Summary and Analysis of Chetan v. State of Karnataka (2025 INSC 793)

Case Details:

Criminal Appeal No. 1568 of 2013
Decided on: May 30, 2025
Judges: Justice Surya Kant, Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh

Background and Procedural History:

1. Trial Court:
   The appellant, Chetan, was convicted by the Fast Track Court-II & Additional Sessions Judge, Belgaum, under:
   Section 302 IPC (Murder) – Life imprisonment.
   Section 404 IPC (Misappropriation of property) – 1-year rigorous imprisonment.
   Sections 3 & 5 of the Arms Act, 1959 (Unlawful possession/use of firearms) – 1-year and 3-year imprisonment, respectively.

2. High Court:
   The Karnataka High Court (Dharwad Bench) upheld the conviction in Criminal Appeal No. 666/2007.

3. Supreme Court Appeal:
   Chetan appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the concurrent findings of the courts below.

Key Issues Before the Supreme Court:

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

2. Whether the prosecution proved the chain of circumstances beyond reasonable doubt to exclude every hypothesis of innocence.

3. Whether the motive and credibility of witnesses were adequately established.

Factual Matrix:

• Incident: On July 10, 2006, Chetan and the deceased, Vikram Shinde (friends), were last seen together near Mahishyal bus stand. Vikram was later found dead in a sugarcane field on July 13, 2006, with gunshot injuries.

• Prosecution’s Case:
  Motive: Vikram owed Chetan ₹4,000, leading to a quarrel.
  Last Seen: Witnesses (PW-3, PW-4, PW-5, PW-11, PW-12) testified seeing them together on a motorcycle.
  Recovery:
  12 Bore DBBL Gun (belonging to Chetan’s grandfather) and spent cartridges were recovered at Chetan’s instance.
  Gold chain (deceased’s property) was seized from Chetan.
  Forensic Evidence: Ballistic report confirmed the gun was functional, and pellets matched the fatal injury.
  Absconding: Chetan fled from July 11–22, 2006, and misled investigators.

• Defense’s Arguments:
  No eyewitnesses; last seen theory unreliable due to a 3-day gap.
  Motive unproven; recovery of mobile phone disputed.
  Hostile witnesses (e.g., PW-25 denied mobile purchase).

Supreme Court’s Analysis:

1. Circumstantial Evidence Standards:

The Court reiterated the five principles from Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984):

• (i) Circumstances must be fully established.

• (ii) Facts must exclusively point to guilt.

• (iii) Circumstances must be conclusive.

• (iv) Chain must be complete with no missing links.

• (v) Human probability must favor guilt.

2. Last Seen Theory:

• Time Gap (3 days): The Court held that a longer gap does not negate the theory if other evidence (e.g., forensic reports) bridges the gap (State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran).

• Witness Credibility:
  PW-5 (Ashok Jamadar): Though declared hostile, his testimony about seeing Chetan and Vikram together was corroborated.
  PW-12 (Deceased’s Brother) & PW-11: Their accounts were consistent.

3. Forensic and Ballistic Evidence:

• The gun recovered at Chetan’s instance matched the pellets in Vikram’s skull (per PW-30, ballistic expert).

• Failure to Explain: Chetan did not account for the gun’s discharge or spent cartridges (adverse inference under Section 106, Evidence Act).

4. Motive:

• While the ₹4,000 loan was not conclusively proven, the Court held that motive is not indispensable in circumstantial cases if other evidence is robust (G. Parshwanath v. State of Karnataka).

5. Absconding and False Information:

• Chetan’s 11-day absconding and attempts to mislead (per PW-14) indicated consciousness of guilt (Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra).

Judgment:

• Conviction Upheld for:
  Section 302 IPC (Murder).
  Section 404 IPC (Gold chain misappropriation).
  Arms Act violations (Sections 25 & 27).

• Benefit of Doubt for Nokia mobile recovery (Section 404 IPC).

• Bail Cancelled: Chetan directed to surrender for serving the sentence.

Key Precedents Cited:

1. Sharad Birdhichand Sarda – Golden principles of circumstantial evidence.

2. State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran – Last seen theory applicability.

3. Trimukh Maroti Kirkan – Adverse inference for unexplained circumstances.

4. G. Parshwanath – Motive’s role in circumstantial cases.

Final Order: Appeal dismissed; convictions upheld (partially modified for Section 404 IPC).

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court affirmed that the chain of circumstances—last seen together, recovery of the murder weapon, forensic corroboration, and absconding—unerringly pointed to Chetan’s guilt, leaving no room for reasonable doubt. The judgment underscores the rigorous scrutiny applied in circumstantial evidence cases while upholding the concurrent findings of the lower courts.