Introduction

The case of Krishan Kumar v. The State of Haryana (2023 INSC 679) represents a significant judicial examination of the reliance on circumstantial evidence in criminal convictions, particularly the applicability of the 'last seen' theory. The appellants, Krishan Kumar and Joginder Singh, were initially convicted for the murder of Devinder @ Kala under Sections 300 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and were sentenced to life imprisonment and rigorous imprisonment, respectively. They challenged their convictions in the Supreme Court, arguing that the evidence presented against them was insufficient and improperly assessed.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court meticulously reviewed the appellate judgment from the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, which had upheld the convictions based on circumstantial evidence. The primary contention revolved around whether the circumstantial evidence, particularly the 'last seen' theory, sufficiently established the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court found significant flaws in the appreciation of evidence by the lower courts, notably the lack of concrete 'last seen' evidence and contradictions in witness testimonies. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, acquitting the appellants due to the insufficiency and unreliability of the evidence presented.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment references several key precedents that influenced the Court's decision:

• State of UP v. Satish: Established that the 'last seen' theory requires a close time gap between the last sighting of the deceased with the accused and the time of death to eliminate the possibility of another person's involvement.
• Hatti Singh v. State of Haryana: Reinforced the necessity of a proximate time gap in the 'last seen' theory and the requirement for corroborative evidence.
• Badruddin v. State of UP: Highlighted the challenge in proving common intention in criminal conspiracies and the need for clear evidence.
• State v. Sushil Sharma: Emphasized that the prosecution must establish its case without the court forming a new case ex post facto.
• J.D. Jain v. Manager of SBI: Clarified the admissibility of statements made to witnesses and the distinction between establishing the truth of the statement versus the fact that the statement was made.
• Chattar Singh & Anr. v. State of Haryana: Affirmed the stringent scrutiny required for extra-judicial confessions.
• Zahira Habibullah Sheikh & Anr. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.: Stressed the importance of presenting the best available evidence in criminal trials.

Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court's legal reasoning centered on the insufficiency and unreliability of the circumstantial evidence presented. Key points include:

• Invalid 'Last Seen' Evidence: The Court observed that no witness had directly seen the deceased, Devinder @ Kala, in the company of the appellants at a time proximate to his death. The trial court's reliance on indirect circumstances without positive ocular evidence was deemed inappropriate.
• Contradictory Witness Testimonies: The testimonies of PW-8 Azad and PW-10 Mukesh were found inconsistent, undermining their credibility. Discrepancies in their accounts raised doubts about the prosecution's narrative.
• Extra-Judicial Confession Scrutiny: The confession made to PW-7 Daya Nand lacked corroboration and was marred by the witness's ambiguous relationship with the parties involved, rendering it unreliable.
• Absence of Direct Evidence: Critical evidence, such as the involvement of Poonam, was not substantiated. The prosecution failed to produce Poonam as a witness, which could have provided direct evidence to support their case.
• Unreliable Recovery of the Weapon: The recovery of the chunni used in the murder lacked independent verification, as key witnesses were not examined, casting further doubt on its authenticity.

Impact

This judgment underscores the Supreme Court's commitment to ensuring that convictions, especially those based on circumstantial evidence, meet the highest standards of proof. It serves as a critical reminder that:

• Circumstantial evidence must be robust and irrefutable, with each link in the chain firmly connecting the accused to the crime.
• Prosecutors must present clear and consistent evidence, avoiding reliance on speculative or weak testimonies.
• The 'last seen' theory requires concrete corroborative evidence to eliminate reasonable doubt about the accused’s involvement.
• The absence of key witnesses or contradictory testimonies can significantly weaken the prosecution's case.

Future cases involving similar reliance on circumstantial evidence will likely be scrutinized more rigorously, ensuring that convictions are just and based on incontrovertible proof.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Circumstantial Evidence

Circumstantial evidence refers to evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact, such as a fingerprint at a crime scene implying the presence of an individual.

'Last Seen' Theory

The 'last seen' theory is a form of circumstantial evidence where the accused is inferred to be guilty based on being the last person seen with the deceased before the death occurred.

Common Intention

Common intention under Section 34 of the IPC implies that two or more persons act together with a shared mindset to commit a criminal act.

Extra-Judicial Confession

An extra-judicial confession is a statement made by the accused outside the formal court setting, which can be used as evidence but is subject to stringent credibility assessments.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision in Krishan Kumar v. The State of Haryana reinforces the judiciary's stringent standards for convicting individuals based on circumstantial evidence. By setting aside the convictions due to inadequate and unreliable evidence, the Court emphasizes the importance of robust and consistent proof in criminal cases. This judgment serves as a pivotal reference for future cases, ensuring that the principles of justice are upheld by preventing wrongful convictions based on fragile evidence. It highlights the necessity for prosecutors to present clear, corroborated, and credible evidence, especially when relying on theories like 'last seen' that require a tight nexus between the accused and the crime.