A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This case involves the conviction and eventual acquittal of appellants accused under Sections 302/34 and 364/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) for the alleged abduction and murder of Neelam, a woman at the center of a property dispute. The trial court convicted five appellants (A1 to A5) and acquitted two (A6 and A7), but the High Court overturned the acquittal of A6 and A7, convicting all seven appellants. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court critically examined the evidence, identifying significant lapses, such as reliance on uncorroborated circumstantial evidence and judicially impermissible reasoning by the High Court in reversing the trial court’s findings. The court ultimately acquitted all appellants, emphasizing the lack of a complete chain of circumstantial evidence and the failure of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

Keywords: Abduction, Murder, Circumstantial Evidence, Burden of Proof, Reversal of Acquittal.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgment Cause Title: Vijay Singh @ Vijay Kr. Sharma v. The State of Bihar
ii) Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 1031 of 2015
iii) Judgment Date: 25 September 2024
iv) Court: Supreme Court of India
v) Quorum: Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.
vi) Author: Satish Chandra Sharma, J.
vii) Citation: [2024] 10 S.C.R. 108
viii) Legal Provisions Involved: Sections 302/34, 364/34 of IPC.
ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case: High Court judgment in Govt. Appeal (DB) No. 16 of 1992.
x) Related Law Subjects: Criminal Law, Evidence Law.

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

The case stemmed from the alleged abduction and murder of Neelam, whose father’s property was the subject of a legal dispute between her family and the accused. The appellants were charged with forcibly abducting and murdering Neelam to gain possession of her father’s house. The trial court convicted five accused and acquitted two, while the High Court reversed the acquittal. The appellants approached the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court’s approach to evidence re-evaluation and its decision to overturn the trial court’s acquittal.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

• Neelam, the deceased, lived in her late father’s house with her husband and brother-in-law.
• On 30 August 1985, Neelam was allegedly abducted from her residence by seven accused, including the appellants.
• The informant claimed Neelam’s abduction was carried out by the appellants to gain possession of her father’s property.
• Neelam’s dead body was discovered the next day, with injuries suggesting unnatural death.
• The trial court, relying on testimonies and circumstantial evidence, convicted five accused but acquitted A6 and A7 for lack of evidence. The High Court overturned this acquittal, convicting all seven.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i) Was the High Court justified in overturning the trial court’s acquittal of A6 and A7 without identifying any illegality or perversity?
ii) Did the prosecution meet the evidentiary threshold required to establish guilt under Sections 302 and 364 IPC?
iii) Was the chain of circumstantial evidence complete and sufficient to convict the appellants?
iv) Did the High Court appropriately weigh the testimonies of the witnesses?

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The appellants argued that the High Court failed to demonstrate any legal or factual error in the trial court’s findings, especially in acquitting A6 and A7.
ii) They contended that the prosecution’s case relied heavily on unreliable and contradictory testimonies, which did not meet the standard of proof required for a conviction.
iii) The appellants highlighted the discrepancies in the evidence, such as the absence of material corroborating the victim’s residence in the house or the direct involvement of the accused.
iv) They criticized the High Court’s reasoning as flawed and biased, particularly its reliance on speculative inferences to convict A6 and A7.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The State argued that the testimonies of eyewitnesses PW2, PW4, and PW18 were consistent and sufficient to establish guilt.
ii) It contended that the motive for the crime was clear and well-established, rooted in the property dispute.
iii) The prosecution maintained that the circumstantial evidence, though indirect, was sufficient to prove the appellants’ involvement in Neelam’s abduction and murder.

H) JUDGMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi
i) The Supreme Court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove a complete and consistent chain of circumstantial evidence.
ii) It emphasized that mere motive or suspicion, without foundational facts, cannot form the basis of a conviction.
iii) The court criticized the High Court’s approach to reversing acquittals without finding clear perversity in the trial court’s decision.

b. Obiter Dicta
i) The court observed that the High Court’s remarks on the relevance of make-up articles, based on assumptions about widowhood, were legally untenable and insensitive.

c. Guidelines
i) The judgment reinforced the principle that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the chain of evidence must be complete and conclusive.
ii) It highlighted the necessity for appellate courts to demonstrate clear perversity in trial court findings before reversing an acquittal.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

This judgment underscores the high evidentiary burden in criminal cases and the importance of maintaining the presumption of innocence. The Supreme Court’s criticism of the High Court’s approach demonstrates its commitment to ensuring fairness in judicial processes. The case also serves as a reminder of the dangers of speculative reasoning in criminal law, especially when dealing with circumstantial evidence.

J) REFERENCES

Important Cases Referred:

• State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran [2007] 3 SCR 507.
• Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka [2007] 2 SCR 630.
• Nepal Singh v. State of Haryana [2009] 6 SCR 982.
• Kashiram v. State of M.P. [2001] 4 Supp. SCR 263.
• Sanjeev v. State of H.P. (2022) 6 SCC 294.

Important Statutes Referred:

• Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 364, and 34.
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313.