20 December 2018 Conviction >> Criminal Law   |   Murder Homicide >> Criminal Law  

The Supreme Court of India recently overturned a High Court judgment that had upheld the conviction and death sentence of Chandrabhan Sudam Sanap in a 2014 murder case. The appeal, Criminal Appeal No. 879 of 2019, challenged the Bombay High Court's decision from December 20, 2018. The case, heavily reliant on circumstantial evidence, underscores the stringent requirements for establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt in such matters.

Background of the Case:

The deceased, a 23-year-old woman identified as 'EA,' was working in Mumbai and residing at a YWCA Hostel in Andheri. She visited her parents in Machilipatnam, Andhra Pradesh, from December 22, 2013, to January 4, 2014. On January 4, 2014, her father, PW-26 Singavarapa Jonathan Surendra Prasad, dropped her at Vijayawada Railway Station for her return journey to Mumbai. EA boarded the Visakhapatnam LTT Express, which was scheduled to arrive in Mumbai on the morning of January 5, 2014. Her father last spoke to her on January 4, 2014, at 9:00 PM, when the train was crossing Solapur Station.

Upon her failure to contact him after reaching Mumbai and not arriving at her hostel, her father filed a missing complaint with the Railway Police Station at Vijayawada on January 5, 2014. Subsequent investigations led to the last mobile signal being traced to Bhandup. On January 16, 2014, EA's partially burnt and decomposed body, unrecognizable except for a ring, was discovered in bushes near the Express Highway. A complaint for murder was lodged at Kanjur Marg Police Station, and an FIR (Exh.134) was registered.

Investigation and Initial Findings:

Police Inspector Dattatray Tukaram Naikodi (PW-30) recorded the FIR and initiated the investigation. A decomposed female body was found at the scene, along with a mobile phone, scarf, T-shirt, hair, knicker, and a broken wrist-watch, all of which were seized.

The post-mortem, conducted on January 17, 2014, by Dr. Gajanan Shirserao Chavan (PW-25), Assistant Professor, Forensic Medicine Department, J.J. Hospital, revealed signs of decomposition, burnt facial skin, and distorted genitals. The provisional cause of death was attributed to blunt injuries over the body and genital injuries. The final cause of death, after chemical analysis, was determined to be head injury with smothering associated with genital injuries. The time of death was estimated to be 8-10 days before the post-mortem.

Prosecution's Case and Key Circumstances:

The High Court sustained the conviction based on several circumstantial pieces of evidence, including:

• The victim's journey and her failure to reach her hostel.
• The discovery of her partially burnt, decomposed, and homicidal body with signs of rape and attempts to destroy evidence.
• The accused being seen consuming liquor with PW-12 and PW-9 before leaving on a motorcycle.
• CCTV footage from LTT Railway Station allegedly showing the accused loitering and the deceased accompanying him.
• The accused being seen near the crime scene with the deceased's trolley bag and backpack.
• The accused's subsequent visit to an astrologer for a 'puja' to wash off sins related to a woman, with a payment record.
• Recovery of the deceased's articles (identity card, spectacles, eye-liner, pencil) at the instance of the accused, with DNA confirmation.
• An extra-judicial confession by the accused to PW-9, admitting to raping, strangulating, pouring petrol, and setting the body on fire.

Defense Arguments and Court's Analysis:

The defense raised several objections. The reliability of the CCTV footage was questioned, particularly concerning its lifespan in DVR-II (12 days) versus the date of its seizure (January 18, 2014), leading to doubts about its veracity and the timing of its extraction. Concerns were also raised about the non-production of a Section 65-B certificate for the electronic evidence, which is a mandatory requirement for admissibility.

The defense also challenged the credibility of "last seen" witnesses (PW-18, PW-19, PW-20, PW-21), citing the significant time lapse between the incident and their statements, and the fact that photographs of the accused were published in newspapers before identification parades, potentially tainting the identification process. The court noted that even if these witnesses' testimonies were taken at face value, they were not clinching enough for a conviction based solely on the last seen theory.

Regarding the extra-judicial confession, the court reiterated that it is a weak piece of evidence and generally requires independent corroboration, especially if surrounded by suspicious circumstances. The recovery of articles was also questioned, with concerns about the non-examination of the appellant's sister from whom some items were purportedly recovered, and the lack of specific details in the disclosure statement.

Supreme Court's Decision:

The Supreme Court, while acknowledging the homicidal nature of the death and the DNA evidence confirming the victim's identity , found that the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution did not meet the stringent "five golden principles" required for conviction in such cases, as laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs State of Maharashtra. These principles require that circumstances must be fully established, consistent only with the accused's guilt, of a conclusive nature, exclude every other hypothesis except guilt, and form a complete chain of evidence leaving no reasonable doubt.

The court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the chain of evidence "so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused". Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the High Court's judgment was set aside. The appellant was acquitted and ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.

https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2019/13316/13316_2019_1_1501_58853_Judgement_28-Jan-2025.pdf

Section 301., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Section 302., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Section 364., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Section 366., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Section 376A., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Section 397., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Indian Penal Code, 1860  

Section 147, Railways Act - 1989  

Railways Act, 1989  

Section 273., Code of Criminal Procedure - 1973  

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973  

Indian Evidence Act, 1872