Acquittal must stand where circumstantial evidence fails to establish a complete chain excluding innocence.

The appellant/informant alleged that, on 1 June 2022 at approximately 6:30 p.m., Respondent Nos. 2–4 took his son, Bablu Kumar, away on a motorcycle and that he did not return. The informant claimed that the accused later stated that Bablu had been left at his house. A written report was submitted on 3 June 2022, leading to registration of Sirdalla (Meskaur) P.S. Case No. 280 of 2022 under Sections 364/34 IPC; Sections 302 and 201 IPC were subsequently added.

After investigation, the police submitted a charge-sheet against the three respondents under Sections 364, 302, 201 and 34 IPC. Charges were framed under Sections 346/34, 302/34 and 201/34 IPC. The prosecution examined eight witnesses, including hearsay witnesses, inquest witnesses, the doctor and the investigating officer. The defence examined two witnesses.

The Principal Sessions Judge, Nawada acquitted Respondent Nos. 2–4, holding that the prosecution had failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt. The informant thereafter preferred the present appeal under the proviso to Section 413 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased was last seen in the company of Respondent Nos. 2–4 and that they were responsible for his death?

Whether the alleged confession of Respondent No. 4 and the purported recovery of the deceased’s body established a legally admissible and complete chain of circumstantial evidence against the respondents?

Whether the trial court’s acquittal was liable to be interfered with in an appeal against acquittal?

The Court considered the offences alleged under Sections 302, 364, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the maintainability of the appeal under the proviso to Section 413 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must be fully established, consistent only with the guilt of the accused, conclusive in nature, exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, and form a complete chain showing that the act was committed by the accused, as laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116.

The Court also applied the principles governing appeals against acquittal stated in H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka, (2023) 9 SCC 58: acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence; although the appellate court may reappreciate the evidence, it cannot interfere where the trial court’s view is a possible view; interference is justified only where guilt is the sole conclusion available on the evidence.

The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the foundational circumstance that Bablu Kumar was last seen going with the respondents. Although the informant claimed in examination-in-chief that the accused took the deceased away, he admitted in cross-examination that he had not seen his son leaving the house because he was inside; he also gave no details of the alleged motorcycle or mobile phone and stated that he had only heard about the body’s concealment.

The other material witnesses were hearsay witnesses and no independent villager had seen the deceased in the company of the accused.

The alleged recovery was also not proved. The inquest witnesses stated that the body was not recovered in their presence, and the investigating officer did not identify any witness who was present at the place of recovery.

Although the investigating officer referred to a confession by Respondent No. 4 indicating the place where the body was concealed, the relevant portion was not exhibited in evidence. Consequently, the alleged recovery from the straw storage at Chorabara Paieen was not satisfactorily established.

In the absence of reliable proof of the last-seen circumstance, a duly proved recovery, or any complete chain connecting the respondents with the murder, the requirements of the rule in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda were not met. Since the trial court’s view was a possible view on the evidence, the restrictive principles governing appeals against acquittal prevented appellate interference.

Finding no reason to interfere with the trial court’s possible and lawful view, the Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the acquittal of Respondent Nos. 2–4.

It directed that a copy of the judgment, along with the trial court record, be transmitted to the trial court.