Background:

The present case involves the murder of Vikram Shinde, found shot dead in a sugarcane field near Mahishyal bus stand, Karnataka, after last being seen with Chetan on July 10, 2006. The prosecution alleged the murder arose from a ₹4,000 monetary dispute. Key evidence included eyewitness accounts, recovery of a firearm linked to Chetan, ballistic reports matching the weapon to the fatal shots, and Chetan’s evasion of police. Chetan was convicted by both the trial court and Karnataka High Court on charges including murder and Arms Act violations. He has appealed to the Supreme Court, contesting the conviction based on circumstantial evidence.

Issues

• Whether the conviction based on circumstantial evidence (last seen theory, recovery of weapon, forensic reports) was legally sustainable?

• Whether the prosecution proved the chain of circumstances beyond reasonable doubt to exclude every hypothesis of innocence?

• Whether the motive and credibility of witnesses were adequately established?

Observations:

The following observations were made by the court:

• • The Court emphasized the five golden principles from Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra to assess the circumstantial evidence.
• • A delay between the accused being last seen with the victim and the victim’s discovery does not weaken the prosecution’s case if other evidence fills the gap.
• • The recovered gun and spent cartridges matched the injuries on the victim, strongly linking Chetan to the crime.
• • 11-day absconsion and attempts to mislead the police showed consciousness of guilt.
• • Although the ₹4,000 debt was not conclusively proved, motive remains a relevant factor but is not essential if evidence is otherwise strong.
• • The Court upheld the lower courts’ conclusions after reviewing the entire evidence, finding no reason to interfere.

Decision:

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Chetan for murder under Section 302 IPC (now under 103 BNS), finding the circumstantial evidence- including the last seen theory, ballistic reports, and recovery of the weapon, fully established his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

• • The Court also upheld convictions under the Arms Act and Section 404 IPC (now under 315 BNS) related to misappropriation of property.
• • The Court found no merit in Chetan’s appeal and directed him to surrender and serve the sentence imposed by the lower courts.
• • The decision reinforced the principle that where the chain of circumstances conclusively points to guilt, the conviction must stand even if direct evidence is lacking.

Why this case matters:

• • Reaffirms Standards for Circumstantial Evidence: It reinforces the strict legal principles required to convict someone based on indirect evidence, ensuring convictions aren’t made lightly.
• • Validates Last Seen Theory: Confirms that a gap between last sighting and discovery of the victim doesn’t weaken the case if other evidence supports guilt.
• • Highlights Role of Forensic Evidence: Shows the importance of ballistic and forensic reports in linking accused to the crime.
• • Addresses Consciousness of Guilt: Uses actions like absconding and misleading investigators as strong indicators of guilt.

Laws related thereto:

Under BNS, 2023:

Section 103: Punishment for murder- imposes punishment for causing the death of a person with intent or knowledge.

Section 315: Dishonest misappropriation of property- criminalizes dishonest misappropriation of property entrusted to someone.

Under BSA, 2023:

Section 109: Burden of proof as to certain facts- allows drawing adverse inference if the accused does not explain suspicious circumstances.

Under Arms Act, 1959:

Section 3: Prohibition of possession of arms without license- deals with unlawful possession of firearms.

Section 5: Use of arms or ammunition in contravention of law- penalizes use of firearms unlawfully.

Judicial Precedents:

• Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) — The foundational case laying down the five golden principles for convicting on circumstantial evidence.

• State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran (1999) — Validated the last seen together theory in circumstantial cases despite time gaps.

• Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra (2006) — Supported drawing adverse inferences against accused who fail to explain suspicious facts.