Supreme Court Overturned Murder Conviction Due to Flawed Circumstantial Evidence and Hostile Witnesses

While setting aside the conviction order of Trail Court wherein the appeallant was sentenced to rigorous life imprisonment (which was later upheld by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh) for charges under Sections 302, 364, and 201 IPC, the Supreme Court acquitted the Accused of all charges.

The prosecution's case alleged that the deceased, Bhoominadhan, an auto driver, was kidnapped by appellant/Accused No. 1 and his friends in 2016, following a prior animosity where the deceased's mother had lodged a report against appellant/Accused No. 1 for passing obscene remarks. Bhoominadhan's dead body was discovered the next day with multiple injuries. The prosecution relied primarily on circumstantial evidence and the testimonies of two alleged eyewitnesses, PW-5 and PW-6, who claimed to have seen the incident.

Observations made by the Supreme Court:

Motive Alone is Insufficient: While observing, that animosity between the parties (due to a previous police report against A-1) could establish a motive, the Apex Court held that motive alone is not sufficient to prove the commission of the crime unless it is corroborated by a direct or through substantial circumstantial evidence.

Impact of Hostile Witnesses: The testimony of crucial witnesses turned out to be hostile, as PW-5 and PW-6, who were considered crucial witnesses (as eyewitness) did not support the kidnapping or the 'last seen' theory which severely weakened the prosecution's case. They only observed a "galata" (scuffle) but could not identify anyone involved.

Failure of "Last Seen Theory": The Apex Court held that the "last seen theory" could not be applied in this case, as there was no credible evidence to establish that the deceased Bhoominadhan was last seen in the company of the appellant, or even that he was kidnapped by him.

Circumstantial Evidence Principles: For a conviction based entirely on circumstantial evidence, the "five golden principles" (Also refered to as 'Panchsheel' which was originally laid down in case of Hanumat’s v. State of M.P. 1953, which was then reitrated in case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, 1984 (Click to download) must be strictly adhered to. The prosecution failed to demonstrate that the circumstances formed a complete chain, pointing unerringly to the guilt of the accused and excluding all other hypotheses.

In examining the above facts and evidence of the case the Apex Court concluded that the prosecution had "miserably failed to prove the commission of the offence at the hands of appellant/Accused No. 1" based on the principles governing circumstantial evidence.

Moreover, the Apex Court also observed that the key prosecution witnesses (PW-5 and PW-6) had turned hostile during the trial, contradicting their earlier police and magisterial statements. The prosecution witness failed to establish the alleged kidnapping or that the deceased was last seen in the company of the appellant.

Thus, the Supreme Court concluded that both the Trial Court and the High Court had erred by a "complete misreading of the evidence", leading to an unsustainable conviction against the appellant.

Coram: Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale.