In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India has highlighted the importance of rigorous proof in cases relying on circumstantial evidence and witness testimony overturned a death sentence of Vishwajeet Kerba Masalkar.

The Supreme Court of India in deciding the appeal filed by one Vishwajeet Kerba Masalkar who challenged a death sentence imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, and upheld by the Bombay High Court, for the murders of his wife, daughter, and mother. The division bench comprised of Justices B.R. Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra, and K.V. Viswanathan, overturned the conviction and death sentence, and held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond the reasonable doubt.

The case beings with the muder of the appellant's wife, mother and two year old daugher, and initially the appellant reported the incident to the police, claiming a robbery had taken place. He also repoted that his neighbor, Madhusudhan Kulkarni (PW-12), had also been injured. The police registered a case against unknown assailants, but later suspected the appellant and arrested him and based on finding and recovering the blood-stained clothes and other evidence from the scene of offence, later found the hammer (material evidence) which was corroborated by the evidence provided by Kulkarni.

The prosecution's case relied heavily on the testimony of eyewitness Madhusudhan Kulkarni, the appellant's neighbor, and circumstantial evidence including the recovery of a hammer and blood-stained clothes. The Court scrutinized Kulkarni's testimony, finding several inconsistencies and a lack of corroboration from other potential witnesses.

Doubts Regarding Key Witness
Kulkarni claimed that he heard shouting and crying and, upon investigating, saw the appellant's wife and daughter outside their flat. He then stated that he was struck from behind and, upon falling, saw the appellant leaving the scene with a hammer.However, the Court found Kulkarni's testimony to be inconsistent and lacking in corroboration. His statement was recorded six days later, even though medical evidence showed that he was conscious and oriented on the day of his admission to the hospital. Furthermore, there was no corroboration of his testimony from any of the other neighbors who were supposed to have witnessed the incidentKulkarni's statement to police was recorded six days after the incident, despite evidence suggesting he was conscious and oriented at the time of his hospital admission. The Court was also baffled by why the other neighbours were not produced to corroborate his testimony, especially in light of the fact that he said they appeared at the scene of events shortly after it had occurred.

Challenges to Circumstantial Evidence
The Court also raised concerns about the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution. The hammer, allegedly used in the crime and recovered from a canal at the appellant's instance, was found in a location accessible to anyone. The Court deemed it improbable that bloodstains would remain on the hammer after being submerged in water for three days.

Similarly, the recovery of blood-stained clothes from the appellant's home was considered inconclusive as he was present at the crime scene and the clothes were not sealed, raising the possibility of tampering.

Motive Insufficient for Conviction
The prosecution emphasized the appellant's desire to marry another woman as a motive for the murders. However, the Court stated that motive alone could not support a conviction. Relying on its prior ruling in Sharad Birdhichand Sharda v. State of Maharashtra, the Court stressed that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Supreme Court ultimately concluded that the prosecution failed to meet the rigorous standards of proof required for a conviction based on circumstantial evidence. The Court acquitted the appellant, overturning the judgments of the trial court and the High Court.

The Court repeatedly cites Sharad Birdhichand Sharda Vs State of Maharashtra to emphasize the high standard of proof required for convictions based on circumstantial evidence.

Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: The Court uses Sharad Birdhichand Sharda to reiterate the fundamental legal principle that suspicion, even if strong, cannot substitute for proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It highlights that the prosecution must establish a complete chain of evidence that conclusively points to the accused's guilt.

Circumstantial Evidence: The Sharad Birdhichand Sharda judgment provides a framework for evaluating circumstantial evidence, often referred to as the "five golden principles". These principles require that the circumstances leading to the conclusion of guilt be fully established, consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt, conclusive in nature, and exclusive of all other hypotheses. The Court in the present case applied these principles to assess the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution, ultimately finding it insufficient to secure a conviction.

"May Be" vs. "Must Be": The Vishwajeet Kerba Masalkar judgment specifically draws attention to the distinction between "may be proved" and "must be or should be proved," as highlighted in Sharad Birdhichand Sharda. This distinction underscores the requirement for definitive proof of guilt, rather than mere possibility or conjecture. The Court emphasizes that the prosecution must demonstrate that the accused "must be" guilty, not simply that they "may be" guilty. The Supreme Court's consistent reliance on Sharad Birdhichand Sharda in Vishwajeet Kerba Masalkar demonstrates the significance of precedent in Indian criminal law. By applying established legal principles and guidelines for evaluating evidence, the Court ensures consistency and fairness in its judgments. The judgment reinforces the importance of adhering to stringent standards of proof, particularly in cases relying on circumstantial evidence, to protect the rights of the accused and prevent wrongful convictions.

Coram: Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, & Justice K.V. Viswanathan
Between: Vishwajeet Kerba Masalkar Vs State Of Maharashtra
DOJ:17-10-2024