A Bench comprising of Justices B.R. Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra and K.V. Viswanathan
Introduction:
The Supreme Court of India set aside the Bombay High Court's judgment which had upheld the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the rape and murder of a 23-year-old woman in 2014. The appellant was acquitted due to the failure of the prosecution to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly relying on circumstantial evidence.
Facts:
In 2014, the body of a 23-year-old woman was found burnt and decomposed. The prosecution argued that the appellant raped and murdered the woman, presenting 14 circumstantial evidences, including CCTV footage, testimonies of witnesses, and an alleged extrajudicial confession. The trial court convicted the appellant and awarded a death sentence. The Bombay High Court upheld the conviction and death sentence in December 2018, but the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, claiming that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Issues:
- Whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to establish the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Whether the conviction and death sentence were justified based on the evidence presented in the case.
- Whether the extrajudicial confession and other circumstantial evidence were reliable and legally admissible.
You can also read the Blog by visiting [Blog]
For more information, visit [Aashayein Enquiry Section]
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The appellant contended that the prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt and that the circumstantial evidence was flawed, incomplete, and inconsistent. He argued that the CCTV footage, which was a crucial piece of evidence, was inadmissible due to the lack of a Section 65-B(4) certificate as per the Indian Evidence Act (Now Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam,2023).
He also questioned the reliability of the extrajudicial confession made to a witness (PW-9), asserting that it was a weak piece of evidence and lacked corroboration. The appellant further argued that the testimonies of the last-seen witnesses were unreliable and did not point to his guilt.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The prosecution maintained that the circumstantial evidence, including the last-seen theory, the extrajudicial confession, and other recovered items, conclusively proved the appellant's guilt. The prosecution emphasized the admissibility of the CCTV footage and argued that the appellant’s actions before and after the crime were consistent with the crime. The respondent also contended that the extrajudicial confession made to PW-9 was a critical piece of evidence that should be considered in the appellant's conviction.
Court's Analysis:
The Court found the CCTV footage inadmissible because the prosecution had failed to furnish the required Section 65-B(4) certificate under the Indian Evidence Act, as established in the Anvar P.V. case. The Court held that without this certificate, the footage could not be relied upon.
The Court rejected the extrajudicial confession made to PW-9, stating that such confessions are weak evidence and lacked corroboration.
The Court relied on the principle laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984), which requires that circumstantial evidence must form an unbroken chain leading to the sole conclusion of the accused’s guilt. The Court found that the prosecution had not met this standard.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly in light of the weak and inconsistent circumstantial evidence presented. As a result, the Court acquitted the appellant of all charges, setting aside the conviction and death sentence.
