21 March 2024 Evidence >> Criminal Law   |   Murder Homicide >> Criminal Law  

The Supreme Court of India, in a recent judgment, acquitted Raghunatha and Manjunatha (hereinafter "Appellants") of their murder convictions. This case serves as a crucial reminder of the rigorous standards for establishing guilt based on circumstantial evidence.

Facts:

The case arose from the fatal assault of Rama (deceased) in Karnataka during 2014. The deceased's son, Lokanathan (complainant), lodged a complaint implicating the Appellants in the crime. The prosecution's narrative centered on a business dispute between the complainant and Raghunatha, allegedly leading to a conspiracy to eliminate Rama.

Lower Court Judgments:

Both the trial court and the High Court convicted the Appellants based on circumstantial evidence. However, the Supreme Court took a divergent view upon appeal.

Circumstantial Evidence Deemed Inadequate:

The cornerstone of the prosecution's case was eyewitness testimony placing the Appellants near the crime scene shortly before Rama's demise. Additionally, a chopper, purportedly the murder weapon, was recovered from the vicinity.

The Supreme Court, however, deemed this evidence insufficient to secure a conviction. The Court meticulously distinguished between mere presence near the crime scene and the crucial concept of "last seen together" with the deceased. Furthermore, the Court found the motive presented by the prosecution lacked the necessary evidentiary support.

Stringent Standards for Circumstantial Evidence:

The Court underscored the well-established principle that a conviction based on circumstantial evidence necessitates a cohesive chain of events. Each link in this chain must be firmly established, collectively pointing towards the accused's guilt and leaving no plausible alternative explanation.

In this instance, the Supreme Court determined that the chain of evidence lacked the requisite strength. The weakness of the motive and the tenuous connection between the Appellants and the murder weapon led the Court to conclude that the prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court's judgment acquits the Appellants, highlighting the critical role of robust circumstantial evidence in securing convictions. The case emphasizes the need for a meticulously constructed chain of events, devoid of significant gaps or ambiguities, to establish guilt in the absence of direct evidence.

  Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973