2022 (10) TMI 1231 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court acquits man charged with murdering wife and four daughters under Section 302 IPC citing insufficient evidence

Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti Versus State of Uttar Pradesh

The SC set aside the conviction of an accused charged with murdering his wife and four minor daughters under Section 302 IPC. The Court found that none of ... Murder of wife and four minor daughters - oral evidence on record - principles of law relating to appreciation of circumstantial evidence - analysis of the incriminating circumstances relied upon by the Trial Court and the High Court discovery of weapon of offence and bloodstained clothes - extra judicial confession - motive - false explanation offered by the accused appellant as an additional link - injuries in the body of accused appellant - HELD THAT:- None of the pieces of evidence relied on as incriminating by the courts below, can be treated as incriminating pieces of circumstantial evidence against the accused. Realities or truth apart, the fundamental and basic presumption in the administration of criminal law and justice delivery system is the innocence of the alleged accused and till the charges are proved beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of clear, cogent, credible or unimpeachable evidence, the question of indicting or punishing an accused does not arise, merely carried away by heinous nature of the crime or the gruesome manner in which it was found to have been committed. Though the offence is gruesome and revolts the human conscience but an accused can be convicted only on legal evidence and if only a chain of circumstantial evidence has been so forged as to rule out the possibility of any other reasonable hypothesis excepting the guilt of the accused. In SHANKARLAL GYARASILAL DIXIT VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [1980 (12) TMI 194 - SUPREME COURT], this Court cautioned ­ 'human nature is too willing, when faced with brutal crimes, to spin stories out of strong suspicions'. This Court has held time and again that between “may be true” and “must be true” there is a long distance to travel which must be covered by clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence by the prosecution before an accused is condemned a convict. It is by far now well­settled for a legal proposition that it is the duty of the court to see and ensure that an accused put on a criminal trial is effectively represented by a defence counsel, and in the event on account of indigence, poverty or illiteracy or any other disabling factor, he is not able to engage a counsel of his choice, it becomes the duty of the court to provide him appropriate and meaningful legal aid at the State expense. What is meant by the duty of the State to ensure a fair defence to an accused is not the employment of a defence counsel for namesake. It has to be the provision of a counsel who defends the accused diligently to the best of his abilities - The presence of counsel on record means effective, genuine and faithful presence and not a mere farcical, sham or a virtual presence that is illusory, if not fraudulent. The conviction of the accused appellant under Section 302 of the IPC is set aside. He is acquitted of the charge framed against him. He shall be set at liberty forthwith if not required to be detained in connection with any other offences - Appeal allowed. Issues Involved:1. Validity of the conviction based on circumstantial evidence.2. Legality and reliability of the discovery of the weapon and blood-stained clothes.3. Admissibility and credibility of the extra-judicial confessions.4. Evaluation of the motive behind the crime.5. Impact of the false explanation offered by the accused.6. Significance of the injuries found on the accused.7. Quality of legal representation provided to the accused.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Conviction Based on Circumstantial Evidence:The Supreme Court emphasized that for a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of events that leads to the only conclusion of the accused's guilt. The Court cited the principles from *Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra* which outline that the circumstances must be cogently established, conclusive, and should exclude any hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused.2. Legality and Reliability of the Discovery of the Weapon and Blood-Stained Clothes:The Court found significant legal infirmities in the discovery process. It noted that the investigating officer failed to follow proper procedures under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, such as calling independent witnesses at the police station and proving the exact statement made by the accused. The Court emphasized the importance of proving the contents of the panchnama and the authorship of concealment, which were not satisfactorily established in this case.3. Admissibility and Credibility of the Extra-Judicial Confessions:The Court scrutinized the extra-judicial confessions allegedly made by the accused to PW-3 and PW-4. It found inconsistencies and improbabilities in the prosecution's narrative, noting that the accused could not have been at multiple places simultaneously. The Court reiterated that extra-judicial confessions are a weak type of evidence and require corroboration, which was lacking in this case.4. Evaluation of the Motive Behind the Crime:While acknowledging the accused's alleged motive to marry Manju, the Court held that motive alone cannot establish guilt. It cited *Sampath Kumar v. Inspector of Police Krishnagiri* to underline that motive, although important in circumstantial evidence cases, cannot substitute for conclusive proof of guilt.5. Impact of the False Explanation Offered by the Accused:The Court noted that a false explanation by the accused can only be used as an additional link if the prosecution's evidence is otherwise complete. Since the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of evidence, the false explanation could not be used to convict the accused.6. Significance of the Injuries Found on the Accused:The Court discussed the injuries found on the accused and noted that the prosecution did not satisfactorily explain these injuries. It referenced *Lakshmi Singh and Others v. State of Bihar* to highlight that non-explanation of injuries can indicate suppression of the true origin of the incident. The accused's explanation that he was attacked by unidentified persons was found to be plausible.7. Quality of Legal Representation Provided to the Accused:The Court criticized the quality of legal representation provided to the accused, noting that the cross-examination of witnesses was inadequate. It stressed the importance of competent legal aid, referencing *Madhav Hayawadanrao Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra* and *Zahira Habibullah Sheikh (5) and Another v. State of Gujarat and Others*, which emphasize the need for effective legal representation to ensure a fair trial.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and death sentence of the accused. It highlighted the failure of the prosecution to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence, the procedural lapses in the discovery of the weapon, the unreliability of the extra-judicial confessions, and the inadequate legal representation provided to the accused. The accused was ordered to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.