Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case For Flawed Circumstantial Chain and Inadmissible Confessions

In the appeal before the Supreme Court, which arose from a murder conviction dating back to 2006 stemming from an alleged default of a loan repayment, the Apex Court allowd the appeal and acquitted the convicts of all charges.

The prosecution case was that a police officer (who was Accused no.1) borrowed money from another police officer (deceased), and when persistent repayment demands arose, the appellant/wife of A1 (arrayed as A2 herein) called the deceased to her home on the pretext of repayment, where the victim was subsequently incapacitated with chili powder and fatally hacked by A2, her brother (A3), and brother-in-law (A4).

Relying heavily on the fact that appellant/A2 went directly to the police station the next morning and allegedly confessed to the crime, pointing out the dead body lying inside her house, the Trial Court convicted A2, A3, and A4 (affirm by High Court) based on circumstantial evidence, including extra-judicial confessions, recovery, and lack of explanation under Section 106 of the Evidence Act. However, A1 (charged with instigation) was acquitted due to a perfect alibi, since he was discharing his duites in another police station the same night.

The Supreme Court observed that the alleged extra-judicial confessions made by the Appellant/Accused No.2, to police officers or to others, while she was within the confines of the police station, must be completely eschewed under Section 25 and Section 26 of the Evidence Act, 1872.

When it comes to alleged dead body found in the accused's house, the Apex Court relying on the case of Santosh @ Bhure vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2023., held that mere presence of a dead body with homicidal injuries in the owner/tenant's property is insufficient to hold the accused guilty, and the failure of the accused to offer an explanation under Section 106 of the Evidence Act is not sufficient to hold him guilty if the primary burden on the prosecution to prove the chain of circumstances is not established.

On evaluating the motive set up by the prosecution (of the unpaid loan) was found unsatisfactory to the Apex Court and relied on its earlier judgment in case of Babu v. State of Kerala; as the key witnesses either turned hostile or contradicted the assertion of ill-will and financial transactions. The Suprem Court observed that the absence of motive is a factor that weighs in favor of the accused when the circumstantial chain is weak.

The Supreme Court also found that the recovery of the chopper (Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act), at the instance of A4, as unreliable, especially since the confession was taken simultaneously from A3 and A4, and the recovery witnesses turned hostile, alleging they signed the mahazar at the police station.

Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the Trial Court and High Court and acquitted A2, A3, and A4, and held that the prosecution's case, which relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, failed to meet the mandatory strict standard required, as the circumstances did not form a complete, unbreakable chain leading only to the guilt of the accused. More so, the extra-judicial confessions made by A2 inside the police station were entirely inadmissible under Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act.

Coram: Justice K. V. Viswanathan and Justice K. Vinod Chandran.