Case Note & Summary
The case pertains to the murder of five women in village Khapridih, Chhattisgarh, on 17.12.2012. The appellants, Digamber Vaishnav and Girdhari Vaishnav, were convicted by the Sessions Court for robbery and murder under Sections 394 and 302 read with Section 34 IPC, and sentenced to death. The High Court confirmed the conviction and death sentence. The Supreme Court, in appeal, examined the circumstantial evidence relied upon by the prosecution: testimony of a child witness (PW-8), recoveries under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, last seen evidence, and fingerprint analysis. The Court held that the child witness was not an eyewitness to the actual incident and her testimony was uncorroborated, making it unreliable. The recoveries were from open places and not connected to the crime. The last seen evidence was weak due to lack of corroboration and delay in reporting. The fingerprint on a wine bottle alone was insufficient. Applying the principles that suspicion cannot replace proof and that circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain excluding innocence, the Court found that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, the conviction and death sentence were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted. The Court directed their release unless required in any other case.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Circumstantial Evidence - Principles - The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; suspicion, however grave, cannot substitute proof. Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain excluding all hypotheses of innocence. (Paras 15-19) B) Evidence Law - Child Witness - Testimony of child witness (PW-8) who was not an eyewitness to the actual incident but claimed to have seen accused leaving the house - Held that such uncorroborated testimony is unreliable and cannot form the basis of conviction. (Paras 21-24) C) Evidence Law - Recovery under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Recoveries of motorcycle, cash, anklets, and shirt - Held that recoveries are not reliable as they were not connected to the crime and were from open places accessible to all. (Paras 25-28) D) Criminal Law - Last Seen Evidence - Prosecution failed to establish last seen evidence beyond doubt as the child witness's testimony was not corroborated and there was delay in reporting. (Paras 29-30) E) Criminal Law - Fingerprint Evidence - Fingerprint on a wine bottle found at the scene - Held that fingerprint alone, without other corroborative evidence, is insufficient to prove guilt. (Para 31)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction and death sentence of the appellants based on circumstantial evidence, including testimony of a child witness and recoveries, is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the conviction and death sentence, and acquitted the appellants. They were directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.
Law Points
- Burden of proof on prosecution
- Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain
- Suspicion cannot replace proof
- Benefit of doubt to accused
- Child witness testimony requires corroboration
- Recovery under Section 27 Evidence Act must be reliable
