P&H HC Upholds Acquittal Of Man And Co-Accused In Half-Brother’s Murder, Finding Confession And Last-Seen Evidence Unreliable

The prosecution alleged that Brijesh and Satbir murdered Urjesh, Brijesh’s half-brother, by strangulation and left his body near National Highway No. 8.

The case rested on circumstantial evidence: an alleged property dispute, last-seen testimony, an extra-judicial confession, and recoveries of a rope, a car and a chappal.

The trial court acquitted both respondents, finding the prosecution had not proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt; the State appealed.

The respondents were charged under Sections 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. For a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must be fully established, consistent only with guilt, conclusive, exclude every reasonable alternative hypothesis, and form a complete chain pointing to the accused’s guilt (Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622).

Suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute for proof; where the evidence reasonably permits two views, the view favourable to the accused must prevail.

Motive may provide a link in a circumstantial case, though its absence is not alone fatal; an extra-judicial confession must be assessed for voluntariness and the credibility of the witness to whom it was made.

An appellate court should not interfere with an acquittal unless the judgment is perverse or suffers from gross illegality.

The alleged land motive was undermined by an earlier affidavit indicating that the land had already been partitioned and possession delivered.

The last-seen evidence was unreliable: Mukesh had previously sworn that the respondents had not visited his dhaba, while the circumstances surrounding the later recording of Manjeet’s statement were unexplained.

The alleged confession to Surjit was not reliable, as it was said to have been made in the presence of an unexamined witness, Joginder, and Surjit was related to the complainant and not shown to be able to assist the respondents.

The recoveries also lacked sufficient reliability: the rope recovery was witnessed by the complainant, the car’s delayed seizure was unexplained, the chappal description showed overwriting, and no recovered item was forensically connected to the crime.

These deficiencies left material gaps in the circumstantial chain.

Finding no perversity or illegality warranting interference, it dismissed the State’s appeal and directed that any pending miscellaneous applications stand disposed of.