Supreme Court Overturns Murder Conviction Based on Circumstantial Evidence

Supreme Court Sets Aside Murder Conviction Based on Circumstantial Evidence: Nusrat Parween vs. State of Jharkhand The case concerned a young woman, Hamida Parween, who was found dead in her home. Her in-laws, Nusrat Parween and Ahmad Khan, along with her brother-in-law, Abdul Rahman Khan, were accused of her murder. They were convicted by the trial court and the High Court based on circumstantial evidence, primarily focusing on a possible motive of property dispute and the "last seen together" theory. However, the Supreme Court had to reverse their conviction since the prosecution failed to provide an unbroken chain of incriminating circumstances.

Hamida Parween was found dead in her home, which she shared with her in-laws and brother-in-law following her husband's death two years prior and it was alleged that the in-laws were pressuring her to give up her share of the property and that they were the last people seen with her.

The case of the prosecution’s relied heavily on circumstantial evidence, including the alleged motive of a property dispute, the “last seen together” theory, and witness testimonies about prior quarrels between the deceased and the accused.

The Trial Court and High Court found the accused guilty of murder based on this circumstantial evidence and the conviction was upheld by the High Court, however, the Supreme Court meticulously examined the evidence and the legal principles governing convictions based on circumstantial evidence.

The following are the several important observations made by the Supreme Court, which lead to overturning the convictions:

Motive Not Conclusively Proven: While the prosecution alleged that the accused wanted to usurp Hamida’s property, the court found this claim was not definitively proven. The court highlighted that the existence of family disputes, without a clear link to the crime, does not automatically establish a motive for murder.

Even by adopting the "Last Seen Together" Theory the prosecution failed to prove that the accused were the only people present with Hamida before her death. The court noted that neither Hamida’s son nor any neighbors testified to seeing the accused fleeing the scene or behaving suspiciously. The court underscored that the burden of proving the “last seen together” theory rests with the prosecution. and the prosecution did not present testimony from Hamida's daughter or her other son, raising doubts about the completeness of their case.

The prosecution relied repeatedly on the complaint that Hamida allegedly filed against the accused. However, this document was never formally presented as evidence, weakening the prosecution’s claim of a property dispute. The Apex Court also relied on its earlier judgement on Nagendra Sah v. State of Bihar (Click to Download) and also on its recent judgment in case of Anees v. The State Govt. of NCT (Click to Download) in further explaining section 106 of Indian Evidence Act with respect to the Circumstantail evidence and burden of proof and held the following "22. Applying the aforesaid principles to the case at hand, the prosecution would be required to establish that the accusedappellants and Hamida Parween(deceased) were present inside the house i.e., Holding No. 13 on the fateful morning, and to be specific during the time immediately preceding the incident."

The Apex Court drew adverse inference from the missing of evidences and observed that the inconsistencies between the first informant's statement and the Investigating Officer's testimony have missind links. Additionally, the station diary entry recording the initial missing person report was not produced as evidence. These omissions led the court to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution.

Ultimately, by considering the "Benefit of Doubt" the Supreme Court determined that the prosecution failed to establish a conclusive chain of incriminating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. The court asserted that the accused were entitled to the benefit of the doubt, and acwuitted the appeallant/convics.

Coram: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sandeep Mehta.
Between:Nusrat Parween vs. State of Jharkhand.
Date of Judgment:10-12-2024