Reiterating a key principle of criminal jurisprudence, the Supreme Court on Monday set aside the conviction of three individuals accused of murdering a 10-year-old boy in Uttarakhand in 2007, holding that suspicion cannot substitute proof.
A bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Satish Chandra Sharma allowed the appeal filed by the accused against the Uttarakhand High Court’s November 2017 verdict that had upheld their conviction and life sentence.
The court observed that the prosecution case suffered from “substantial gaps” and that the evidence on record did not complete the chain of circumstances required to establish guilt.
“To convict on doubtful testimony while ignoring scientific tests is to substitute suspicion for proof. The Supreme Court has repeatedly cautioned that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace evidence,” the bench said in its judgment.
The case arose from the disappearance and subsequent death of a 10-year-old boy, who had gone to guard his family’s mango orchard near Kishanpur on June 5, 2007. When he did not return home, his family began searching and discovered his body the next day in a pit on their land.
His father lodged a complaint with the police, expressing suspicion against six co-villagers with whom he had a long-standing enmity.
A trial court in April 2014 acquitted five accused but convicted three and sentenced them to life imprisonment.
The Supreme Court noted that the case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, and several key circumstances did not stand up to scrutiny.
1. FIR Omissions:
The bench highlighted the “most glaring circumstance” — the omission of the names of two of the three appellants in the FIR, despite the complainant knowing them well.
“The high court acknowledged the omission but brushed it aside as inconsequential. This approach is untenable. In a case based solely on circumstantial evidence, every circumstance must withstand rigorous scrutiny,” the court said.
2. Identification Evidence:
The bench found fault with the prosecution’s reliance on in-court identification without prior Test Identification Parade (TIP). Two prosecution witnesses identified the appellants for the first time in court, and one admitted to having no prior familiarity with them.
“It is well settled that dock identification without a prior TIP has little evidentiary value where the witness had no prior familiarity with the accused,” the court said.
3. Last-Seen Theory and Forensic Evidence:
The prosecution’s reliance on the last-seen theory was found to be misplaced. The court noted that the forensic report was inconclusive, yet the high court dismissed the absence of DNA evidence as inconsequential and upheld the conviction on ocular testimony alone.
“Such an approach is untenable in a case based entirely on circumstantial evidence. Where scientific evidence is neutral or exculpatory, courts must give it due weight,” the bench observed.
Finding that the chain of circumstances was incomplete and critical evidence was either lacking or ignored, the Supreme Court extended the benefit of doubt to the appellants and acquitted them.
“As is well-settled, suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof. Accordingly, the appellants are entitled to the benefit of the doubt,” the court held.
