A three judges bench of the Supreme Court comprising Chief justice of India UU Lalit and Justices Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia observed that in "case of circumstantial evidence, the Court has to scrutinize each and every circumstantial possibility, which is placed before it in the form of an evidence and the evidence must point towards only one conclusion, which is the guilt of the accused. In other words, a very heavy duty is cast upon the prosecution to prove its case, beyond reasonable doubt."

Relying on a very old judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Hanumant Govind Nargundkar & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 1952 SC 343 and such other judgments and noted as under:-

“… It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the
accused…”

The above observations of the Supreme Court came in an appeal filed by accused MUNIKRISHNA @ KRISHNA and others who stood convicted by the trial court for life imprisonment under section 302 IPC for the murder of a 72 years old man. The judgment of the Trail Court was subsequently upheld by the Karnataka High Court by order dated 31.08.2010.

The Supreme Court noted the facts that an FIR was lodged on 12.10.2000 at 1:15 PM mid night, by the son-in-law of the deceased. As per the FIR, his father-in-law, who was seventy-two years of age, and was living alone in house No.19/1 Haudin Road, Ulsoor, was murdered by some unknown persons. The deceased last spoke to his daughter at about 6:30 PM that evening. Informant then says that his wife and him left their house in the evening that day to attend a dinner engagement. They returned home at about 11:15 PM. On their return they received a call from a cousin Dr. B. Anarth Narayan, of the Indian Institute of Sciences. Dr. Narayan informed him that he had received a telephone call at about 10.00 PM, from one Sundar who is a neighbour of his fatherin-law. Sundar had informed that the gates of the house of his father-in-law were open and lights were also on, which seemed unusual at that hour in the night. On this information, the informant and his wife rushed to the house of his father-in-law. He was apprehending that his father-inlaw may have collapsed, since he had a history of heart
disease. When they reached the house at around 11.30 PM, they immediately had an impression as if something was burning in the kitchen. This drew them to the kitchen, where they found the dead body of S. Ramakrishnan. They also noticed that the cupboards of the living room were open and the purse of her father was missing where he normally kept approximately Rs.3000/-. They immediately informed the Police and the FIR was lodged and Criminal Case No.600 of 2000 was registered for the offence punishable under Section 302 at Police Station, Ulsoor, Bengaluru, and investigation commenced." 

The Court observed that Undoubtedly, it is a case of homicide. The question is whether the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the present appellants, beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution in order to establish its case had examined as many as 17 prosecution witnesses, apart from other exhibits such as forensic and other material, seizure memo of the discovery of weapon of crime, and the gold ornament from the jewelry shop, etc.

On the basis of the location of an accused who escaped from Chittor Jail, the Police arrested one accused Dodda hanuman and on his voluntary statement other accused was arrested and Charge-sheet was filed by the police.

"It is a case of circumstantial evidence and in a case of circumstantial evidence, the entire chain of evidence must be complete and the conclusions which is arrived after examining the chain of evidence must point towards the culpability of the accused and to no other conclusion. This, however, is clearly missing from the case of the prosecution. The entire case of the prosecution is based on the so-called confessional statements or voluntary statements given by accused Nos. 1 to 5 (all the present appellants) while they were in police custody. Statement given by an accused to police under Section 161 of CrPC is not admissible as evidence. The so-called evidence discovered under section 27 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, i.e., the recovery of stolen items and the recovery of the weapon are also very doubtful" observed the bench.

The Bench finally acquitted all the accused persons.

Case Details:-

Criminal Appeal No(s). 1597-1600/2022
MUNIKRISHNA @ KRISHNA ETC.    ...Appellant(s)
 VERSUS
STATE BY ULSOOR PS      ...Respondent(s)

Read the Complete judgment on the following link:-

https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2020/24079/24079_2020_6_1501_38822_Order_30-Sep-2022.pdf