Suspicion, Howsoever Grave, Cannot Substitute Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt in Cases of Circumstantial Evidence

The prosecution alleged that the appellants, involved in illicit liquor manufacturing, bore enmity against Harnam Singh @ Honey for reporting their activities to the police.

On 21.08.2014, the appellants allegedly threatened Harnam Singh.

On 22.08.2014, Harnam Singh and his friend Kulwant Singh went to the residence of one Abdul Rehman and did not return; their bodies were discovered in a forest on 24.08.2014.

Post-mortem reports indicated death by asphyxia due to strangulation.

The Trial Court convicted the appellants under Sections 302/34, 120B/302, and 201/34 of the IPC based on alleged threats, a recovery of ropes and shoes, and a claim of the deceased being "last seen".

The appellants challenged this conviction on the grounds that the chain of circumstantial evidence was broken.

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

2. Whether the alleged recovery of the weapon of offence (ropes) and the victims' shoes fulfilled the requirements of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.

The court applied Section 302 (Murder), Section 120B (Criminal Conspiracy), and Section 201 (Causing disappearance of evidence) of the IPC.

It strictly adhered to the five "Golden Principles" (Panchsheel) of circumstantial evidence established in *Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra*, requiring that the circumstances must exclude every hypothesis except the guilt of the accused.

The court also applied Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act regarding the "doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events," as interpreted in *Bodhraj alias Bodha v. State of Jammu and Kashmir*, which mandates the precise recording and proof of the accused's disclosure statement.

The High Court found the prosecution's case relied on weak "last seen" evidence and prior enmity/threats, which do not substitute for proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Regarding the recovery of ropes and shoes, the court noted that the Investigating Officer failed to record a separate disclosure statement, and the items were recovered from an open forest area accessible to the public.

Furthermore, the ropes were never sent for forensic examination to link them to the crime or the victims via DNA or biological evidence.

The court emphasized that while the prosecution established human blood on the soil, it produced no evidence (forensic or otherwise) placing any specific appellant at the scene of the occurrence.

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

The court answered the issues in the negative, finding the evidence insufficient to sustain a conviction.

The appeals were allowed, the judgment of the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, was set aside, and all appellants were acquitted of all charges.

The court ordered the immediate release of the appellants, subject to Section 437A CrPC requirements.