In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court of India acquitted Karakkattu Muhammed Basheer, the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 291 of 2023, reversing his conviction by the Kerala High Court for the 1989 murder of Gouri. The bench, comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih, emphasized that convictions based solely on circumstantial evidence must rest on an unbroken chain of events that conclusively point to the accused’s guilt. The Court found significant gaps in the prosecution’s case and deemed that suspicion alone could not substitute for conclusive evidence.
Background of the Case
The case dates back to August 17, 1989, when Gouri’s body was discovered in a paddy field in Kerala. The police identified Karakkattu Muhammed Basheer (Accused No. 1) and another individual (Accused No. 2) as suspects, alleging that Basheer, motivated by an illicit relationship with Accused No. 2, had committed the murder at her house and later disposed of the body. The prosecution claimed that Gouri, who had discovered this alleged relationship, was murdered during a confrontation with Basheer.
The Sessions Court initially convicted Basheer of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Accused No. 2 under Section 201 (causing disappearance of evidence). This conviction was upheld by the Kerala High Court, leading Basheer to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Key Legal Issues
1. Reliability of Circumstantial Evidence: The primary issue was whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution formed a continuous chain that unequivocally established Basheer’s guilt.
2. Admissibility of Witness Testimonies and Evidence of Presence: The Court examined whether witness testimonies and physical evidence, such as the alleged murder weapon and blood-stained items, reliably placed Basheer at the scene and linked him to the crime.
3. Doctrine of Reasonable Doubt in Circumstantial Evidence: The Court evaluated whether reasonable doubt could be applied when the prosecution’s evidence left alternative explanations for the events leading to the crime.
Supreme Court’s Decision
Justice Augustine George Masih, writing for the Court, outlined critical gaps in the prosecution’s narrative. The Court cited established principles in cases relying on circumstantial evidence, known as the “panchsheel principles,” stressing that:
“The chain of events must be so established that the court has no option but to come to one and only one conclusion, i.e., the guilt of the accused person.”
The Court ruled that the prosecution’s circumstantial evidence failed to meet this standard, noting:
“Mere suspicion alone, irrespective of its strength, cannot substitute proof.”
Analysis of Key Evidence
1. Presence at the Scene: The prosecution relied on witness testimonies from PW2 and PW3 (mother and sister of the deceased) and PW10 and PW11 (children of Accused No. 2) to place Gouri at the house of Accused No. 2. However, both children testified that Gouri left the house at 9:00 PM, well before the alleged time of the murder. Another witness, PW14, claimed to have seen Basheer entering the house later that night, but admitted he only saw the back of the individual and assumed it was Basheer. Justice Masih observed that this assumption cast serious doubt on the reliability of this identification.
2. Recovery of Blood-Stained Items: The prosecution argued that a bag containing Basheer’s blood-stained clothes and other items was recovered from a witness (PW18) who had supposedly received the bag from Basheer. However, PW18 testified that the police had taken the bag days earlier and then returned it, creating a significant discrepancy that suggested the items may have been planted.
3. Murder Weapon and Blood Evidence: The prosecution presented a coconut scraper (allegedly used as the murder weapon) and blood-stained items found at the house of Accused No. 2. However, the witnesses (PW26 to PW28) involved in the recovery testified that they had not been present during the actual search, weakening the credibility of this evidence.
Court’s Observations and Conclusion
In assessing the prosecution’s case, the Court emphasized that:
“The evidence must establish a chain of events so complete as to not leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused.”
The Court noted that the timeline and the evidence presented were insufficient to establish Basheer’s presence at the crime scene at the time of the murder. Additionally, Justice Masih pointed out that transporting a body in the manner alleged by the prosecution would have likely been witnessed, especially since the route passed by a sawmill that operated 24 hours a day.
Given these inconsistencies, the Court held that the High Court and Sessions Court had erred in relying on circumstantial evidence that did not conclusively establish Basheer’s guilt. The judgment read:
“The chain of circumstances which are being sought to be projected by the prosecution to be complete has glaring holes and significant gaps, leading this Court to conclude that the prosecution has failed in its endeavor of bringing home the guilt against the Appellant.”
The Supreme Court set aside the convictions and sentences of Basheer, granting him the benefit of the doubt. It ordered his immediate release, discharging any bail bonds. The appeal was allowed, affirming that in cases reliant on circumstantial evidence, any reasonable doubt must lead to acquittal.
