Supreme Court Sets Aside Life Terms of Four in 25-Year-Old Murder Case

The Supreme Court on Friday set aside the conviction and life imprisonment of four persons in a murder case dating back 25 years, holding that the evidence on record left "substantial gaps" that raised a reasonable doubt about their involvement in the crime.

A bench of Justices M M Sundresh and Prasanna B Varale delivered the judgment on appeals against a May 2009 verdict of the Orissa High Court, which had affirmed the conviction of six persons in the case. During the pendency of the appeals, two of the convicted persons died, and their appeals abated.

The court observed that while medical evidence clearly established that the deceased had died a homicidal death, the central question was whether the prosecution had proved the appellants' authorship of the crime. It concluded that the prosecution had failed to do so.

The case rested primarily on the testimony of alleged eyewitnesses. The bench found that the accounts of some of these witnesses gave rise to a significant inconsistency in the prosecution's case. According to their testimonies, the incident took place on a pitch-dark night, which the court noted made it impossible for the witnesses to have seen the incident or identified the assailants merely from the sound of the assault.

Relying on two earlier judgments of the top court, the bench held that the testimony of the alleged eyewitnesses could not be relied upon. Once that testimony was discarded, the prosecution's case rested solely on circumstantial evidence.

The court reiterated the settled legal position that a conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires every circumstance to be established beyond doubt and to collectively point towards the guilt of the accused. It found that the prosecution had failed to establish a complete and consistent chain of circumstances that excluded every hypothesis other than guilt.

"The evidence on record leaves substantial gaps which create a reasonable doubt as to their involvement," the bench said, adding that where two views are reasonably possible in criminal jurisprudence, the one favourable to the accused must prevail.

Allowing the appeals, the court held that the high court was not justified in affirming the conviction. It set aside the high court's verdict and quashed the trial court's order convicting and sentencing the appellants to life imprisonment.

According to the case record, an FIR was lodged in May 2001 alleging that the accused had assaulted a man who later succumbed to his injuries. A chargesheet was filed against 18 persons. Proceedings against one were abated following his death, while the case against three others was split up as they were declared absconders. The trial court convicted six persons, including for the offence of murder, and acquitted eight others by granting them the benefit of doubt.