The Supreme Court on Tuesday, January 28, acquitted a man sentenced to death for the 2013 rape and murder of a 23-year-old woman hailing from Machilipatnam, Andhra Pradesh, stating that there are "gaping holes" in the prosecution's story.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra, and KV Viswanathan was hearing an appeal preferred by Chandrabhan Sanap, who was under a death sentence for the crime. The top court set aside the judgements of a trial court and the Bombay High Court that had convicted and given him capital punishment.
The court observed that the prosecution should prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, especially when relying on circumstantial evidence. “All these facts cumulatively constrain us to conclude that there are gaping holes in the prosecution story leading to the irresistible conclusion that there is something more than what meets the eye in this case.” “While the old adage, witness may lie but not the circumstances, may be correct, however, the circumstances adduced, as held by this Court, should be fully established,” the court observed.
The victim was residing at the Young Women’s Christian Association (YWCA) in Mumbai. She had traveled to Machilipatnam in December 2013 but never returned to Mumbai despite boarding her scheduled train. Days later, on January 16, 2014, her burnt and decomposed body was discovered. Her father identified the remains based on a ring she was wearing.
A trial court, in 2015, convicted Chandrabhan on several charges, including murder, abduction, rape and robbery, and awarded him death sentence for murder. Later, in December 2018, the Bombay High Court upheld this punishment. The HC relied on 14 circumstantial evidence to sustain the conviction and the sentence:
Here's a breakdown of the 14 circumstantial evidences in a few words each:
Victim's travel: The woman traveled from Vijayawada to Mumbai.
Unreachable: Victim did not reach her destination. Calls remained unanswered.
Body was found: Burnt body was identified as the deceased.
Homicide & Rape: Post-mortem confirmed murder and sexual assault.
Evidence tampering: Body was burnt to destroy evidence.
Accused's actions: Accused consumed alcohol, and left with a friend's motorcycle.
The accused was at the railway station: CCTV showed the accused at the Lokmanya Tilak Terminus.
Last seen together: CCTV showed that the victim was with the accused.
Accused with belongings: Accused was seen with the victim's belongings.
Leaving with belongings: Witnesses saw the accused leaving with the victim's trolley bag.
Guilt-induced rituals: Accused had performed rituals to "wash off sin" and an entry in a register showing the payment for the puja.
Recovered Items: Victim's belongings were recovered from him.
Extrajudicial confession: Accused confessed to a friend that he raped and murdered her, poured petrol and set her body on fire.
Medical examination: Accused's mental and physical state assessed.
What did the SC say
The Supreme Court analysed circumstances 6 to 13, while making its decisions. Regarding the CCTV footage, the court ruled that it is inadmissible because of an absence of paperwork. The prosecution was supposed to furnish a Section 65-B(4) certificate (a document that verifies the authenticity and reliability of electronic records) under the Indian Evidence Act while collecting the electronic evidence.
“Thus, when the prosecution was aware of the need for the 65-B (4) certificate and they themselves collected it for the CDRs there was no reason as to why they did not collect the same for the CCTV footage...In view of the above, there is no manner of doubt that certificate under Section 65-B(4) is a condition precedent to the admissibility of evidence by way of electronic record…,” the court said.
The court also added that it is not able to place any reliance on the CCTV footage that attributed that the appellant and the deceased were last seen together. The court also looked into the statements by eyewitnesses who saw Chandrabhan and the victim together.
The court said that it found the witness statements unreliable because the statements were taken 2.5 months after the incident with no explanation for the delay. Further, the court also dismissed the statement of the astrologer to whom Chandrabhan went to conduct a puja to “wash off sins”.
“We are really at a loss to understand as to what the prosecution seeks to establish. The priest has no systematic account of maintaining registers and on summoning of the Police, he seems to appear before the Police and produced the register out of the bag… In any case, the evidence given by PWs -15 16 and 17 do not constitute circumstantial evidence having any nexus with the commission of the crime in question. We totally discard this from the chain of circumstances,” the court said.
The court also dismissed the extrajudicial confession of Chandrabhan saying that it is generally held as a “weak piece of evidence”, and there was no corroboration in material particulars.
Observing that there is a legal distinction between 'may be proved' and 'must be or should be proved', the court said that the circumstantial evidence in the case is not complete. “On the available evidence, we are of the opinion that it will be extremely unsafe to sustain a conviction against the appellant,” the court said and added, “The prosecution has not established its case beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, we are constrained to come to the sole irresistible conclusion that the appellant is not guilty of the offences for which he has been charged.”