In a
significant ruling on February 24, the Supreme Court acquitted two individuals
convicted of murder, observing that the prosecution failed to establish beyond
a reasonable doubt that the discovery of the deceased’s body was based on the
appellant’s disclosure. The judgment revolved around Section 27 of the
Evidence Act, which permits the admission of information from an accused
only if it directly leads to the discovery of a fact.
Case Background
The case
originated from an FIR filed by the deceased’s father, alleging that the
appellant had kidnapped his minor daughter. He claimed that the appellant’s
mother and brother-in-law had assured him of an arranged marriage but later,
the deceased went missing for four days, prompting the complaint. During the
investigation, the deceased’s body was found, leading to the appellant’s
arrest.
The trial
court convicted the appellant of murder, a decision later upheld by the High
Court, based on three key circumstances:
- The appellant and the
deceased were last seen together.
- The appellant allegedly made
an extrajudicial confession.
- The deceased’s body was
recovered following the appellant’s confessional statements.
However,
the High Court disregarded the extrajudicial confession, noting that it
was made in police presence, rendering it inadmissible under Section 26 of
the Evidence Act. Despite this, the conviction was sustained on the other two
grounds, prompting an appeal before the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court's Observations
The Bench
of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan held that Section 27 and
Section 26 of the Evidence Act must be read together. The Court cited Pulukuri
Kottaya vs. King-Emperor, emphasizing that a fact’s discovery must distinctly
relate to the accused’s knowledge for Section 27 to apply.
The Court
analyzed witness testimonies, highlighting inconsistencies:
- One witness initially
claimed the appellant confessed to the crime and disclosed the body’s
location at the police station. However, he later contradicted himself,
stating he first saw the body at the police station.
- Another witness stated that
the confession was made by the co-accused, not the appellant.
- None of the witnesses,
except PW-6 (whose testimony was also inconsistent), claimed to have seen
the body being recovered at the appellant’s instance.
Due to
these contradictions, the Court ruled that the recovery of the deceased’s
body could not be conclusively attributed to the appellant’s disclosure.
Consequently, Section 27 could not aid the prosecution’s case.
Incomplete Chain of Circumstantial Evidence
The
Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in convicting the appellant
because the circumstantial evidence was incomplete. It reiterated that in cases
based solely on circumstantial evidence, a conviction can only be
sustained if all circumstances unerringly establish the accused’s guilt.
The Court
cited Ramu Appa Mahapatar vs. State of Maharashtra, which held that
extrajudicial confessions form just one part of circumstantial evidence. In
this case, the gaps in evidence made it impossible to conclude beyond
reasonable doubt that the appellant alone committed the crime.
Motive & Missing Witnesses
The Supreme
Court further noted that the appellant and the deceased were in a consensual
relationship, and the appellant’s family had agreed to the marriage, negating
any motive for murder. Additionally, the appellant’s mother and
brother-in-law—key witnesses—were not examined, further weakening the
prosecution’s case.
Conclusion
Finding
that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances,
the Supreme Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant.
Case
Name: MD. BANI
ALAM MAZID @ DHAN v. STATE OF ASSAM, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1649 OF 2011
