The Case of Acquittal: Supreme Court Set Aside High Court and Trial Court Judgments

In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of India has overturned the judgments of the High Court and Trial Court in a case involving the appellant. The Court’s ruling highlights the importance of circumstantial evidence and the need for a thorough examination of all aspects of a case. Stay tuned for more updates on this case!

Facts

Witness PW1 gave a statement that nobody saw Rumabai leaving the house with Shivcharan.
One day before the incident, Shivcharan, Rumabai, and Ramesh were together at their house.
The family searched for Shivcharan’s body but could not find it.
Halke informed that the deceased’s body was found in a well 1 km away.
An FIR was lodged by PW1 with similar allegations as his court statement.
The witness did not read the FIR as the police took his signature without him knowing the content.
The witness initially stated incorrectly that his mother and wife woke up when Rumabai was leaving the house.
Rumabai did not give a satisfactory answer about Shivcharan’s whereabouts, raising suspicion.
Rumabai later allegedly confessed that Ramesh killed Shivcharan and threw the body in a well.
The witness admitted that the police did not perform any formalities in the village.
The witness and his family members expressed hatred towards Rumabai.
Rumabai was reported to have an illicit relationship with Ramesh from the same village.
Chironji Jatav was the only one who saw Rumabai along with Shivcharan.
Witness went back to sleep when Rumabai returned home alone.
The family members were unable to locate Shivcharan after Rumabai’s return.
Chironji Jatav asked Rumabai about Shivcharan’s whereabouts upon noticing her alone.
The witness admitted that he and Shivcharan had been living separately for over six years.
The witness mentioned that the FIR was not read out to him.
High Court disbelieved recovery from Ramesh but believed recovery from Rumabai.
Recoveries were an axe with bloodstains and shoes.
High Court relied on the theory of last seen and a confession to convict the appellant.
Trial Court convicted Rumabai and Ramesh for murder and destruction of evidence.
Recoveries were allegedly made from Rumabai’s house and proven by a police officer.
High Court acquitted Ramesh due to lack of evidence against him.

Also Read: Enforcement of Foreign Award: Case of Oscar Investments Limited and RHC Holding Private Limited

Analysis

The law regarding circumstantial evidence states that all circumstances must form an unbroken chain leading to the guilt of the accused.
The ‘last seen theory’ lacks independent witnesses, making it less conclusive.
The recovery of a blood-stained axe from the house at the appellant’s instance is a crucial circumstance.
The witness reveals objections to the accused’s illicit relationship with Ramesh, proving awareness among family members.
Unnatural behavior is observed from the accused, casting doubt on her innocence.
If the offense could have been committed by another person, the benefit of doubt should favor the accused.
The assumption that the lady alone committed the murder lacks a solid motive as a basis.
Husband-wife behavior in rural areas like going out together for defecation is considered normal.
The alleged recovery of the axe is deemed false as the wife did not deny going out with her husband.
It is uncommon for the accused to testify in such cases, indicating a unique situation.
Motive analysis shows evidence contradicting the alleged illicit relationship as the motive.
Last seen circumstance is supported by a witness who saw the accused and deceased together, strengthening this aspect of the case.
The nature of the extra-judicial confession was that the co-accused, Ramesh, had killed the deceased.
Since Ramesh has been acquitted, both the theories of illicit relationship and extra-judicial confession have to be discounted.
Only the circumstance of last seen remains as evidence, but it alone is deemed insufficient to convict the accused.
The sudden appearance of the axe at the house raises questions as no witness saw Rumabai carrying it.