Circumstantial Evidence and Burden of Proof – Whether the prosecution established an unbroken chain of circumstances proving the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt? [Para 16]

Legality of Recovery Process – Whether the recovery of the alleged murder weapon and stolen property at the instance of the accused was legally sustainable under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872? [Para 20]

Reliability of Last-Seen Theory – Whether the last-seen theory, based on inconsistent witness testimonies, was sufficient to convict the accused? [Para 31]

Held:

Circumstantial Evidence Must Form a Complete Chain – The Court reiterated that when a case is based entirely on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a sequence of events that leaves no reasonable doubt as to the accused’s guilt. Any break in this chain weakens the case. (Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, 1984) [Para 16]

Flawed Recovery Process Renders Evidence Inadmissible – The prosecution failed to establish that the recoveries were made at the accused’s instance. Testimonies revealed that seizure memos were signed at the police station, not at the scene, raising doubts about the genuineness of the recovery. (Varun Chaudhary v. State of Rajasthan, 2011) [Para 24]

Unreliable Last-Seen Evidence – The testimony of the last-seen witness lacked corroboration, and contradictions in statements weakened the prosecution’s case. The Court held that the last-seen theory alone, without strong corroborative evidence, cannot be the sole basis for conviction. [Para 31]

Benefit of Doubt Given to the Accused – Since the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the accused was entitled to an acquittal. The conviction was set aside, and the appellant was ordered to be released unless detained in another case. [Para 33]

Acts and Sections Discussed:

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 136 (Special Leave Petition)
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313 (Examination of Accused)
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 (Murder) – Section 201 (Causing Disappearance of Evidence)
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 27 (Discovery of Fact)

Subjects:

Circumstantial Evidence – Last Seen Theory – Disclosure Statement – Recovery Memos – Inconsistencies – Benefit of Doubt

Facts:

1. Nature of the Litigation – The appellant challenged his conviction under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 before the Supreme Court.
2. Who is Asking the Court and for What Remedy? – The appellant sought reversal of his conviction and acquittal on the grounds of faulty investigation and lack of conclusive evidence.
3. Reason for Filing the Case – The appellant was convicted based on circumstantial evidence linking him to the murder of the deceased. He argued that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of events proving his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
4. What Has Already Been Decided Until Now? – The Trial Court convicted the appellant based on circumstantial evidence. The High Court upheld the conviction. The present appeal challenges both decisions.

Issues:

a. Whether the prosecution established an unbroken chain of circumstances leading to the appellant’s guilt?
b. Whether the alleged recovery of murder weapons and gold chains was legally tenable?
c. Whether the last-seen theory was sufficiently proven?

Submissions/Arguments:

Arguments on Behalf of the Appellant-Accused

• The recovery process was flawed – Witnesses testified that seizure memos were prepared and signed at the police station, not at the scene.
• The last-seen theory was not corroborated by multiple witnesses.
• The identification parade for the gold chains was unreliable.

Arguments on Behalf of the Respondent-State

• The discovery of the stone and weapon was made at the appellant’s instance.
• The presence of human blood on the recovered stone supported the prosecution’s case.
• The gold chains recovered from the appellant’s house belonged to the deceased.

Decision:

• The Court noted inconsistencies in the recovery process, weakening the prosecution’s case.
• The last-seen theory was unreliable due to contradictory testimonies.
• The prosecution failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Ratio

• Circumstantial evidence must form an unbroken chain leading to the guilt of the accused.
• Recovery must be established beyond doubt, and flawed seizure memos weaken the prosecution’s case.
• A conviction cannot be based solely on last-seen theory without corroborative evidence.