Raja @ Rajinder v. State of Haryana
Background
The appellant was convicted for the murder of Het Ram, who went missing after leaving home with the appellant and was later found dead, concealed in a bundle inside a well. The prosecution's case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence - the deceased was last seen with the appellant at a tea stall, a knife and blood-stained clothes were recovered on the appellant's disclosure statement, and a motive was established around a suspected illicit relationship. The trial court convicted the appellant and his father; the High Court affirmed the appellant's conviction while reducing his father's sentence to time served.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that the chain of circumstantial evidence was complete and pointed unerringly to the appellant's guilt. It accepted the "last seen together" theory despite the tea-stall owner not being examined, held that recovery of the knife and blood-stained clothes under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was validly admitted even though it followed an inadmissible police-custody statement, and found the forensic report (blood found though group unmatched) corroborative. The Court also held that minor exaggerations by one witness did not discredit his entire testimony, applying the principle that "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" has no application in India. The appeal was dismissed and the conviction and sentence were upheld.
Lesson Learnt
A conviction can validly rest on well-corroborated circumstantial evidence alone, provided the facts form a complete chain inconsistent with innocence; minor witness inconsistencies or the unavailability of one witness do not automatically destroy an otherwise credible prosecution case.