A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This case revolves around the appeal filed by Vishwajeet Kerba Masalkar against his conviction and death sentence awarded by the Sessions Court and affirmed by the Bombay High Court. The appellant was accused of murdering his wife, daughter, and mother. The prosecution’s case relied heavily on circumstantial evidence, including the recovery of a hammer, blood-stained clothes, and CCTV footage. However, the Supreme Court quashed the conviction, emphasizing the inadequacy of circumstantial evidence and inconsistencies in the testimony of key witnesses. The court reiterated that suspicion cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the appellant, setting aside his death sentence.

Keywords: Circumstantial evidence, Death sentence, Suspicion vs proof, Chain of evidence, Solitary witness.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title: Vishwajeet Kerba Masalkar v. State of Maharashtra
ii) Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 213 of 2020
iii) Judgement Date: 17 October 2024
iv) Court: Supreme Court of India
v) Quorum: B.R. Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra, and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.
vi) Author: Justice B.R. Gavai
vii) Citation: [2024] 10 S.C.R. 753; 2024 INSC 788
viii) Legal Provisions Involved: Sections 302, 307, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872; Section 161 of Cr.P.C.
ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case (if any): None explicitly stated.
x) Case is Related to which Law Subjects: Criminal Law, Evidence Law, Sentencing jurisprudence.

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The appellant was accused of murdering his family members and fabricating a robbery to mislead the investigation. Initially, an FIR was registered against unknown persons, but the appellant was later arrested due to circumstantial evidence, including CCTV footage and recovery of incriminating articles. The Sessions Court convicted the appellant and awarded the death penalty. The High Court affirmed the decision. On appeal, the Supreme Court critically examined the circumstantial evidence and acquitted the appellant.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1. Incident Description: On 4th October 2012, the appellant reported a robbery and the murder of his wife, daughter, and mother. A neighbor, Madhusudhan Kulkarni, was also injured.

2. Prosecution Evidence:

   • Recovery of a hammer (allegedly used in the crime) from a canal.
   • Blood-stained clothes of the appellant.
   • CCTV footage showing the appellant leaving his residence.

3. Defense Claims: The appellant claimed innocence, arguing the evidence was insufficient and inconsistent.

4. Key Witness: The injured neighbor’s testimony was pivotal but fraught with contradictions.

5. Trial and Conviction: The Sessions Court convicted the appellant, and the High Court upheld the conviction and death penalty.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the circumstantial evidence sufficed to establish the appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
2. Whether the testimony of a solitary witness with contradictions could form the basis of conviction.
3. Whether the death penalty was justified given the mitigating circumstances.

F) PETITIONER/ APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

1. The ocular testimony of the injured witness (PW-12) was inconsistent and unreliable. His statement was recorded six days after the incident without explanation for the delay.
2. The recovery of the hammer was untrustworthy. It was retrieved from a canal accessible to all, making its evidentiary value questionable.
3. The blood-stained clothes recovered were not sealed, raising concerns about tampering.
4. The CCTV footage failed to conclusively prove the appellant’s involvement.
5. Strong suspicion did not meet the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. The prosecution contended the chain of evidence sufficiently pointed to the appellant’s guilt.
2. The testimony of the injured witness (PW-12) was corroborated by circumstantial evidence.
3. The recovery of incriminating articles linked the appellant to the crime.
4. The appellant’s motive (desire to remarry) supported the inference of guilt.

H) JUDGEMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi:
The court emphasized that circumstantial evidence must form an unbroken chain leading to the sole inference of guilt. The prosecution failed to establish this chain beyond reasonable doubt.

b. Obiter Dicta:
The court stressed the difference between suspicion and proof, reiterating that strong suspicion cannot replace conclusive evidence.

c. Guidelines:
The court outlined principles for cases based on circumstantial evidence:

1. All circumstances must be fully established.
2. The chain of evidence must be complete.
3. Circumstances must rule out all other hypotheses except guilt.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the primacy of proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases. It serves as a reminder to lower courts to critically scrutinize evidence, especially in cases involving the death penalty. The judgment balances the rights of the accused against the gravity of the alleged crime, emphasizing procedural fairness and the presumption of innocence.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred:

1. Chuhar Singh v. State of Haryana (1976) 1 SCC 879
2. Sharad Birdhichand Sharda v. State of Maharashtra [1985] 1 SCR 88
3. Swamy Shraddananda (2) v. State of Karnataka [2008] 11 SCR 93

b. Important Statutes Referred:

1. Indian Penal Code, 1860: Sections 302, 307, 201
2. Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Section 27
3. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 161