This judgment underscores the high burden of proof required for convictions based on circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court highlights the importance of corroborating evidence and the need to exclude all reasonable alternative hypotheses before concluding guilt. The Court's decision emphasizes that mere possession of a murder weapon, without concrete evidence linking the accused to the crime itself, is insufficient to secure a murder conviction.

This case involves the murder of Narayan Singh and the subsequent trial and conviction of the appellant, Santosh @ Rajesh @ Gopal, for the crime. The Supreme Court of India examined the evidence presented, focusing on the circumstantial nature of the prosecution's case and the application of the "golden rules" for establishing guilt based on such evidence.

The Case background is that On November 13, 2011, Narayan Singh was shot and killed at his residence. The prosecution alleged that his wife, son, and father-in-law conspired with two hired killers, including the appellant, to carry out the murder. While three of the accused were initially convicted, the appellant's conviction was the only one challenged in the present appeal.

Prosecution's Evidence and Lower Court Judgments

The prosecution's case against the appellant relied heavily on circumstantial evidence, primarily the recovery of a pistol from him. A ballistic report confirmed that the bullet recovered from the victim's body was fired from this pistol. However, the discovery of the pistol was based on a disclosure statement made by a co-accused, who later died.

For the circumstantial evidence the Supreme Court emphasized the "golden rules" for establishing guilt based on circumstantial evidence, as laid out in Sharad Birdhichand Sharda v. State of Maharashtra. The Court stressed that circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain, excluding all other hypotheses except the guilt of the accused.

While referring to its previous rulings in Perumal Raja v. State of Tamilnadu and Mohmed Inayatullah v. State of Maharashtra the Supreme Court cited "12. This Court, in Perumal Raja v. State, Represented By Inspector of Police,6 has referred to Mohmed Inayatullah v. State of Maharashtra,7 which elucidated the conditions required to be satisfied under Section 27: “Section 27 of the Evidence Act is an exception to Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. It makes that part of the statement which distinctly leads to discovery of a fact in consequence of the information received from a person accused of an offence, to the extent it distinctly relates to the fact thereby discovered, admissible in evidence against the accused. The fact which is discovered as a consequence of the information given is admissible in evidence. Further, the fact discovered must lead to recovery of a physical object and only that information which distinctly relates to that discovery can be proved.”"
clarified that the conditions for admitting evidence obtained through disclosure statements made by accused individuals. It emphasized that while such statements could be admissible, they must be corroborated by other evidence to establish a direct link to the crime.

The Court noted that the recovery of the pistol at the appellant's instance could be explained by various hypotheses, including the possibility that he was aware of its location without being involved in the murder itself. This highlighted the need for further evidence to conclusively prove the appellant's participation in the crime.

Insufficient Evidence for Murder Conviction:
The Court ultimately found that the prosecution failed to present sufficient corroborative evidence to conclusively link the appellant to the murder. While acknowledging the possibility of the appellant's involvement in other offenses, such as tampering with evidence (Section 201 of the IPC), the Court determined that the available evidence fell short of proving his guilt in the murder.

The Supreme Court has held that “13. As the disclosure statement (Exhibit P-35) has led to the arrest of the appellant, Santosh @ Rajesh @ Gopal, the prosecution may take the benefit of Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. However, even assuming this to be the case, the absence of any corroborative evidence directly linking the appellant to the crime introduces a significant gap in facts as alleged in the chain of circumstances. In our view, this fails to establish a hypothesis of guilt that conclusively excludes all other reasonable possibilities.” and has acquitted the appellant of the murder charge, setting aside the conviction and canceling his bail bonds. The Court concluded that while the prosecution established a connection between the appellant and the murder weapon, it failed to prove his direct involvement in the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

Coram: Justice SANJIV KHANNA, Justice SANJAY KUMAR" & Justice R. MAHADEVAN
Between: Santosh, Rajest, Gopal Vs State of Madhya Pradesh
DoJ: 19-09-2024