Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court heard a criminal appeal by special leave against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court affirming the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence of death, while altering the conviction under Section 376 to one under Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC and sentencing two years' rigorous imprisonment. The appellant was accused of murdering Phul Pati, a 23-year-old woman, and attempting to rape her. The prosecution case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, including recovery of ornaments belonging to the deceased, an extra-judicial confession made to a prosecution witness, presence near the scene, injuries on the accused, and an alleged indecent joke with the victim's sister-in-law twenty days earlier. The trial court convicted the appellant under Sections 302 and 376 IPC; the High Court upheld the murder conviction and death sentence but modified the rape conviction to attempt to rape. The Supreme Court examined the evidence and found glaring infirmities. The extra-judicial confession was improbable because the accused, instead of surrendering directly to police, allegedly went to a prosecution witness's house and confessed, and the investigating agency introduced a false story about ornament recovery. The recovery of ornaments was not credible because the FIR and inquest report did not mention missing ornaments, the crime appeared sexual rather than for pecuniary gain, and it was unlikely a landowner would keep petty ornaments in his shirt pocket. The accused's presence in his field and walking away at sunset did not point to guilt without evidence that no one else was present or the time of offence. Injuries on the accused, even if not explained as police-inflicted, were merely suspicious. The prior indecent joke was too weak to establish motive. Applying the principle that circumstantial evidence must be consistent only with guilt and exclude reasonable doubt, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Circumstantial Evidence - Standard for Conviction - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302, 376 read with 511 - The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence comprising recovery of ornaments, extra-judicial confession, presence near the scene, and injuries on the accused. The Supreme Court held that circumstantial evidence must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt, and when reasonable doubt exists, accused is entitled to benefit. Held, the cumulative evidence was riddled with glaring infirmities and could not sustain conviction and death sentence. (Paras 1-8) B) Criminal Law - Extra-Judicial Confession - Reliability and Probability - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302, 376 read with 511 - The alleged confession made by accused to a prosecution witness before surrender was found improbable because there was no reason for accused not to surrender directly to police, and the investigating agency's false story about ornament recovery affected credibility. Held, evidence of extra-judicial confession was unreliable and could not be accepted. (Paras 1-8) C) Criminal Law - Recovery of Ornaments - Credibility of Recovery Evidence - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302, 376 read with 511 - Non-mention of missing ornaments in FIR and inquest report, nature of crime being sexual rather than pecuniary, and improbability of landowner keeping petty ornaments in shirt pocket rendered recovery evidence unworthy of reliance. Held, no reliance could be placed on ornament recovery. (Paras 1-8) D) Criminal Law - Presence Near Scene - Inference of Guilt - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302, 376 read with 511 - Mere presence in adjoining field at 1 p.m. and walking away fast at sunset, without evidence of absence of others or time of offence, did not point to guilt. Held, such evidence was insufficient. (Paras 1-8) E) Criminal Law - Injuries on Accused - Suspicion Not Enough - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302, 376 read with 511 - Even if accused's explanation of police-inflicted injuries was not believed, injuries alone were suspicious but insufficient for conviction for a serious offence entailing death penalty. Held, injuries did not warrant conviction. (Paras 1-8) F) Criminal Law - Motive - Weak Motive - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302, 376 read with 511 - A prior indecent joke with sister-in-law of victim 20 days before occurrence was not a valid basis for suspicion or positive assertion of guilt. Held, motive was too weak to support conviction. (Paras 1-8) G) Constitutional Law - Article 136 - Reappraisal of Evidence - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 136 - The Supreme Court normally does not reappraise evidence under Article 136, but may do so where there are glaring infirmities in prosecution evidence. Held, such infirmities existed, warranting reappraisal and acquittal. (Paras 1-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to sustain conviction for murder under Section 302 and attempted rape under Section 376 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code, given alleged infirmities in the extra-judicial confession, recovery of ornaments, presence near the scene, injuries on the accused, and motive.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; appellant acquitted. The Supreme Court held that circumstantial evidence was not consistent only with guilt and contained glaring infirmities, entitling accused to benefit of doubt.
Law Points
- Circumstantial evidence must be consistent only with hypothesis of guilt
- reasonable doubt entitles accused to benefit
- extra-judicial confession must be reliable and probable
- recovery evidence must be credible and corroborated
- mere presence and injuries insufficient
- weak motive not enough
- Supreme Court may reappraise evidence under Article 136 when glaring infirmities exist.
