The Supreme Court of India on Monday acquitted three individuals convicted for a 2006 murder, ruling that the prosecution failed to establish a complete and unbreakable chain of circumstantial evidence. A bench of Justices K. V. Viswanathan and K. Vinod Chandran overturned the concurrent findings of the Karnataka High Court and the trial court, holding that the motive was not proven, alleged confessions were inadmissible, and the recovery of a weapon was unreliable.
The case, Nagamma @ Nagarathna & Ors. v. The State of Karnataka, involved the murder of a policeman, allegedly over the non-repayment of a loan. The appellants—the wife, brother, and brother-in-law of another policeman—were sentenced to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court, after a detailed analysis of the evidence, concluded that the prosecution’s case was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
Background of the Case
The prosecution’s case was that a policeman (Accused No. 1, A1) had taken a loan of Rs. 1 lakh from the deceased, who was also a policeman. Due to persistent demands for repayment, A1 allegedly instigated the crime. On the night of March 10, 2006, the deceased was allegedly summoned to the house of A1 and his wife (Accused No. 2, A2) on the pretext of settling the debt.
According to the prosecution, at around 2 a.m. on March 11, 2006, the deceased was attacked by A2, her brother (A3), and her brother-in-law (A4). They allegedly threw chili powder on his face and hacked him to death with choppers. The prosecution further alleged that A2 went to the police station the next morning and confessed to the Station House Officer (SHO).
The trial court acquitted A1, who was charged with instigation, noting he had a “perfect alibi” of being on duty at another police station. However, it convicted A2, A3, and A4 for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, a decision later affirmed by the High Court.
Arguments Before the Supreme Court
Counsel for the appellants, Mr. C.B. Gururaj, argued that since A1 was acquitted in a case based on a common intention under Section 34, the conviction of the other accused was unsustainable. He emphasized that the eyewitnesses had turned hostile and there were significant gaps in the chain of circumstances.
Representing the State of Karnataka, Mr. Nishanth Patil contended that the conviction was justified. He relied on the discovery of the dead body in A2’s house, which she allegedly pointed out, the proven motive, extra-judicial confessions, and the recovery of a chopper at the instance of A4.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court meticulously re-examined the evidence and found critical flaws in the prosecution’s case.
1. On Motive: The Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the alleged financial transaction. The deceased’s wife (PW-18) gave contradictory testimony and had previously stated in a departmental inquiry that there were no transactions between her husband and A1. The testimony of the deceased’s mother (PW-11) and brother (PW-12) regarding the loan was deemed unreliable. The Court observed, “Absence of motive is a factor that weighs in favour of the accused.”
2. On Presence of the Body: The Court found the crucial circumstance of the body being found in A2’s house to be “under a cloud.” Key witnesses, including the deceased’s wife, either contradicted their earlier statements or turned hostile. Witnesses to the inquest report testified that it was signed at the hospital, not the scene of the crime. Citing Santosh v. State (NCT of Delhi), the bench reiterated that “mere failure of the accused to offer an explanation is not sufficient to hold him guilty” if the chain of circumstances is not established.
3. On Extra-Judicial Confessions: All extra-judicial confessions attributed to A2 were held to be inadmissible. The Court noted that the alleged confession to the SHO (PW-15) was barred by Section 25 of the Evidence Act, which prohibits proving a confession made to a police officer. Further, confessions allegedly made to the deceased’s wife (PW-18) and a neighbour (PW-7) inside the police station were barred by Section 26 of the Act, as A2 was in police custody at the time.
4. On Recovery of Weapon: The recovery of a chopper at the instance of A4 was also found to be an unreliable piece of evidence. The Investigating Officer testified that both A3 and A4 had made disclosure statements, but it was not clear who made the disclosure first. The witnesses to the recovery mahazar turned hostile, stating they signed the document at the police station. The Court stated, “…in the present case there can be no reliance placed on the recovery based on the sketchy evidence adduced.”
The Final Judgment
Concluding its analysis, the Supreme Court held that the case rested solely on circumstantial evidence which did not form a complete chain. The bench observed, “The motive projected and the crime itself has not at all been proved and there is no circumstance leading to the culpability of the accused. The presence of the dead body in the house of the accused is also under a cloud and in any event, that, with the absence of a proper explanation cannot by itself bring home a conviction.”
Finding that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, the Court set aside the convictions of Nagamma @ Nagarathna (A2) and the other two appellants. “Considering the totality of the circumstances and the evidence led in the trial, we are of the considered opinion that the conviction cannot be sustained; which we set aside and acquit the accused,” the judgment stated. The Court directed that the appellants be released from custody forthwith if not required in any other case.
