Supreme Court Judgment Highlights Flaws in Circumstantial Evidence: Acquits Accused in Murder Case

New Delhi, May 4, 2023: Supreme Court of India highlighted the flaws in relying solely on circumstantial evidence in criminal trials. The bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Sanjay Kumar acquitted the accused in a murder case, stating that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The case pertained to the murder of a man whose body was discovered in a canal four days after his death. The post-mortem report indicated that the death had occurred more than 48 hours prior to the examination, suggesting that the deceased was killed on May 8, 2000. However, the prosecution contended that the murder took place on May 8 itself, without providing a satisfactory explanation for the presence of rigor mortis in the body even after four days.

The High Court had relied on the opinion of the doctor who conducted the post-mortem, stating that the death occurred more than 48 hours before the examination. However, the Supreme Court pointed out the weakness in the cross-examination of the defense and emphasized the duty of the trial judge to ask crucial questions in order to discover the truth of the matter.

The bench further emphasized that the evidence of last seen, a crucial piece of circumstantial evidence, loses its value when there is a significant time gap between the last seen and the death of the deceased. They highlighted that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution and that the chain of circumstances must conclusively point to the guilt of the accused.

Regarding the recovery of evidence, the Supreme Court found it weak, stating that the alleged place of the crime and the recovery of items had already been disclosed by the co-accused prior to the arrest of the present appellant. The currency notes and hair found at the appellant's residence were not identified as belonging to the deceased.

The judgment highlighted Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, which places the burden of proving a fact especially within the knowledge of a person upon that person. However, the court clarified that Section 106 does not come into play if the other facts have not been established by the prosecution.

The bench concluded that the prosecution had not proven its case beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the appellant. The trial court and the High Court's orders were set aside, and the appellant, who had been in jail, was ordered to be released unless required in any other case.

May 4, 2023

Dinesh Kumar vs The State of Haryana