Strict Adherence to Circumstantial Evidence Standards Requires a Complete, Uninterrupted Chain of Proven Facts to Convict

The deceased, Harnam Singh and Kulwant Singh, were found dead on 24.08.2014, with the cause of death being asphyxia due to strangulation.

The Prosecution alleged that the appellants murdered the deceased because Harnam Singh had informed the police about the appellants' illicit liquor manufacturing unit, which was subsequently raided.

On 21.08.2014, the appellants allegedly visited the informant’s house and threatened the deceased.

On 22.08.2014, the deceased went to the house of one Abdul Rehman and never returned.

The Trial Court (Third Additional Sessions Judge, Rudrapur) convicted the appellants under Sections 302/34, 120B/302, and 201/34 of the IPC.

The appellants challenged their conviction on the grounds that the evidence was purely circumstantial and insufficient to complete the chain of guilt.

1. Whether the prosecution established a complete chain of circumstantial evidence sufficient to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt.

2. Whether the alleged recovery of ropes and shoes under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was legally sustainable and linked to the commission of the crime.

The court applied the "five golden principles" of circumstantial evidence established in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, requiring that the circumstances "must" be established and exclude every possible hypothesis of innocence.

The court also applied Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act regarding the discovery of facts through information provided by the accused, as interpreted in Bodhraj alias Bodha v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, which necessitates that the exact information leading to discovery must be recorded and proved.

Furthermore, the court emphasized the principle of "proof beyond reasonable doubt" as discussed in State of Karnataka v. J. Jayalalitha, noting that while absolute certainty is a myth, a high degree of probability is required for conviction.

The High Court found that the prosecution case relied on weak circumstantial evidence.

Firstly, there was no "last seen" evidence; PW6 only testified to seeing some appellants extending threats, not being in company with the deceased.

Secondly, the threats themselves, while indicative of motive, did not constitute proof of the act.

Regarding the recovery under Section 27, the Investigating Officer (PW18) admitted that no separate disclosure statement was recorded, and the items were recovered from an open place accessible to the public.

Additionally, the recovered ropes were never sent for forensic examination to link them to the biological evidence of the deceased.

The court noted that the forensic report confirmed the presence of human blood on soil but did not connect any of the appellants to the scene.

Consequently, the court held that the "mental distance" between "may be guilty" and "must be guilty" was not bridged.

The Court held that the prosecution utterly failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, as the chain of circumstances was not interconnected and did not exclude the possibility of innocence.

All appellants were acquitted of charges under Sections 302/34, 120B/302, and 201/34 IPC and were ordered to be released forthwith upon furnishing personal bonds under Section 437A of the CrPC.