What the Supreme Court held on Chain Link Theory and Circumstantial Evidence [Read Judgment]

The Supreme Court yesterday held that convictions based on circumstantial evidence, particularly for grave offences, cannot be upheld when there are investigative deficiencies and the chain of circumstances is incomplete..It also cautioned the prosecuting authorities to take every acquittal seriously..The Supreme Court was deciding a criminal appeal when it held that in a case based primarily on circumstantial evidence, not only should the chain of evidence be complete but it should also be beyond any reasonable doubt..The Bench of Justices NV Ramana and Mohan Shantanagoudar held that when there are gaps in the prosecution story and the hypotheses is insufficiently proved, the Court cannot turn a blind eye to such investigative deficiencies..“We may note that every acquittal in a criminal case has to be taken with some seriousness by the investigating and prosecuting authorities when a case of this nature is concerned… Although Courts cannot give benefit of doubt to the accused for small errors committed during the investigation, we cannot, however, turn a blind eye towards the investigative deficiencies which goes to the root of the matter.”.What the case was.The Criminal appeal was filed by two accused-appellants against their conviction under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959..The case dates back to December of 1994 when three accused, after losing the Panchayat elections held in the village Sundawas, allegedly devised a plan to falsely implicate the winner of the elections in a criminal case. The accused were already involved in a criminal case and wanted to file a counter case against the winner of the elections out of revenge..According to the prosecution’s version, the three accused took one Chandra Bhan, the deceased, to an abandoned property where the deceased was shot. Two of the accused took Bhan to a Hospital thereafter and the third accused made attempts to hide the weapon used. Chandra Bhan succumbed to his injuries and one of the accused filed an FIR against the sons of the Sarpanch..The accused narrated a story to the Police to support the FIR in an alleged attempt at falsely implicating members of the rival party in the case..No incriminating material was found on an investigation based on the FIR. However, a few days later, all the three accused-appellants were said to have confessed their crime before one Zile Singh and this confession led to the discovery of evidence against the appellants..The police, based on the confession, allegedly recovered the weapon of crime, cartridges and pellets. This confession, however, was an extrajudicial confession since it was made before a police officer and not the Magistrate..Subsequently, an investigation was carried out and the three accused were tried for murder. The trial court convicted the three appellants. The conviction was upheld by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Aggrieved by the same, the accused-appellants approached the Supreme Court..Arguments.Before the Supreme Court, Advocate Anjana Prakash, representing the Accused-appellants, argued that there existed no direct evidence against the accused and the conviction was based on circumstantial evidence adding that the chain of circumstantial evidence was not complete..She also raised questions about the credibility and veracity of the statements given by witnesses, including the wife of the deceased. It was also submitted that the extra-judicial confession made by the accused was not admissible and was made under suspicious circumstances. Additionally, it was also argued that there was no strong motive to pin the accused to the crime. The only motive made out in the case against the accused was election rivalry..Arguing for the State, Advocate Monika Gusain, submitted that the accused were history-sheeters and “hardcore criminals, who would not stop short of killing their own for political rivalry.”.Chain Link Theory.The Court revisited and considered some of the statements made by prosecution witnesses and also highlighted that the statements made by the wife of the deceased on two separate occasions were not identical..The Court noted at the outset, that this was a case of circumstantial evidence and adverted to the test of ‘complete chain link theory’ laid down in the Supreme Court judgments in Hanumant and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and further expounded in Charan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh. .“To put it in other words, the chain of evidence must be so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused person.”.Noting that the chain link theory has to be followed in cases of circumstantial evidence, the Court said that in such cases, the Court is called upon to make inferences based on the facts available..The Court said that motive plays a crucial role in this case and it was “quite strange to believe” that the accused would go to the extent of “killing one of their own to avenge the loss in elections”.As regards statements of witnesses, the Court specifically highlighted that the statements made by the wife of the deceased had “material improvements which makes her statements unreliable and doubtful.” Also factoring in the fact that the wife of the deceased knew that her husband was being taken along for the purposes of shooting someone and she did not stop him, the Court said,.“Such behavior would be suspicious as it does not fit with the natural human behavior to inspire any confidence.”.The evidence furnished by Zile Singh, before whom the extra-judicial confession was allegedly made, also comes laced with unclarified doubts, the Court observed..On Extra-judicial confession of a co-accused.The Court made it clear that a confession of a co-accused is a weak piece of evidence and can be considered only after other independent evidence has established the basic premise of the prosecution..“The confession of the co-accused cannot be solely utilized to convict a person, when the surrounding circumstances are improbable and creates suspicion (sic)”.Prosecution case not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.After considering all the facts on record, the Court held that the case of the prosecution cannot be said to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and apparent gaps existed in the narrative which was insufficiently proved. Quoting from Latesh v. the State of Maharashtra, the Court said,.“When you consider the facts, you have a reasonable doubt as to whether the matter is proved or whether it is not a reasonable doubt in this sense. The reasonableness of a doubt must be a practical one and not on an abstract theoretical hypothesis. Reasonableness is a virtue that forms as a mean between excessive caution and excessive indifference to a doubt.’”.It, therefore, set aside the conviction of the accused and directed that the accused be released..Read Judgment: