Raj Kumar @ Raju v. State (NCT of Delhi)
Background
The appellant was convicted by the trial court of murder (Section 302 read with 34 IPC) and of an offence under Section 411 IPC (receiving stolen property); on appeal, the Section 411 conviction was replaced with a conviction under Section 392 IPC (robbery). The case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence: the appellant had reportedly been in the deceased's house the night before the murder, jewellery belonging to the deceased was recovered from the appellant and a co-accused days later, and a witness claimed to have seen them acting suspiciously nearby.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that while the recovery of stolen jewellery and the "last seen" evidence created strong suspicion, they did not form an unbroken chain of circumstances proving murder beyond reasonable doubt, particularly because a significant time gap existed between when the accused were last seen and the discovery of the body, during which someone else could have committed the crime. Relying on its earlier decision in Sanwat Khan v. State of Rajasthan, the Court held that recovery of stolen property, however suspicious, cannot by itself establish that the person who stole it also committed the murder, unless there is evidence that the theft and killing happened in the same transaction. The Court therefore acquitted the appellant of murder but upheld his conviction for robbery under Section 392 IPC (applying the presumption under Illustration (a) to Section 114 of the Evidence Act), and since he had already served that sentence, ordered his immediate release.
Lesson Learnt
In a case built on circumstantial evidence, recovering stolen property from an accused, even combined with evidence that they were last seen near the victim, is not, by itself, enough to prove a murder charge; the prosecution must show an unbroken chain of circumstances specifically linking the accused to the killing itself, not merely to the theft.