The Bombay High Court has delivered a significant reaffirmation of the foundational principle in criminal jurisprudence: conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires a complete, unbroken chain that excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. In a case marked by hostile witnesses, procedural lapses, and uncorroborated testimonies, the Court overturned a life sentence under Section 302 IPC, emphasizing that suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute for proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Santosh Gajanan alias Daina Ingale, was convicted for the murder of his wife, Reshma Maindkar, who was found dead with a deep lacerated wound to the neck, inflicted by a pickaxe. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, having harboured suspicions about her character, forcibly took her from her parental home on the morning of 1 November 2013 and assaulted her inside their residence. The body was discovered shortly thereafter, and the weapon was recovered from the scene.
Procedural History
- 1 November 2013: Informant Ashru Maindkar lodged FIR after receiving information about the assault.
- Crime No. 66 of 2013: Registered against the appellant under Section 302 IPC.
- Investigation: Conducted by PSI Sadashiv Bhadikar; pickaxe, blood-stained clothes, and soil seized.
- Trial Court (2020): Convicted the appellant based on circumstantial evidence and application of Section 106 of the Evidence Act.
- 2021: Criminal Appeal filed before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought acquittal, arguing that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to hostile witnesses, material omissions in testimonies, non-examination of key witnesses, and plausible alternative explanations for the bloodstains on his clothes.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the prosecution established a complete and unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence that conclusively pointed to the appellant’s guilt, excluding every reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence, particularly in the absence of direct eyewitnesses and with multiple hostile witnesses.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant’s counsel contended that the prosecution case was riddled with contradictions and omissions. Key witnesses, including the mother of the deceased (P.W.5), made material improvements in their trial testimony not reflected in their police statements. Panch witnesses (P.W.2, P.W.7, P.W.8) denied the validity of panchnamas, undermining the authenticity of the recovery and spot inspection. Crucially, P.W.3 admitted that the appellant helped transport the injured woman to the hospital, providing a plausible explanation for the bloodstains on his clothes. The counsel relied on Kanhaiyalal v. State of Rajasthan to argue that the "last seen" theory alone cannot sustain a conviction without corroborative circumstances.
For the Respondent/State
The Additional Public Prosecutor argued that the deceased was last seen with the appellant, the assault occurred inside his house, and the weapon was recovered from the scene. Bloodstains on the appellant’s clothes and the medical evidence of a homicidal death were presented as conclusive. The prosecution maintained that the appellant’s failure to explain the circumstances triggered the presumption under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, shifting the burden to him to prove innocence.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a meticulous review of each prosecution witness and found that the case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, with no eyewitness to the act. The testimony of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.7, P.W.8, and P.W.9 was either hostile or unreliable, rendering the panchnamas and recovery proceedings suspect. The parents of the deceased, though interested witnesses, were found to have concealed the fact that the marriage was a love elopement, creating a motive for false implication.
The Court emphasized that the medical evidence, while establishing the nature of death as homicidal, did not establish the identity of the perpetrator. The bloodstains on the appellant’s clothes were explained by P.W.3’s admission that the appellant assisted in transporting the injured woman to the hospital - a plausible, non-criminal explanation.
The Trial Court erred in invoking Section 106 of the Evidence Act to shift the burden of proof. The Court cited State of Madhya Pradesh v. Balveer Singh to reaffirm that Section 106 applies only after the prosecution establishes a strong prima facie chain of circumstances. Here, the chain was incomplete: the "last seen" theory was not conclusively proved, the weapon was a common agricultural tool, and no forensic link tied the pickaxe exclusively to the appellant.
"The circumstance of last seen together does not by itself and necessarily lead to the inference that it was the accused who committed the crime. There must be something more establishing connectivity between the accused and the crime. Mere non-explanation on the part of the appellant, in our considered opinion, by itself cannot lead to proof of guilt against the appellant."
The Court concluded that multiple reasonable hypotheses consistent with innocence remained unrefuted, including the possibility of accidental injury or involvement of another person present near the house. The prosecution’s failure to examine the appellant’s grandmother, a material witness, further eroded the reliability of the investigation.
The Verdict
The appellant won. The Bombay High Court acquitted him of the charge under Section 302 IPC, holding that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction was set aside, the sentence vacated, and the appellant ordered to be released forthwith. The Court emphasized that in criminal law, the benefit of doubt must always enure to the accused when the chain of circumstantial evidence is incomplete.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Circumstantial Evidence Must Be Unbroken and Exclusive
- Practitioners must scrutinize whether each circumstance is independently proved and whether all circumstances collectively exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.
- A conviction cannot rest on isolated facts like "last seen" or bloodstains without corroborative, independent evidence.
- Courts must reject speculative inferences and demand a complete, unbroken chain.
Hostile Witnesses and Procedural Lapses Are Fatal to Prosecution
- When panch witnesses deny the validity of panchnamas or investigators fail to record statements of material witnesses, the entire evidentiary foundation collapses.
- Non-examination of witnesses who could corroborate or contradict key events creates reasonable doubt.
- Prosecutors must ensure procedural compliance; lapses are not mere technicalities but may vitiate the entire case.
Section 106 Evidence Act Cannot Substitute Prosecution’s Burden
- Section 106 is not a tool to reverse the burden of proof in murder cases.
- It applies only after the prosecution establishes a prima facie case through reliable, unimpeached evidence.
- Invoking Section 106 prematurely, as done by the Trial Court, is legally impermissible and warrants reversal on appeal.
