The Supreme Court has overturned the life sentence of a Haryana woman convicted in a 23-year-old murder case involving a minor. Justices MM Sundresh and Rajesh Bindal found critical faults in the prosecution’s narrative and the evidential basis used by the trial court and upheld by the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
The apex court criticized the lower courts for heavily relying on the recovery of a ‘gandasi’ (axe), which was allegedly used in the murder. The justices noted, “Both the courts have committed an error in placing substantial reliance upon a mere recovery of the weapon, while the body of the deceased was found much earlier and not at the instance of the appellant.” This observation led the bench to extend the benefit of the doubt to the appellant, acquitting her and allowing her appeal against the high court’s decision.
The bench highlighted the lack of direct evidence linking the appellant to the crime scene. “There is no evidence to show that the deceased was last seen with the appellant, nor was the appellant observed with the deceased just before his death,” the justices stated, emphasizing the insufficiency of circumstantial evidence.
Further, the court pointed out the absence of the appellant’s fingerprints on the recovered weapon and the inconclusive serological report, which failed to match the bloodstains on the weapon with those of the deceased. These findings underscored the questionable connection between the appellant and the alleged murder weapon.
Addressing the coerced confession, the bench expressed concerns about the lack of clarity surrounding the circumstances under which the appellant’s statement was obtained under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872. “Suspicion, however strong, cannot be the basis for conviction,” the court reiterated, underscoring the need for conclusive evidence in criminal proceedings.
The prosecution had argued that the motive for the murder stemmed from disputes between the appellant’s and the deceased’s families. However, the court dismissed this motive as insufficient to establish guilt, noting the significant age and situational differences between the appellant’s adult children and the four-and-a-half-year-old deceased.
