Supreme Court Stresses Stringent Proofs in Circumstantial Evidence in Cases; Acquitted The Murder Convicts.

This landmark judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of India in case of Suresh Chandra Tiwari & Anr Vs State of Uttarakhand, emphasizes the rigorous standards of proof required in criminal cases based solely on circumstantial evidence.

The Court acquitted the appellants, Suresh Chandra Tiwari and Bhuwan Chandra Punetha, who had been convicted by the trial court and the Uttarakhand High Court for the murder of Suresh Upreti. The Supreme Court meticulously analyzed each piece of circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution and found it insufficient to establish the appellants' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Background of the Case:
-Suresh Upreti's body was found on the morning of February 3, 1997, in the verandah of a shop in Lohaghat, Uttarakhand.

-The prosecution's case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, alleging that Tiwari and Punetha had a motive due to past political rivalry with the deceased.

-Several witnesses placed the deceased in the company of the appellants on the day of the murder. One witness claimed to have seen the appellants walking near the crime scene late at night.

-A polythene bag containing meat was recovered near the deceased's belongings, and a meat vendor testified that Tiwari had purchased meat from him that day.

-The police claimed that the appellants, upon arrest, led them to a location where bloodstained stones were recovered, suggesting they were used in the assault.

The trial court convicted Tiwari and Punetha under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), finding the circumstantial evidence sufficient to establish their guilt.

The High Court upheld the conviction, relying heavily on the recovery of the bloodstained stones, but reduced the conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I of IPC.

Supreme Court's Observations and Reasoning:
The Court emphasized the well-established legal principles governing the use of circumstantial evidence in criminal cases, citing precedents like Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra(Click to Download) and Hanumat Govind Nargundkar v. State of Madhya Pradesh(Click to Download).

The circumstances must be fully established and unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused. The circumstances, taken together, should form a complete chain, excluding any other reasonable hypothesis except the guilt of the accused, and If two views are possible, one indicating guilt and the other innocence, the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt, as held in Devi Lal vs. State of Rajasthan(Click to Download).

Applying these principles, the Court meticulously examined each piece of circumstantial evidence: Motive: The Court found the evidence of motive, stemming from past political rivalry, weak and insufficient to conclusively link the appellants to the crime.

Last Seen: The Court found the time gap between the last sighting of the deceased with the appellants and the discovery of the body too large to rule out the involvement of others.

Appellants Looking for the Deceased: This was deemed inconclusive as there could be innocent explanations for seeking someone out.

The Court found the testimony of the witness who claimed to have seen them unreliable, highlighting inconsistencies and a lack of corroboration.
Recovery of Polythene Bag with Meat: The Court held that the mere presence of a meat bag, even considering Tiwari's purchase of meat, was not incriminating without a definitive link to the bag recovered.

Disclosure Statement and Recovery of Stones: The Court found the admissibility and reliability of the disclosure statement questionable because the recovery of the stones allegedly occurred before the statement was recorded. This was deemed a case of recovery based on pointing out a location and not on a disclosure statement leading to discovery.

Citing Geejaganda Somaiah vs. State of Karnataka(Click to Download), the Court cautioned against the misuse of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, which deals with the admissibility of information received from an accused leading to the discovery of incriminating material.

The Court further observed that the bloodstained stones could not be conclusively linked to the crime:

The forensic report indicated no blood was found on some of the recovered stones. And the heavy rain on the night of the murder could have washed away blood, as acknowledged in the seizure memo.

The doctor who conducted the autopsy (PW-1) was not shown the stones to confirm if they could have caused the deceased's injuries.

The Court meticulously evaluating circumstantial evidence in criminal cases. allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and acquitted the appellants. It highlights the need for a complete and unbreakable chain of circumstances, each proven beyond a reasonable doubt, to secure a conviction based solely on such evidence.

The Court's detailed analysis of the evidence and legal principles serves as a guide for future cases involving circumstantial evidence, particularly in murder trials.
The judgment underscores the importance of careful police investigation, the proper recording of evidence, and the need to avoid any gaps or weaknesses in the chain of circumstances presented to the court.

Coram: Justice J.B. Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra.
Between: Suresh Chandra Tiwari & Anr Vs State of Uttarakhan.
Date of Judgement: 28-11-2024