Circumstantial evidence must exclude reasonable hypotheses of innocence to sustain a conviction.

Six accused appealed their convictions under Sections 302/34 IPC and life sentences arising from the killing of three men whose bodies were found in a field on 10 December 1989.

The prosecution relied on evidence that the accused had been seen going towards the fields, alleged sightings of them returning and speaking about the killings, a shawl found near a body and said to belong to one accused, and an alleged prior dispute over paddy theft.

The High Court noted that there was no eyewitness to the killings, no recovery from the accused, and that the seized articles were neither produced in court nor subjected to a test identification procedure.

The appeal of one appellant had abated; the Juvenile Justice Board had declared three appellants juveniles, but the High Court considered it unnecessary to decide the effect of that determination in light of its proposed decision on the appeal.

Whether the prosecution evidence, considered as a whole, established the appellants’ guilt beyond reasonable doubt for murder with common intention under Sections 302/34 IPC.

Whether the circumstantial evidence formed a complete chain excluding hypotheses consistent with the appellants’ innocence.

The charge was under Sections 302/34 IPC, concerning murder and joint liability where a criminal act is done in furtherance of common intention.

For a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must be fully established, consistent only with guilt, conclusive, exclude every reasonable hypothesis other than guilt, and form a complete chain pointing to the accused; the Court cited Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1952 SC 343, and Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622.

The Court also referred to Section 155(3) of the Evidence Act and Tahsildar Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1959 SC 1012, regarding the use of prior inconsistent statements to impeach a witness’s credit.

The Court found that the evidence that the appellants had gone towards the fields was not incriminating by itself, since villagers commonly went there at night to guard their crops.

It treated the testimony of three witnesses who claimed to have seen the appellants returning and heard them refer to the killings as unreliable because their accounts were contradicted by their prior police statements.

The shawl evidence was weakened because the item was not produced in court, subjected to scientific examination, or identified at a test identification parade; the person alleged to own it had died.

The alleged motive rested on oral evidence alone, and the Court considered that the prevailing atmosphere of communal violence left open a reasonable alternative explanation for the killings and the possibility of false implication.

The remaining circumstances therefore did not form a complete chain establishing guilt.

It set aside the convictions and life sentences, acquitted the five surviving appellants, and discharged them from their bail-bond liabilities; the appeal against the deceased appellant had already abated.