Recently, the Karnataka High Court examined the sustainability of a murder conviction founded entirely on circumstantial evidence, reiterating that criminal courts must guard against replacing proof with suspicion, however grave it may appear.
Brief Facts:
The case arose from the recovery of a mutilated female dead body in December 2014 within the limits of the Bagaluru Police Station. The prosecution alleged that the deceased was the wife of the appellant and that marital discord and an alleged extramarital relationship led to a conspiracy to murder her. It was claimed that the deceased was last seen with the appellant near a café and was later taken to a secluded place where she was murdered. The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Sections 302, 201 and 498A IPC based on circumstantial evidence, sentencing him to life imprisonment. The appellant challenged this conviction before the High Court.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The counsel for the Appellant argued that the conviction was unsafe as the case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence with several missing links. The “last seen” evidence was inconsistent and recorded after an unexplained delay. The counsel further contended that the identity of the dead body was not conclusively proved due to the absence of DNA evidence and that the alleged recoveries were unreliable for want of independent corroboration. The conviction under Section 498A IPC was also assailed for lack of specific proof of cruelty.
Contentions of the State:
The State contended that the prosecution had proved a complete chain of circumstances establishing the appellant’s guilt. It relied on the last seen evidence, medical proof of homicidal death, and the existence of a motive arising from marital discord. The prosecution also argued that recoveries made at the instance of the appellant and the conduct of the accused justified the conviction and that the burden under Section 106 of the Evidence Act shifted onto the appellant.
Observation of the Court:
The Karnataka High Court observed that the case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, and reiterated that a conviction can be sustained only when the prosecution establishes a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances. The Court cautioned that every incriminating circumstance must be proved beyond doubt and must point exclusively to the guilt of the accused, observing that “suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot be a substitute for proof.”
On the last seen theory, the Court found serious inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and noted the unexplained delay in recording their statements. It held that the time gap between the alleged last seen point and the discovery of the dead body was not so proximate as to rule out the possibility of involvement of a third person, reiterating that the doctrine applies only where “the possibility of any person, other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible.”
The Bench also expressed doubt over the identity of the dead body, noting that except for the testimony of the mother identifying a tattoo mark, there was no corroborative or scientific evidence such as a DNA test. The Court held that in cases involving a mutilated and unidentifiable body, the prosecution must adopt a higher standard of proof to firmly establish identity.
Rejecting the State’s reliance on Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the Court clarified that the burden shifts to the accused only after the prosecution discharges its initial burden. It held that “unless the foundational facts are proved by the prosecution, Section 106 cannot be invoked to cast the burden on the accused,” and concluded that the benefit of doubt must necessarily go to the appellant.
The decision of the Court:
The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant of all charges after holding that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, directing his release forthwith with refund of fine, if any.
Case Title: Arun Kumar v. State of Karnataka
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No.1270 OF 2024
Coram: Hon’ble Mr Justice K.S.Mudagal and Hon’ble Mr Justice Venkatesh Naik T
Counsel for the Appellant: Adv. C.H Hanumantharayappa
Counsel for the State: Adv. HCGP Sowmya R
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :