Conviction Based on Circumstantial Evidence Set Aside Due to Lack of Motive and Fabricated Recovery

The Appellants were convicted by the Trial Court for the murder (Sec. 302 IPC), kidnapping (Sec. 364 IPC), and destruction of evidence (Sec. 201 IPC) of Rakesh Vishwakarma and Amitchand Dhirmalani.

The prosecution alleged that following a prior dispute with the victims' employer (PW-24), the Appellants assaulted the victims in Accused No. 1's shop and later slit their throats near a railway track.

The bodies were discovered on 31.12.2012.

The Trial Court relied on circumstantial evidence, including blood-stained clothes, the recovery of a knife and mobile phones from the Accused's premises, and CDR locations.

1. Whether the prosecution established a complete chain of circumstantial evidence pointing unerringly to the guilt of the Appellants.

2. Whether the recovery of incriminating articles under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was legally sustainable given that the Accused were already in police custody at the time the articles were allegedly concealed.

3. Whether the Trial Court erred by relying on the inadmissible confessional portions of memorandum statements.

The court applied Section 302 (Murder), Section 364 (Kidnapping for murder), and Section 201 (Causing disappearance of evidence) of the Indian Penal Code.

The evidentiary standards for circumstantial evidence were governed by the "five golden principles" (Panchsheel) established in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra.

The court strictly interpreted Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act regarding the "fact discovered" and the inadmissibility of confessions made to police.

Section 428 of the Cr.P.C. regarding set-off of sentence replaced by Section 481 BNSS for the final order.

The High Court found the "chain of circumstances" completely broken. First, it held there was no motive, as the prior dispute was with PW-24, not the deceased.

Second, it dismissed the blood-stained clothes as evidence because the Appellants had suffered injuries in a previous brawl, and the C.A. report failed to match blood groups.

Third, the court found the recovery of mobile phones from the Accused's locked shop "unbelievable," as the Accused were in police custody when the shop was supposedly locked and the keys hidden.

Critically, CDR data showed an incoming call was received on a victim's phone at 7:19 AM on 31.12.2012, while the Accused was already in custody, proving he could not have hidden it in the shop at that time.

The court rebuked the Trial Judge for basing the conviction on "conjectures and surmises" and for improperly relying on the inadmissible confessional parts of Section 27 statements.

The Appeal is allowed, and the judgment dated 8.8.2023 is set aside. Factors such as the lack of motive, unreliable recovery of weapons/phones, and the contradictory CDR evidence necessitated acquittal.

The Court ordered the immediate release of Accused No. 1 and discharged the bail bonds of the other Appellants, subject to executing P.R. bonds under Section 481 of the BNSS.