Conviction based on circumstantial evidence cannot stand where the chain leaves reasonable alternative hypotheses.

The appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of ₹10,000 by the Sessions Judge, Charaideo, in Sessions (CHA) Case No. 74/2018, by judgment dated 12.05.2022.

The prosecution alleged that on 17.07.2017, the appellant killed his wife at her parents’ house by hacking her neck and face with a dao and thereafter fled with their minor child.

The deceased’s parents had left the house in the morning, allegedly leaving the deceased, appellant and child there. On receiving information, they returned and found the deceased dead; the appellant was absent.

The prosecution examined seven witnesses, including the deceased’s parents, a shopkeeper, a neighbour, the autopsy doctor and the Investigating Officer.

The medical evidence established that the deceased died from bleeding caused by deep cut injuries to the larynx, external carotid artery and thyroid cartilage.

The appellant denied the incriminating circumstances in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and led no defence evidence.

The conviction was based entirely on circumstantial evidence, principally the appellant’s alleged presence with the deceased, his absence after the occurrence, his alleged flight with the child and his surrender.

Whether the prosecution established a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances proving beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant committed the murder of the deceased under Section 302 IPC.

Whether the appellant’s alleged presence at the place of occurrence, subsequent absence, possession of the child, alleged surrender and failure to explain the circumstances under Section 313 Cr.P.C. constituted incriminating circumstances sufficient to sustain the conviction.

Whether the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the seized dao and the forensic report sufficiently connected the appellant and the weapon with the murder.

The Court considered the offence of murder under Section 302 IPC and the appellate jurisdiction under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C.

In cases resting on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish every circumstance fully; the circumstances must be consistent only with the guilt of the accused, conclusive in nature, exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence and form a complete chain pointing only to the accused’s guilt, as laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116.

Where two views are reasonably possible, the view favourable to the accused must be adopted, consistent with Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Devi Lal v. State of Rajasthan, (2019) 19 SCC 447.

The Court also held that mere absconding or surrender is not, by itself, proof of guilt, and that Section 106 of the Evidence Act cannot be invoked unless the prosecution first establishes foundational facts placing the relevant circumstances within the accused’s exclusive knowledge.

It further referred to the principle that motive assumes importance in a wholly circumstantial case, as recognised in Dandu Jaggaraju v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2011) 14 SCC 674.

The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish that the appellant was continuously present with the deceased at the relevant time.

PW1 and PW2 gave inconsistent accounts regarding when they left the house and when they received information about the incident, and both admitted that they did not know whether the appellant had left or whether another person had entered the house.

PW3, a shopkeeper, stated that the appellant was working at his shop before 10:00 a.m., left after saying that something had happened at his house, and later informed him that someone had killed his wife.

This evidence introduced a reasonable possibility that the appellant had gone to his own house rather than his in-laws’ house and weakened the alleged last-seen circumstance.

The Court also held that the prosecution failed to prove that the dao recovered from the scene was the weapon used in the crime.

Although it bore bloodstains, the FSL report identified the blood group as AB+ but did not compare it with the blood of the deceased or the appellant.

The appellant’s absence after the incident and alleged surrender were likewise insufficient, particularly because the evidence was contradictory as to whether he surrendered before the police or before the Court.

Since the prosecution had not first proved the appellant’s presence with the deceased at the material time, his silence under Section 313 Cr.P.C. could not fill the evidentiary gaps or discharge the prosecution’s burden.

The absence of any proved motive further weakened the circumstantial chain.

Applying the rule of benefit of doubt, the Court concluded that the circumstances admitted of at least two possible views, one consistent with the appellant’s innocence.

The conviction and sentence imposed by the Sessions Judge, Charaideo, on 12.05.2022 were set aside and quashed.

The appellant was acquitted of the charge under Section 302 IPC and directed to be released forthwith, unless required in any other case.

The appeal was accordingly disposed of, with no order as to costs.