Case Note & Summary
The appeal before the Supreme Court of India arose from a conviction for murder recorded by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court. The prosecution case was that the first accused, a policeman, had taken a loan of Rs.1 lakh from the deceased, another policeman who worked as a driver of a Superintendent of Police. Default in repayment led to persistent demands, which allegedly instigated the first accused's wife (A2), her brother (A3), and brother-in-law (A4) to kill the deceased. On the night of 10.03.2006, the deceased was allegedly called to the house of A1 and A2 on the pretext of repaying the loan. At around 2 a.m. on 11.03.2006, chili powder was thrown on his face, and he was hacked to death with two choppers. After sunrise, A2 went to the police station and confessed to the Station House Officer, leading to the discovery of the dead body at her house. The trial court acquitted A1, charged under Section 109 IPC for instigation, due to a credible alibi, but convicted A2 to A4 under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment. The High Court affirmed the conviction, relying on motive, extra-judicial confessions, recovery of a chopper under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, the crime scene being the house of A1 and A2, and the absence of explanation under Section 106 of the Evidence Act. Before the Supreme Court, the appellants contended that since A1 was acquitted, the conviction of the remaining accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC could not stand, relying on State of West Bengal v. Vindu Lachmandas Sakhrani alias Deru and Suraj Pal v. State of Uttar Pradesh. They also argued that eyewitnesses had turned hostile and there was no circumstance establishing culpability. The respondent State argued that the dead body was found in A2's house, pointed out by her, and no explanation was given under Section 313 CrPC; motive, extra-judicial confessions, and recovery from A4 formed a complete chain of circumstances. The Court, in the extracted portion, first rejected the parity argument, distinguishing the cited precedents because A1 was charged under Section 109 IPC for instigation and acquitted due to alibi, while the other accused faced a substantive charge under Section 302/34. On motive, the Court examined PWs 18, 7, 11 and 12 and found material contradictions and hostility. PW-18, the deceased's wife, had earlier stated before the inquiry officer that there were no transactions and cordial relations, and she did not see the dead body at the accused's house. The Court observed that absence of motive is a factor weighing in favour of the accused, though not imperative if other circumstances form an unbreakable chain. The Court then scrutinised the evidence regarding the surrender by A2 and the discovery of the dead body. It noted that PWs had contradicted themselves on whether the inquest was conducted at the house or hospital and whether they saw the body at the crime scene. The extracted judgment ends without recording the final operative order, but the analysis reflects significant doubt about the reliability of the prosecution's witnesses and the completeness of the circumstantial chain.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Common Intention and Abetment - Distinction between charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 and charge under Section 109 IPC - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 34, 109 - The appellants argued that acquittal of A1, charged under Section 109, should lead to their acquittal under Section 302/34. The Supreme Court distinguished the cited precedents on parity, noting that A1 was charged with instigation under Section 109 and acquitted due to alibi, while others faced a substantive charge under Section 302/34. Held that parity argument cannot be countenanced when charges are distinct. (Paras 8-9) B) Criminal Law - Circumstantial Evidence - Motive - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 - The prosecution alleged loan default and persistent demands as motive. The Court examined PW-18, PW-7, PW-11 and PW-12 and found inconsistencies and hostility. Held that absence of motive is a factor weighing in favour of accused, though not imperative for conviction if other circumstances form unbreakable chain; the Court could not find motive established. (Paras 10-14) C) Criminal Law - Extra-Judicial Confession and Discovery - Evidence of Surrender and Body Discovery - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Sections 161, 313; Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Sections 27, 106 - A2 allegedly surrendered and confessed to SHO, leading to discovery of dead body at her house. The Court noted prosecution relied on official witnesses and hostile witnesses to prove presence of body; witnesses contradicted inquest location and body sighting. Held that reliability of such evidence requires scrutiny. (Paras 15-18) D) Criminal Law - Hostile Witnesses - Evidentiary Value - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 161 - Eyewitnesses and relatives turned hostile, contradicted their police statements; prosecution declared PWs hostile. Held that testimony of witnesses who resiled from prior statements cannot be relied upon without corroboration; the court scrutinised the evidence. (Paras 16-18)
Issue of Consideration
Whether acquittal of A1 under Section 109 IPC should result in acquittal of A2-A4 under Section 302/34 IPC; whether prosecution established motive; whether circumstantial evidence including extra-judicial confession, recovery, and presence of dead body was sufficient to prove guilt
Law Points
- Acquittal of co-accused under different charge does not automatically benefit others under Section 34 IPC
- absence of motive weighs in favour of accused
- reliability of hostile witnesses requires scrutiny
- extra-judicial confession and discovery must be corroborated
