Murder conviction cannot stand where discovery is unproved and last-seen evidence is unreliable.

The appellants, accused Nos. 1 and 2, were convicted by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga, under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC for the murder of Chandrasekhar and causing disappearance of evidence; accused No. 3 was acquitted.

The prosecution case was based on circumstantial evidence, including motive, last seen evidence, discovery of the body, and recovery of clothing.

The appellants challenged their convictions in appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C.

The High Court noted that the deceased’s homicidal death was not seriously disputed and that the post-mortem report attributed death to coma resulting from injuries.

1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants committed the murder and caused disappearance of evidence, on the circumstantial evidence presented.

2. Whether the alleged discovery of the body and recovery of clothing were admissible and sufficiently proved as evidence connecting the appellants to the offences.

The appellants were charged and convicted under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

A confession made to police is inadmissible, subject to the limited discovery rule under Section 27 of the Evidence Act; a discovery relied upon under that provision must be established through a properly proved disclosure and resulting discovery.

The Court relied on Subramanya v. State of Karnataka, Criminal Appeal No. 242/2022, decided on 13 October 2022, concerning the procedure for recording the accused’s disclosure in the presence of independent witnesses and documenting the discovery in the panchnama.

The prosecution was required to establish the circumstantial case and the charges beyond reasonable doubt.

The alleged confession by accused No. 1 at the police station was inadmissible.

The discovery of the body was doubtful: the disclosure statement was recorded before the panch witnesses were called, people had already gathered at the scene, and the panch witness did not specifically testify that accused No. 1 disclosed he would show where the body lay.

The recoveries of the shirts and the deceased’s panche were also not proved beyond reasonable doubt, given the delay in seizure and the evidentiary deficiencies concerning the disclosure statements.

The last-seen evidence was unreliable because PW.1 and PW.3 acknowledged that they learned from police that accused No. 1 had taken the deceased, while PW.3 stated that her husband, PW.4, was not present when the deceased left.

The alleged motive was not established through witness testimony, and no motive was alleged against accused No. 2.

Considered together, the evidence did not prove the appellants’ guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

It directed that accused No. 1 be released forthwith if not required in another case and cancelled accused No. 2’s bail bond.