Weak Motive and Contradictory Witness Testimonies Render Conviction Unsustainable: Madras High Court

Motive Not Proven, Suspicion Cannot Replace Proof, Says Madras High Court setting aside the conviction of the appellant, Raman, for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court overturned the life imprisonment sentence imposed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharapuram, citing lack of evidence, failure to prove motive, and investigative lapses.
The case involved the alleged murder of Marimuthu @ Seenan in July 2016. According to the prosecution, the appellant killed the deceased following a dispute over the repayment of a loan and an alleged offensive utterance by the deceased. The trial court had convicted the appellant based on circumstantial evidence, including motive, last seen theory, and the recovery of material objects. However, the High Court found the evidence riddled with inconsistencies and insufficient to prove the appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The prosecution alleged that the accused and deceased, who were friends from the same village, consumed liquor together on the night of July 28, 2016. A heated argument ensued over a loan of Rs. 5,000, which the appellant had borrowed from the deceased. The prosecution further alleged that the deceased made an offensive remark involving the appellant’s wife, provoking him to attack the deceased with a bill hook, leading to his death.
The deceased’s body was found the following day at his house, and a First Information Report (FIR) was registered. The police arrested the appellant and claimed to recover the alleged murder weapon, a blood-stained bill hook, and blood-stained clothes at his instance. The trial court relied on these circumstantial pieces of evidence to convict the appellant.
The Court noted that the alleged motive — an offensive utterance by the deceased — was not supported by any evidence. Witnesses (PW1 to PW3) testified only about a loan dispute but did not corroborate the claim of the offensive remark. The Court emphasized, “Suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof.” The absence of concrete evidence regarding motive weakened the prosecution’s case significantly.
The prosecution relied on the testimony of two witnesses (PW5 and PW6) to establish that the accused was last seen with the deceased. However, the Court found several contradictions in their statements:
•    PW5 admitted during cross-examination that his house was not near the crime scene and that he did not see the accused and deceased together.
•    PW6 claimed the accused confessed to him about the murder, but the Court found his silence for hours after the alleged confession “unnatural” and his testimony unreliable.
The Court held that the last seen theory was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court scrutinized the recovery of the alleged murder weapon and blood-stained materials. PW8, a key recovery witness, denied any knowledge of the accused’s confession, stating that he merely signed documents prepared by the police. The inconsistencies in witness testimonies cast serious doubts on the recovery process. The Court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the chain of circumstances required for a conviction based on circumstantial evidence.
The Court criticized the investigative process for failing to secure fingerprint evidence from material objects, such as the brandy bottles allegedly used by the accused and deceased. The omission of such crucial scientific evidence weakened the prosecution’s case further.
The Court referred to landmark judgments, including Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [(1984) 4 SCC 116], which laid down the principles for convicting an accused based on circumstantial evidence:
1.    Every link in the chain of circumstances must be established beyond reasonable doubt.
2.    All circumstances must point exclusively to the guilt of the accused.
Applying these principles, the Court found several missing links in the chain of evidence, making the conviction unsustainable.

The High Court held that the trial court had failed to analyze the evidence properly and had convicted the appellant based on speculation rather than proof. The judgment stated: 
“The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the motive, the last seen theory, and the recovery of evidence. The conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court are therefore set aside.”
The appellant was acquitted of all charges, and the Court ordered that any fine paid by him be refunded. The bail bond executed by the appellant was also canceled.
This judgment reinforces the principle that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, every link in the chain must be established without leaving room for doubt. The Madras High Court’s ruling serves as a reminder of the critical role of proper investigation and adherence to evidentiary standards in criminal trials.
 

Date of Decision: 05/12/2024