Introduction

The landmark judgment in Krishan Kumar & Anr. v. The State of Haryana (2023 INSC 679) delivered by the Supreme Court of India on August 8, 2023, marks a significant shift in the interpretation and application of circumstantial evidence in criminal law. The case revolves around the conviction of Krishan Kumar and Joginder Singh for the murder of Devinder @ Kala and the subsequent evaluation of the evidence that led to their sentencing.

The appellants were initially convicted under Sections 300 (murder) read with 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) read with Section 34 IPC. The core issues in this case pertain to the validity of the 'last seen' theory as a part of circumstantial evidence, the reliability of extra-judicial confessions, and the establishment of motive.

Summary of the Judgment

Krishan Kumar and Joginder Singh were convicted by the Sessions Court for the murder of their brother Devinder @ Kala. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana affirmed these convictions. The appellants challenged this decision, leading to the Supreme Court's adjudication.

Upon a detailed review, the Supreme Court identified several critical flaws in the prosecution's reliance on circumstantial evidence:

• Last Seen Theory: The prosecution failed to provide concrete evidence that the deceased was last seen with the accused in a manner that conclusively pointed to their involvement.
• Extra-Judicial Confession: The confession made to PW-7 Daya Nand was found to be unreliable due to inconsistencies and lack of corroborative evidence.
• Motive: The alleged motive lacked substantiation, and the prosecution did not present credible evidence linking the accused to the motive.
• Recovery of Evidence: The evidence related to the recovery of the weapon (chunni) was undermined by contradictions in witness statements.

Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, acquitted the appellants, and discharged their bail bonds, highlighting the insufficiency of evidence to uphold their conviction.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Supreme Court extensively referenced prior judgments to bolster its stance:

• State of UP v. Satish (2005) 3 SCC 114: Emphasized the stringent requirements for the 'last seen' theory, highlighting that significant time gaps or possibilities of other individuals' involvement nullify its applicability.
• Hatti Singh v. State of Haryana (2007) 12 SCC 471: Reiterated the need for proximate time gaps and corroborative evidence when applying the 'last seen' theory.
• Chattar Singh & Anr. v. State of Haryana (2008) 14 SCC 678: Reinforced the necessity of corroboration alongside the 'last seen' theory.
• Badruddin v. State Of U.P (1998) 7 SCC 300: Discussed the complexities in establishing common intention.
• Zahira Habibullah Sheikh & Anr. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.: Highlighted the importance of presenting the best available evidence and the permissible inferences when the prosecution withholds crucial evidence.

Legal Reasoning

The Court meticulously dissected the prosecution's reliance on circumstantial evidence:

• Last Seen Theory: The Supreme Court found that the prosecution did not have direct witnesses stating they saw the deceased with the accused near the time of death. Without such evidence, the theory was deemed inapplicable.
• Extra-Judicial Confession: The confession made to PW-7 was scrutinized for its credibility. The Court noted inconsistencies and a lack of direct evidence linking the confession to the factual circumstances of the case.
• Motive: The purported motive—the sighting of the sister Poonam in a compromising position with the deceased—was not substantiated with evidence. Additionally, the familial relationships claimed by the prosecution were inconsistent and unverified.
• Recovery of Evidence: The discrepancies in witness testimonies regarding the recovery of the chunni (strangulation weapon) and its accessibility cast doubt on the prosecution's narrative.

The Court emphasized that in criminal law, the burden of proof lies entirely with the prosecution. Without incontrovertible evidence, especially in cases reliant on circumstantial evidence, the presumption of innocence must prevail.

Impact

This judgment has profound implications for future criminal proceedings in India:

• Strengthening of Judicial Scrutiny: Courts are now reminded to exercise heightened scrutiny when evaluating the 'last seen' theory and ensure that it is supported by robust evidence.
• Reliability of Circumstantial Evidence: The decision underscores the necessity for circumstantial evidence to form a complete and corroborated chain linking the accused to the offense.
• Handling of Confessions: Extra-judicial confessions will now be subjected to more rigorous evaluation concerning their voluntariness and reliability before being deemed admissible.
• Prosecution's Duty: The onus on the prosecution to present the best possible evidence is reinforced, discouraging reliance on weak or incomplete narratives.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Last Seen Theory

The 'last seen' theory forms a crucial part of circumstantial evidence, where the final individual seen with the victim is presumed to be the perpetrator. However, this theory requires that the time gap between the last sighting and the discovery of the victim's body is minimal, making the possibility of another culpable party negligible.

Common Intention (Section 34 IPC)

Section 34 IPC deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of a common intention. It establishes that all participants in a wrongful act share responsibility, making it essential to prove that there was a pre-arranged plan or intention to commit the crime.

Extra-Judicial Confession

An extra-judicial confession is a statement made by an accused to someone not authorized to receive such confessions, like a friend or family member, rather than to law enforcement officials in a formal setting. Its admissibility in court is highly contentious and requires stringent verification of its voluntariness and credibility.

Circumstantial Evidence

Circumstantial evidence refers to indirect evidence that suggests a fact by implication. In criminal cases, while it can be powerful, it invariably requires a complete and unbroken chain of facts linking the accused to the crime beyond reasonable doubt.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's judgment in Krishan Kumar & Anr. v. The State of Haryana serves as a pivotal reminder of the sanctity of the presumption of innocence and the stringent requirements for convicting an individual based on circumstantial evidence. By meticulously dissecting the prosecution's reliance on the 'last seen' theory and extra-judicial confessions, the Court has set a precedent that ensures higher standards of evidence are upheld in the Indian judicial system.

This decision not only safeguards the rights of the accused against potential miscarriages of justice but also reinforces the need for the prosecution to present comprehensive and reliable evidence. As a result, future cases involving similar circumstances will likely see a more rigorous evaluation of the evidence presented, ensuring that convictions are both just and based on unequivocal proof.