Santosh @ Bhure v. State (G.N.C.T.) of Delhi, Criminal Appeal No. 575/2011

Brief Facts

• The Appellants were tried for offences punishable under Sections 302 read with 34 and 120-B of the IPC for committing murder of a person whose dead body was found in the apartment of which the accused-appellant was tenant and occupant.
• Both the accused persons were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life. The accused-convicts preferred an appeal against the said conviction before the High Court which upheld the conviction of the Appellant while conviction of co-accused was set aside.
• Thus, aggrieved by acquittal of co-accused-respondent, State preferred Criminal Appeal whereas, aggrieved by dismissal of his appeal, the Appellant also filed an appeal before the Supreme Court.

Issues

• Whether directing an accused to provide handwriting violates his fundamental right under Article 20(3)?
• Whether the opinion of handwriting expert is conclusive and binding?
• Whether any negative inference can be drawn only because a person was absconding?
• What is the scope and ambit of section 27 of the Evidence Act?
• Whether the burden of proof under section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act will come into play when the prosecution has itself failed to prove the chain of incriminating circumstances conclusively pointing towards the guilt of the accused?

Held

• The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of the accused/appellant and acquitted the Appellant. The appeal filed by the state was dismissed.
• The Court concluded that the prosecution has failed to prove a chain of incriminating circumstances as to conclusively point out that in all human probability it was the two accused or any one of them, and no one else, who had committed the murder. In such circumstances, even if Santosh failed to explain as to how the dead body of the deceased was found in his apartment, an inference of his guilt cannot be drawn. In a nutshell, it is a case where the prosecution failed to elevate its case from the realm of “may be true” to the plane of “must be true” as is indispensably required for conviction on a criminal charge.
• Obtaining Specimen signature of the accused does not breach fundamental right
• The Court relied upon and analyzed various judgments including the judgments passed in the case of State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad (AIR 1961 SC 1808), Ritesh Sinha v. State of U.P. & Another [(2013) 2 SCC 357] and held that since specimen signatures and handwriting samples are not incriminating by themselves as they are to be used for the purpose of identification of the handwriting on a material with which the investigators are already acquainted with, compulsorily obtaining such specimens would not infringe the rule against self-incrimination enshrined in Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.
• Reliability of opinion of handwriting expert
• The Court further relied on the case of State of Maharashtra v. Sukhdev Singh & Another [(1992) 3 SCC 700], Fakhruddin v. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 1967 SC 1326) and held that though it is not impermissible to base a finding with regard to authorship of a document solely on the opinion of a handwriting expert but, as a rule of prudence, because of imperfect nature of the science of identification of handwriting and its accepted fallibility, such opinion has to be relied with caution and may be accepted if, on its own assessment, the Court is satisfied that the internal and external evidence relating to the document in question supports the opinion of the expert and it is safe to accept his opinion.
• In light of the discussion above, the Hon’ble Apex Court is of the considered view that while the expert evidence regarding the handwriting in the suicide letter was admissible, based on the overall assessment of the prosecution’s evidence, it would be highly unsafe to conclude that the letter found in the deceased’s trouser was written by the Respondent (co-accused).
  Adverse inference cannot be drawn merely because the accused was not traceable
• The Hon’ble Apex Court further relied on the case of Matru alias Girish Chandra v. State of U.P. [(1971) 2 SCC 75] in which the court held that mere absconding by itself does not necessarily lead to a firm conclusion of a guilty mind. Even an innocent man may feel panicky and try to evade arrest when wrongly suspected of grave crime such is the instinct of self-preservation. The act of absconding is no doubt relevant piece of evidence to be considered along with other evidence but its value would always depend on the circumstances of each case. It can scarcely be held as a determining link in completing the chain of circumstantial evidence which must admit of no other reasonable hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused. In these circumstances and for all the reasons above, the Apex Court did not find a good reason to draw an adverse inference against the two accused on account of few days delay in their act of surrender.
• Recovery of blood stained cloth not reliable
• The Court relied upon and the judgments passed in the case of Lachhman Singh & Others v. State [(1952) 1 SCC 362], Pulukuri Kottaya & Others v. Emperor [AIR 1947 PC 67] and Mohd. Inayatullah v. State of Maharashtra [(1976) 1 SCC 828] and held that having doubted the recovery of clothes at the instance of appellant (accused), the circumstance that the clothes carried blood of same group as of the deceased is rendered meaningless because there is no admissible evidence to connect the clothes with the two accused. The disclosure statement made to the police, even if not discarded, was not admissible for proving that the clothes recovered were the one which the accused were wearing at the time of murder. The reason being that only so much of the disclosure would be admissible under Section 27 of the IEA, 1872 as distinctly relates to the fact thereby discovered which, in the instant case, would be the place where the clothes were concealed.
• Burden of proof lies on the prosecution and the same would not shift on the accused under section 106 of the Evidence Act
• In light of the discussion above, the court has no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove a chain of incriminating circumstances as to conclusively point out that in all human probability it was the two accused or any one of them, and no one else, who had committed the murder. In such circumstances, even if Appellant failed to explain as to how the dead body of the deceased was found in his apartment, an inference of his guilt cannot be drawn. In a nutshell, it is a case where the prosecution failed to elevate its case from the realm of “may be true” to the plane of “must be true” as is indispensably required for conviction on a criminal charge.

Relevant Para No.

• 57, 65, 69, 70, 76, 83, 86, 87