Inconsistent ocular and medical evidence failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances, warranting acquittal.

Biraj Kumar, aged approximately 18 months, went missing from his house on 6 August 2017. His father, Sanjay Ram (PW-6), alleged prior enmity and threats by Parmila Devi, Shravan Ram and Mitesh Ram, and lodged a written report alleging kidnapping and apprehending that the child had been killed.

Following investigation, the accused were chargesheeted and tried for offences under Sections 365/34, 302/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The prosecution examined ten witnesses and relied principally on related witnesses who claimed that the accused had been seen taking or attempting to throw the child’s body into a pond.

The post-mortem report attributed death to asphyxia caused by throttling, with a fractured hyoid bone and other injuries.

The trial court convicted the appellants under Sections 302/34, 201/34 and 365/34 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment for murder, with concurrent sentences for the other offences.

1. Whether the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants, in furtherance of their common intention, kidnapped and murdered Biraj Kumar.

2. Whether the prosecution proved that the appellants concealed the child’s dead body in the pond, thereby committing an offence under Section 201/34 IPC.

3. Whether the inconsistent ocular, medical and investigative evidence was sufficient to sustain the appellants’ convictions.

The Court considered Sections 302/34, 201/34 and 365/34 IPC, concerning murder committed with common intention, causing disappearance of evidence with common intention, and kidnapping with common intention, respectively.

Applying the principles governing cases based on circumstantial evidence, the Court relied on Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116, holding that every incriminating circumstance must be fully established, must be consistent only with the guilt of the accused, and must form a complete chain excluding every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

The Court also relied on Dilavar Hussain v. State of Gujarat, (1991) 1 SCC 253, reiterating that each link in the evidentiary chain must be proved by reliable and truthful evidence and that emotional considerations cannot substitute proof beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court found no reliable evidence that the child had been seen in the company of any of the accused or that the accused had taken him away while he was playing.

The alleged eyewitness account concerning the accused being caught while carrying or throwing the body was materially inconsistent: witnesses differed regarding the date of the incident, the place and manner of interception, whether the body was in the accused persons’ hands, and whether the accused were arrested at the pond or from their house.

The investigating officer’s evidence that the accused were not found during a raid at their house conflicted with the prosecution witnesses’ assertion that they remained present there.

The Court further noted that no independent villager who allegedly apprehended the accused was examined, the alleged assault on the accused was unsupported by medical evidence, and the prosecution failed to examine material child witnesses or Sonu Kumar, who allegedly recovered the body.

The medical evidence indicating swelling, protruded tongue, scalding and throttling was also found inconsistent with the witnesses’ statements that the body was not swollen and had been immediately recovered from the pond.

In light of the admitted prior enmity and the incomplete chain of circumstances, the Court held that the prosecution had not proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

It held that the prosecution failed to establish the appellants’ involvement in the kidnapping, murder or concealment of the child’s body beyond reasonable doubt, and that the evidentiary chain was incomplete.

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 2 June 2023 and order of sentence dated 9 June 2023 were set aside.

The appellants were acquitted of all charges by giving them the benefit of doubt and were directed to be released forthwith, unless required in any other case. The appeal was allowed.