Man convicted of murdering a government employee, set free by Sikkim HC due to gaps in circumstantial evidence

Sikkim High Court: In a criminal appeal filed by a murder convict under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”), against the judgment and order of Trial Court, convicting him based on the circumstantial evidence of the prosecution, the Division Bench comprising of Meenakshi Madan Rai* and Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, JJ., held that the prosecution had failed to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt, and their circumstantial evidence was tainted with gaps. The Court, unsatisfied with the evidence and the gaps in investigation by the police, acquitted the convict and set him free from incarceration.

Background

The victim was a middle-aged government employee who was found critically injured in a cornfield in West Sikkim with signs of brutal assault on his body. He had held the convict (appellant) responsible for the assault. that occurred two nights before his demise by succumbing to injuries.

An FIR was registered against the convict under Section 307 of the Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”) which was later converted to Section 302 IPC upon the demise of the victim.

During investigation, it transpired that the deceased’s landlord (PW6) on the following morning after the incident had carried the deceased to his room and enquired him about his absence the previous night and the condition he was in, to which the deceased responded that the convict had physically assaulted him. The deceased also told another witness (PW4) that the convict with whom the deceased frequented drinking, had assaulted him.

The Trial Court (Sessions Judge, West Sikkim), upon examining the prosecution witnesses, relied largely on the alleged dying declaration of the deceased, convicted the appellant of the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment with fine¹. The convict had pleaded “not guilty” before the Trial Court and aggrieved by the judgment and sentence of the Trial Court, preferred the instant criminal appeal under Section 374(2) CrPC before the High Court.

Issues

1. Whether the prosecution’ case, being based on circumstantial evidence, was able to establish the consistency of the facts only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the appellant?

2. Whether the Trial Court was correct in convicting the appellant solely on the alleged dying declaration of the deceased?

Court’s analysis and judgment

Having examined the evidence on record, the Court found that there was no eyewitness to the incident. However, it was pointing towards the fact that the deceased was a known alcoholic, which would make him prone to getting into drunken brawls with any person, who need not necessarily have been the convict.

The Court referred to the dictum of the case of Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793, that was also relied on in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116, wherein the Supreme Court laid down five golden principles of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence.

The Court said that the conviction certainly cannot be moral but based on criminal jurisprudence of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Court noted that the prosecution failed to highlight assault on the deceased based on the autopsy report . The prosecution also failed to regard the statement of the convict given to the medical examiner. Furthermore, the Court noted that there were no signs on the convict that would suggest that he was involved in assaulting another person (the deceased).

To determine the reliability of the dying-declaration of the deceased, the Court referred to and noted the findings of several landmark precedents. The Court noted that the dying declaration was not recorded either by a police officer or a Magistrate, or a doctor or any other independent person but the family members of the deceased. The declaration required more scrutiny as the prosecution witness to whom the declaration was allegedly made was not corroborated by other prosecution witnesses.

The Court moreover noted that no medical evidence, or the examination of the doctor first attending the deceased at the hospital, or their name were produced by the prosecution which could have affirmed that the deceased was in a fit state of mind to make any statement at all.

It was noted that the deceased was an alcoholic who had been severely assaulted and the post-mortem report also indicated injury to the head. However, in the absence of a medical evidence corroborating the mental fitness of the deceased, the Court suspected if the statement of assault , made by the deceased was not a figment of his imagination alone.

The Court was of the view that due to the lacunas in the prosecution’s case, it will be a travesty of justice if a conviction is based on the evidence presented. The Court was not convinced that the circumstances presented by the prosecution fully proved that the act was committed by the convict alone and no one else.

Therefore, the Court disagreed with the findings of the Trial Court and set aside its judgment and order of sentence against the convict. Thereby, the convict was set at liberty.

[Shaktiman Rai v. State of Sikkim, 2024 SCC OnLine Sikk 25, decided on 08-05-2024]

*Judgment by: Justice Meenakshi Madan Rai

Advocates who appeared in this case :

Advocate for the Appellant: Gita Bista, (Legal Aid Counsel)

Advocate for the Respondent: Yadev Sharma, APP

Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973  HERE

Buy Penal Code, 1860   HERE