Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has acquitted a man sentenced to death penalty.

He was held guilty in a case of rape and murder of 23-year-old software engineer from Andhra Pradesh in Mumbai in January, 2014.

A bench of Justices B R Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra and K V Vishwanathan said, there is a legal distinction between ‘may be proved’ and ‘must be or should be proved’ as held by this court.

"The circumstances relied upon when stitched together do not lead to the sole hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and we do not find that the chain is so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused," the bench said.

The court set aside the Bombay High Court's judgment of 2018 which has confirmed the conviction and sentence of capital punishment imposed on appellant, Chandrabhan Sudam Sanap.

Allowing the appeal, the bench said, "On the available evidence, we are of the opinion that it will be extremely unsafe to sustain a conviction against the appellant. The prosecution has not established its case beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, we are constrained to come to the sole irresistible conclusion that the appellant is not guilty of the offences for which he has been charged."

According to the prosecution, the deceased, who was working in Mumbai and staying at the YWCA Hostel for Women in Andheri, visited her parents at Machilipatnam in Andhra Pradesh between December 22, 2013 and January 04, 2014. On January 04, 2014, her father dropped her at the Vijayawada Railway Station at about 05:00 AM. The deceased boarded Visakhapatnam LTT Express which was to reach Mumbai early morning on January 05, 2014. She called her father at 09:00 PM on January 04, 2014 when the train was crossing Solapur. Upon reaching Mumbai, she became incommunicado, her father called her a number of times but there was no response. When the father contacted her hostel, he was informed she has not turned up. He lodged a complaint upon reaching Mumbai. Upon extensive search, her decomposed and half burnt body was found on January 16, 2014.

The appellant was arrested in the case on March 2, 2014. The prosecution alleged the appellant picked up the victim from the railway station on a bike and committed her rape and murder at a secluded place at the service road of Eastern Express Highway near Kanjur Marg.

The case was based upon circumstantial evidence. The prosecution relied upon CCTV footage of the railway station allegedly showing the accused loitering on the platform around 4.50 am and the deceased was seen in the company of the accused.

Among other circumstances, the accused was allegedly seen near the spot on the Eastern Express Highway with the trolley bag and a bag pack belonging to the deceased. The prosecution also cited subsequent conduct of the accused i.e. going to the Astrologer and performing a puja in order to wash off the sin committed on a woman. Some of the articles of the deceased were also alleged to have been found from the deceased.

In view of the infirmities including absence of provision of Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, the court eschewed consideration of the CCTV footage.

"We are not able to place any reliance on the CCTV footage, insofar as an attempt is made by the prosecution to attribute that the appellant and the deceased were last seen together based on the CCTV footage," the bench said.

The court also found it not prudent to sustain the conviction based on the purported extra judicial confession as there was no corroboration. It also felt not impressed with the evidence of the recovery, saying in any event, merely based on the recovery no conviction for the offence charged could be sustained against the appellant in this case.

The court said the prosecution has not answered the infirmities pointed out by the counsel for the appellant. As to why the college identity card of the deceased would be preserved by the accused and kept in custody of the sister nearly two months after the incident, is something as very intriguing, the bench said.

"All these facts cumulatively constrain us to conclude that there are gaping holes in the prosecution story leading to the irresistible conclusion that there is something more than what meets the eye in this case. While the old adage, witness may lie but not the circumstances, may be correct, however, the circumstances adduced, as held by this court, should be fully established," the bench said.