiling—sufficiently established his guilt.

A bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Sandeep Mehta overturned the conviction of Wadla Bheemaraidu, allowing his appeal against a Telangana High Court division bench decision that had upheld the Additional Sessions Judge's verdict in Mahabubnagar.

In the case, eight persons including the appellant were tried for abducting and killing one K Nagesh due to his alleged extramarital affairs with the wife of the appellant.

The trial court acquitted five accused and convicted three persons and awarded them life terms. Of them, the High Court acquitted two others.

According to the prosecution, the deceased, who had the extramarital affairs with the wife of the appellant, had eloped with her. A panchayat was held, and the family of the deceased agreed to pay Rs 3.50 lakh to the appellant. However, the appellant being unsatisfied with the panchayat decision, called his wife and the deceased. As they reached Raichur railway station, the accused persons took away the deceased and killed him.

Before the apex court, the appellant contended the entire prosecution story was false and fabricated as the parents of the deceased did not support the theory of extramarital affairs. His counsel also said that the information provided by the accused to the Investigating Officer under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was never proved as per law.

The counsel also argued that the prosecution led no evidence whatsoever to establish that the blood samples of the mother of the deceased were actually collected during the course of investigation, to prove DNA profiling.

The appellant also stated that the alleged incident took place on January 11, 2013, whereas, the skeletal remains were recovered on March 19, 2013, i.e. nearly after two months of the incident and it was absolutely impossible to believe that the skeletal remains could still be lying at the crime scene after such a long duration.

The state counsel, on the opposite, said every reasonable hypothesis based on the evidence led by the prosecution irrefutably pointed toward the guilt of the accused-appellant. She said that the two courts, i.e., the trial court as well as the high court after appreciating and reappreciating the evidence, had recorded concurrent findings of facts for convicting the appellant and for affirming his conviction.

Examining the appeal, the Supreme Court said that there was no dispute that the case of prosecution was based purely on circumstantial evidence, since no witness claimed to have seen the alleged incident wherein Nagesh (the deceased) was murdered.

Referring to Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs State of Maharashtra (1984), the bench said, the law is well-settled that in a case based purely on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution is under an obligation to prove each and every link in the chain of incriminating circumstances beyond all manner of doubt and that the circumstances so relied upon by the prosecution should point unequivocally towards the guilt of the accused and should be inconsistent with the guilt of anyone else or the innocence of the accused.

The conviction can be recorded, only in the event of the complete/unbroken chain of circumstances being proved by cogent and clinching evidence which does not admit of any other inference, otherwise that of the guilt of the accused, it said.

Considering the theory of motive, the bench said, "On going through the entire evidence led by the prosecution, we do not find an utterance of a single word by any of the prosecution witnesses including the mother and the father of the deceased that there was any complaint of an illicit affair between Nagesh (the deceased) and the wife of the appellant".

Both the witnesses also denied payment of Rs 3.50 lakh to the accused after the panchayat, claiming that it was the chit amount collected by their son (the deceased) which was paid by them, the bench pointed out.

With regard to the discovery and recovery of the skeletal remains, the bench said that the law is well settled by a catena of judgments of the court that the information under Section 27 IEA which leads to discovery of an incriminating material/evidence must be proved by the Investigating Officer as being voluntary and uninfluenced by threat, duress or coercion. The Investigating Officer is also required to prove the contents of the information or confessional memo to the extent they relate to the facts discovered.

Going through this evidence, the bench said, "There is not even a slightest utterance by the Investigating Officer that the accused made the disclosure or led them to the place where the skeletal remains were found".

Court also pointed out that the panch witness also did not make a whisper regarding the accused, leading them to the place from where the incriminating articles were recovered.

"Hence, we have no hesitation in holding that neither was the disclosure allegedly suffered by the accused before the Investigating Officer under Section 27 IEA proved as per law nor did the prosecution establish that the discovery was made on being pointed out by the accused. Since the very factum of the discovery/recovery of incriminating skeletal remains was not proved by proper evidence, the same cannot be linked to the accused appellant," the bench said.

So far as DNA profiling was concerned, the bench noted that the mother of the deceased did not utter a single word that her blood sample was collected by the Investigating Officer during the course of the investigation. Also, even the Medical Officer did not state that he collected the blood samples. Thus, the DNA profiling report pales into insignificance and cannot be treated as an incriminating circumstance against the accused, the bench said.

"As a consequence, we have no hesitation in holding that none of the incriminating circumstances portrayed by the prosecution in its endeavour to bring home the charges against the accused appellant were established by cogent and clinching evidence, and therefore, the conviction of the accused appellant as recorded by the trial Court and affirmed by the High Court cannot be sustained," the bench said.

While setting the high court and trial court's judgments, the bench ordered for forthwith release of the appellant from jail, if not wanted in any other case.

Case Title: Wadla Bheemaraidu Vs State of Telangana