The Supreme Court in a recent decision, acquitted a man convicted of murdering his wife almost 22 years ago, after concluding that spouse was found guilty on the basis of mere suspicion. [Guno Mahto v. State of Jharkhand]
In August 1988, nearly 35 years ago, the appellant’s wife was found murdered. Her body was discovered in the village’s well. The prosecution alleged that the defendant murdered his wife and then dumped her body in a village well in an effort to destroy evidence. Later, the alleged perpetrator supposedly decided to approach the police with dirty hands by manufacturing a ridiculous narrative about his wife’s disappearance.
The prosecution evaluated as many as ten witnesses during the trial. The Investigating Officer was not, however, examined. The trial court sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment under Section 302 and two years of rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 201 of the IPC. On appeal, the Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s conviction and sentence. The High Court depended entirely on the visual testimony of three witnesses. Consequently, the spouse petitioned the highest court.
Lower courts convicted spouse on circumstantial evidence
A Division Bench composed of Justices BR Gavai and Sanjay Karol concluded that the lower courts convicted the appellant solely because he was last seen with his deceased wife. In addition, the circumstances linking the appellant to the crime are not proven, let alone beyond a reasonable doubt.
The lower courts proceeded with the acquired assumption of the guilt of the accused because he was last seen with the deceased and filed a false report, forgetting that, according to the father of the decedent, the accused’s father had informed him of his daughter’s disappearance at least three days before the incident took place.
The story presented by the prosecution to assert its case beyond a reasonable doubt contains only a tint of doubtful suspicion, regardless of how grave it may be. This would explain how the lower courts gravely erred in passing the conviction order based on an incorrect and incomplete evaluation of the evidence.
Justice Karol, who authored the judgement on behalf of the court, stated that doubt and suspicion cannot serve as a basis for the accused’s guilt, and that the circumstances connecting the spouse to the crime are not even proven, much less beyond a reasonable doubt.
There is no evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, that could establish the spouse’s guilt. There is no evidence linking the defendant to the alleged crime, and the prosecution has failed to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In the normal course of proceedings, this court does not interfere with the concurrent factual determinations made by the two lower courts. It is only the Supreme Court’s responsibility to rectify a miscarriage of justice in exceptional cases where the concurrent findings are prima facie absurd, resulting in travesty of justice.
Given that the entire case rested on circumstantial evidence, the court cited its 1984 decision in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Mahrashtra, in which it outlined the conditions that must be met before an accused can be convicted based on circumstantial evidence. The bench added that the lower courts erred gravely in issuing the order of conviction based on an incorrect and incomplete evaluation of the evidence, resulting in grave prejudice to the spouse and a travesty of justice. It is the Supreme Court’s duty to ensure that miscarriages of justice are avoided at all costs and that, if possible, the accused is given the benefit of the doubt.
