Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India heard a criminal appeal against the judgment and order dated June 24, 1985 passed by the Sessions Judge, Special Court, Ferozepore, convicting the two appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for the murder of Harbit Singh alias Raju, a five-year-old boy. The prosecution case was that on December 14, 1984, Raju went missing while playing in front of his house and his dead body was found the next day near the DAV College school compound. An FIR was lodged at police station city Fazilka. During investigation, the accused were arrested on January 31, 1985, and a statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 led to the recovery of an amulet and rod. An extra-judicial confession was alleged to have been made by accused No.1 before Pala Singh (P.W.7), a Municipal Commissioner. The motive was said to arise from a 1971 love affair between Inder Singh (P.W.6) and Dialo, the sister of accused No.1, which led to threats of revenge. The trial court relied on five circumstances: motive, medical evidence, foot prints at the spot, recovery of amulet and thread, and extra-judicial confession. The Supreme Court noted that the parties did not dispute that these five circumstances formed the entire prosecution case. The Court found that the medical evidence conclusively established homicidal death, but the other circumstances were insufficient. The motive was rejected because of the 14-year gap and the fact that the victim was an innocent child, not the person against whom the grudge was allegedly held. The foot prints were weak because only two prints were found despite two accused, and there was no positive identification of whose foot prints they were. The recovery of amulet and rod under Section 27 was weak because the articles had no special identity marks. The extra-judicial confession was not trustworthy as the witness had no special friendship with the accused and his evidence was vague, and there was no evidence against accused No.2. The Court held that the conviction was based on mere surmises and could not be sustained. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and both appellants were acquitted. The Court also noted that the accused had been granted bail on April 7, 1992, and directed that their bail bonds be cancelled and they be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Circumstantial Evidence - Complete Chain of Circumstances - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302/34; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - The prosecution relied on five circumstances: motive, medical evidence, foot prints, recovery of amulet and rod, and extra-judicial confession. The Supreme Court evaluated each and found that motive was not proved due to a 14-year gap and victim being a child, foot prints were weak and unidentified, recovery lacked special marks, and extra-judicial confession was vague and untrustworthy. Held that the circumstances did not complete a chain sufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and conviction based on surmises was set aside (Paras 6-12). B) Criminal Law - Motive - Relevance and Proof - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 - Alleged motive arose from a 1971 love affair between PW 6 and sister of Accused No.1, with threats to take revenge. The court held that after 14 years without any incident and given the victim was a five-year-old child, the motive was improbable and not proved. Held that the trial court erred in accepting motive as a circumstance (Para 7). C) Evidence - Footprints - Identification and Reliability - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Only two footprints were found though there were two accused, and there was no positive evidence identifying whose footprints they were. Held that foot prints were a very weak circumstance and not conclusive to establish complicity (Para 9). D) Evidence - Recovery under Section 27 - Need for Special Identity Marks - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 27 - Recovery of amulet and rod pursuant to accused No.1's statement lacked special identification marks, making it a weak piece of evidence. Held that the recovery did not conclusively prove the accused's involvement (Para 10). E) Evidence - Extra-Judicial Confession - Credibility and Corroboration - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Pala Singh (PW 7) claimed accused No.1 confessed in the presence of accused No.2 about one and a half months after the incident, but the witness had no special friendship with the accused and his evidence was vague. Held that the extra-judicial confession was not trustworthy and there was no evidence against accused No.2 (Para 11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the prosecution established the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt through circumstantial evidence for an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, given the alleged motive, medical evidence, foot prints, recovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and extra-judicial confession.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; both appellants acquitted; bail bonds cancelled; appellants to be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.
Law Points
- Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence
- Motive loses probative force after long delay and against a child
- Footprints without identification are weak evidence
- Recovery under Section 27 Indian Evidence Act must have special identity marks
- Extra-judicial confession must be trustworthy and corroborated
- Suspicion cannot replace proof in criminal cases
