The Supreme Court, in Chetan vs State of Karnataka, Criminal Appeal No. 1568 of 2013, has dismissed the appeal filed by the accused, affirming his conviction under Sections 302 and 404 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 5 of the Arms Act, 1959, punishable under Sections 25 and 27 respectively. The judgment was delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh. The Court reiterated that a conviction can be sustained solely on circumstantial evidence if the chain of circumstances is complete and excludes every hypothesis except that of the accused’s guilt.
Background
According to the prosecution, the appellant Chetan had borrowed ₹4,000 from one Ravindra Chavan (PW-19) to lend to his friend Vikram Sinde, the deceased. When the deceased failed to return the amount and allegedly insulted Chetan, the appellant bore a grudge. On 10 July 2006, Chetan took a 12 bore double-barrel gun belonging to his grandfather on the pretext of hunting and took Vikram along on his motorcycle to a sugarcane field. There, he allegedly shot and killed him. After the incident, the appellant took Vikram’s mobile phone and gold chain.
Vikram’s decomposed body was recovered three days later in the sugarcane field owned by Arun Kumar Minache (PW-1). The prosecution’s case was based entirely on circumstantial evidence, including last-seen theory, abscondence, recovery of incriminating items, and forensic and ballistic analysis.
The Trial Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC. The Karnataka High Court at Dharwad upheld the conviction. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court.
Arguments
Senior Advocate D.N. Goburdhun, representing the appellant, contended that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt in the absence of direct evidence. He challenged the reliability of the last-seen theory, pointed to gaps in the chain of circumstances, and questioned the credibility of the ballistic evidence and recovery proceedings.
On the other hand, Ms. Eesha Bakshi, counsel for the State, supported the findings of both the Trial Court and the High Court, arguing that all links in the chain of circumstantial evidence had been clearly established and pointed to the guilt of the appellant alone.
Court’s Analysis
The Court examined the case in light of the five well-established principles governing circumstantial evidence laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116. The Bench held that although there was no eyewitness to the murder, the prosecution had successfully proven a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances.
Key findings included:
- The deceased was last seen with the appellant on the night of 10 July 2006 by multiple witnesses (PW-4, PW-5, PW-11, PW-12).
- The appellant remained absconding from 11 July until his arrest on 22 July 2006.
- A 12 bore DBBL gun used in the crime was recovered at the appellant’s instance from his grandfather’s house. Forensic evidence confirmed that the gun had been discharged.
- Pellets and wads recovered from the deceased’s skull matched those that could be fired from the recovered weapon.
- The deceased’s gold chain and mobile phone were recovered at the appellant’s instance.
- The appellant misled the deceased’s family and others about the victim’s whereabouts after his disappearance.
On the issue of the time gap between the last seen event and the recovery of the dead body, the Court held that the forensic and medical evidence confirmed the time of death to be consistent with the last-seen timeline. The Bench observed:
“Given the subsequent recovery of the gun and empty pellets and forensic and ballistic evidence of a link between the pellets recovered from the body of the deceased and the gun recovered, the time lapse which could have thrown doubt on the last seen theory pales into insignificance, rather it is rendered inconsequential.”
Conclusion
The Supreme Court found no infirmity in the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the High Court. It held that the prosecution had proved the case beyond reasonable doubt through a cogent and complete chain of circumstantial evidence.
“The prosecution’s case is not mere conjecture, but rather based on established circumstances and facts.”
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence.
Case Title: Chetan vs State of Karnataka
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 1568 of 2013
