In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra, acquitted two individuals convicted of murder under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Court meticulously examined the applicability and limitations of the “last seen theory,” emphasizing that mere proximity in time and space between an accused and a deceased does not automatically establish guilt in the absence of corroborative evidence.
Background
The case, Suresh Chandra Tiwari & Anr. v. State of Uttarakhand (Criminal Appeal No. 1902 of 2013), concerned the murder of Suresh Upreti, whose body was found in the verandah of a shop in Pithoragarh, Uttarakhand, on February 3, 1997. The prosecution’s case was based primarily on circumstantial evidence, including the “last seen” theory, motive arising from past enmity, and alleged recoveries linked to the crime scene.
The trial court convicted the appellants under Sections 302/34 and 201 IPC, relying heavily on the theory that the deceased was last seen in their company. On appeal, the High Court altered the conviction to Section 304 Part I, reducing the sentence to seven years of rigorous imprisonment. Aggrieved, the appellants approached the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues
1. Applicability of the Last Seen Theory: Whether the evidence of the deceased being last seen with the accused is sufficient to establish guilt.
2. Circumstantial Evidence: Whether the prosecution proved an unbroken chain of events leading to the inference of guilt.
3. Admissibility of Recovery Statements: The evidentiary value of items allegedly recovered based on disclosure statements of the accused.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Supreme Court, while acquitting the appellants, elaborated on key legal principles governing circumstantial evidence and the last seen theory:
1. Limitations of the Last Seen Theory:
– The Court held that for the last seen theory to hold weight, the time gap between the deceased being last seen alive with the accused and the recovery of the body must be so minimal as to exclude the possibility of third-party involvement. In this case, the time gap of nearly 16 hours and lack of proximity between the place of last sighting and the recovery site weakened the prosecution’s case.
– The Court remarked, “If two or more individuals are merely seen walking together in a public space, it cannot conclusively establish companionship or intent.”
2. Chain of Circumstantial Evidence:
– The Court reiterated the principle that circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain leading to only one conclusion—the guilt of the accused. In this case, the Court found the evidence to be inconclusive, as several links in the chain were either missing or unsupported by credible evidence.
3. Recovery and Disclosure Statements:
– The alleged recovery of a blood-stained stone at the instance of the accused was deemed inadmissible. The Court noted that the disclosure statements were recorded after the recovery, thereby failing the test of admissibility under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
– Forensic examination did not conclusively link the recovered items to the crime, further weakening the prosecution’s case.
4. Suspicion vs. Proof:
– The Court underscored, “Suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute proof,” emphasizing the need for the prosecution to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Setting aside the convictions, the Court acquitted the appellants, ruling that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of circumstances pointing exclusively to their guilt. It also criticized the High Court for diluting the charges to Section 304 IPC without sufficient basis, asserting that the injuries on the deceased’s body were consistent with homicidal intent.
