This article is written by Kruti Brahmbhatt. This article is an exhaustive case analysis of Father Benedict v. State of Kerala (1967). It provides a detailed understanding of the relevant provisions, facts of the case, issues raised, arguments made, as well as the final judgement of the court. It primarily deals with the concept of circumstantial evidence.

This article has been published by Shashwat Kaushik.

Introduction   

Resolving criminal cases without any eye-witnesses in India is all about proving the case on the basis of circumstantial evidence. In simple terms, circumstantial evidence refers to the facts that, when examined along with other relevant facts, prove the guilt or innocence of a person. However, these facts include the systematic collection and presentation of evidence before the court. This bestows a huge responsibility on the police officers and the prosecution with respect to linking the evidence in a manner that proves the guilt of the accused. 

The Indian judiciary has witnessed numerous such cases, wherein the prosecution depends on circumstantial evidence to prove their allegations. The case of Father Benedict v. the State of Kerala (1967) is an example of the same. The prosecution in this case  relied on circumstantial evidence to prove that the accused, who was a Catholic Priest in a Church, guilty of abduction and murder of a woman. 

Details of the case 

Case name:  Father Benedict v. The State of Kerala 

Case number: 27 of 1966 & Crl. Appeal No. 356 of 1966 

Appellant: Father Benedict 

Respondent: The State of Kerala 

Court: The High Court of Kerala 

Bench: Justice P.T. Raman Nair and Justice V.P. Gopalan Nambiyar 

Case type: Criminal Appeal 

Date of Judgement: 07/04/1967 

Equivalent Citations:  1967KLJ509

Facts of the case 

In the present case, a 37 year old Roman Catholic Priest, was accused of abducting Mariyakutty, a 43 year old woman, and later murdering her. 

Mariyakutty, the deceased in the present case, was a widow living with her mother and her five children in Avalookunnu, a town in Alleppey. She had been married three times. Five years before she died, she left her last husband due to the fact that he was paralysed and could not move or take care of himself. Her youngest son, Joy, was born about two years prior to her death, which was also the time when her third husband passed away. 

The accused, Father Benedict, had managed two different churches from April 1960 to May 1964. One of those churches was the Church of Kannampali, which was located about 3 to 4 miles away from the scene of crime. He was the Vicar of Chakkarakkadavu Church from May 1962 to May 1964. In May 1962, Father Benedict was transferred to Chaganacherry, where he was assigned as the manager of St. Joseph’s Orphanage, opposite the Archbishop’s Palace. 

On 15th June 1966, as per the information submitted as evidence by the deceased’s mother and daughter, Mariakutty left her place at about 1:00 PM, after which she never returned. Prior to this, on 4th June,1966, Mariakutty informed her mother that Father Benedict had asked her to go to the privately owned bookstore, which is located opposite the palace gate near the orphanage on the 15th June. The next morning, which was 16th June, on the road leading from Mannamaruthi towards the forest, across a stream called the Madatharuivi, an unidentified woman’s body, which was mostly naked from the waist up and facing upwards, was found. The deceased’s clothes, which were a bodice and a chatta (jacket), were drawn up to the armpits, exposing her breasts. The deceased’s throat was cut from ear to ear. Apart from this, there were numerous wounds on the chest and abdomen. There was also an injury covering the whole of the left side of the face. There were no clothes or jewels missing from the body. Furthermore, there was a bed sheet covering the lower half of her body, and an umbrella was found lying nearby.

This information was given to the police station at Ranni, which was 4 miles away from the residence of the owner of the land on either side of the concerned road. This landowner found the body at about 10:00 AM. He was informed about the same by his servant, who has not been named as a witness in the case. 

As per the statement recorded by the sub-inspector, a case was registered under Section 302 (punishment for murder) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and an investigation was carried out accordingly. The sub-inspector went to take a look at the crime scene, and since the body was unidentified, he was accompanied by a photographer to photograph the same. The sub-inspector noted down his observations of the surroundings as well as of the body in his inquest report. 

On 17th June, an autopsy was conducted by the doctor. The body was still unidentified and unclaimed. Hence, since the landowner was the one to inform the police about the body, it was passed on to him for the purpose of disposal. He went on to bury the body. 

From the photograph taken, the mother and daughter of the deceased identified the body as Mariyakkutty’s. They even testified about it. Both of them referred to a scar below Mariyakutty’s left breast, which was about the size of a rupee. The witnesses confirmed this identification and even the doctor who conducted the autopsy noticed the same. Additionally, Mariyakutty’s daughter testified about the clothes, jewels and umbrella that were found with the body. This was sufficient to believe that the body was Mariyakutty. 

Furthermore, it was found that, on 15th June, a man who lived at the top of a hill about 150 yards from the scene of the crime  had woken up from his sleep upon hearing the cry, “My God! I’m being killed! My head is broken!”. The man tried to reach out by shouting twice and asking, “Who is that?” but received no response. The man woke his wife up and narrated what happened. They finally assumed it to be a quarrel between the carpenter and his wife, who were living nearby, and went back to sleep.

The Sessions Judge convicted Father Benedict under Section 364 (kidnapping or abducting in order to murder) and Section 302 of the IPC. He was charged with the abduction and murder of Mariyakutty. For abduction, he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years, and for murder, he was given a death sentence.

The present case reached the Supreme Court via an appeal made by Father Benedict, against the decision of the Sessions Judge.

Medical evidences 

The medical evidence showed that the deceased had suffered numerous wounds, the details are as below mentioned: 

• There were six penetrating  1”× ½” deep wounds on the chest and abdomen, three incised wounds on the neck, out of which two were on the left side. The third wound extended from behind the right ear and cut through all the structures of the neck including the great blood vessels, the trachea and oesophagus. This wound was 9”× 2” ×6” deep. 
• There was a contusion which covered the whole left side of the face and the left upper canine tooth had fallen.  
• On the right side of the forehead, there was a lacerated (deeply cut) wound, which was 3”× 2” ×1” deep.
• There were multiple small abrasions on the chest, abdomen and the left elbow joint. Due to these wounds on the chest and abdomen, there were two incised wounds on the right lung, two on the left lung. Even such wounds were found on the liver and one on the spleen. All these injuries were ante mortem and were 1”× ½” × ½” deep. 

(Note: This information is simply for a detailed analysis of the case and this medical evidence was not a point of contention in the original trial as well as the appeal.)

Issues raised 

• Whether the prosecution could prove that the accused had sufficient motive to murder the deceased? 
• Whether the witnesses and evidence presented are reliable? 
• Whether the prosecution could prove that the accused was in possession of incriminating objects? 

Legal aspects involved  

Provisions under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 

• Section 7: This Section deals with facts, which are occasion, cause or effect of facts in issue. It means that any fact which is the reason behind the occurrence of an event, either directly or not, or is a result of something which is crucial for the occurrence of the event, is considered a relevant fact in the case. 
• Section 11:  This Section prescribes two situations wherein facts which are otherwise not relevant become relevant-

1. If the presented facts are inconsistent with any fact in issue or relevant fact; and
2. If the presented facts, either by themselves or in connection with other facts, strongly indicate the existence or non-existence of any relevant fact.

In the case of Rajendra Singh v. Ramganit Singh (1954), the Court observed that Section 11 declares those facts to be admissible, which prove or disprove the main fact or the fact in issue. It was observed that the facts that are to be proved must be closely connected with the fact in issue or the relevant fact. 

• Section 25: This Section prohibits the confession made to a police officer to be proved. It aims to prevent the chances wherein a person is forced to make a statement. 

In the case of Queen Empress v. Babu Lal (1989), the Court stated that there have been numerous instances wherein the police officers have used torture techniques to coerce confessions and to record such statements, which secure convictions. If the confessions made before the police officers are made admissible, the citizens would not be protected from their cruelty. 

• Section 26: This Section prohibits the use of confession made by the accused, while he/she is in police custody, unless it is made before the Magistrate. 

The Supreme Court in the case of Kishore Chand v. the State of Himachal Pradesh (1990), had stated that the objective behind Section 26 is to ensure that the authority does not misuse their power. 

• Section 32 (1): According to this Section, when there arises a question of the cause of death of a person, a statement made by the dead person, regarding circumstances of his death, can be used by a court to determine the cause of his death. becomes relevant when a person provides information regarding the cause of his death.

The Supreme Court in the case of Ulka Ram v. State of Rajasthan (2010) held that when a person makes a statement that is related to the cause of his death or to any circumstances of a transaction that resulted in his death, it is admissible in evidence and termed as dying declaration. 

Provision under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 

• Section 162: This Section imposes prohibition on the use of statements made during the police investigation, as corroboration. However, these statements can be provided for inquiry or trial in the case, only if written in the police diary, reduced in writing and signed by the person.

Motive 

Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as the Evidence Act) deals with the motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct. It prescribes any fact to be a relevant fact, if there seems to be a motive of any kind or preparation for any conduct relating to the facts of the case. 

As per this Section, any fact that indicates a motive or preparation of the offence becomes relevant. It aims to refer to the objective behind acting in a certain way. The motive of committing an act may either be an emotion or any such state of mind which provoked the person to act in a certain way. Any evidence becomes admissible in the court of law, if it reflects the motive for the crime. 

In the case of Nathuni v. State of Bihar (1998), the Supreme Court held that the question of motive in circumstantial evidence holds immense importance. The Court stated that the absence of the motive for committing an act shall favour the accused. 

The Supreme Court, in the case of Ravi v. State of Maharashtra (2019), held that absence of motive does not immediately negate the prosecution’s case. Several times, human beings act on the spur of the moment without much thought. Hence, if there exists strong evidence against the accused, such as the presence of a reliable eye-witness, it is not important that the motive be definitely determined. 

Circumstantial evidence 

Circumstantial evidence is not defined under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. However, it is covered under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. As per this, evidence can be divided into two categories, namely, direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence is generally referred to when there is an absence of direct evidence. 

Circumstantial evidence refers to a chain of evidence that can be brought together to create the links required to determine the guilt or innocence of the concerned person. On several occasions, cases have been decided purely on the basis of circumstantial evidence, due to a lack of direct evidence. In the matter at hand, there were no eyewitnesses or any confessions from the accused. The Court had to rely on circumstantial evidence.

To understand the difference between circumstantial evidence and direct evidence, click here.

Arguments of the parties

Appellant 

The appellant denied all the allegations made by the prosecution. He claimed that he did not know Mariyakutty or about her death and had no relation to the case. He claimed himself to be innocent and went on to state that he was at the Archbishop’s Palace. After having dinner, he went to sleep in his room in the orphanage at about 10:30 P.M.

Respondent  

The allegations put forward by the prosecution were that, on 15th June, the accused had taken Mariyakutty to a spot where he inflicted harm on her body and murdered her. As per the submissions in the Trial Court, he took Mariyakutty to that spot by citing the reason for engaging in sexual intercourse in an open place without facing any interruptions. 

The prosecution alleged that the accused had engaged in criminal intimacy with the deceased. According to the prosecution, the youngest son of the deceased, Joy, belonged to the accused and the fear of being exposed led him to commit the present crime.

However, the prosecution did not have any direct evidence and, hence, entirely depended on circumstantial evidence to prove his case. The following are the six main circumstances on which the prosecution relied in its case. 

1. The accused had a strong motive for the murder 

As per the prosecution, the accused, being the Vicar of the Chakkarakkadavu Church, was responsible for the distribution of free milk powder and wheat to the poor. Mariyakutty, being poor, used to receive the same from him. The prosecution claimed that this eventually led them to be intimate with each other, which resulted in the birth of the  child, Joy. In June 1964, a month after the accused got transferred to Changanassery, Mariyakutty used to visit him once or twice a month, along with Joy. She would receive money from him (Rs. 50/-, Rs. 100/-, Rs. 200/- at a time) in order to buy clothes and jewels and live a comfortable life. Due to these frequent visits, the accused was instilled with a fear of blackmail and exposure, which eventually led him to murder her to get rid of the trouble.  

To prove the above-mentioned claims, the prosecution presented oral testimonies of three witnesses, namely, the deceased’s mother (PW- 2), the deceased’s daughter (PW- 3) and the store owner from whom she used to buy things on credit (PW- 20) –

• PW- 2 and PW- 3, submitted that the deceased conceived the child, Joy, at the time when her husband was paralysed and bedridden, and hence he had no relation with her. 

It was also observed that she was struggling financially until the birth of the child, but thereafter, she used to come into money once or twice a month, when she would go somewhere. This enabled her to live comfortably. 

• As per PW- 20, the deceased used to buy groceries from him on credit. She used to pay him once or twice a month, about Rs. 50/- at a time. 

2. The accused was last seen alive when with the accused. They were spotted proceeding towards the crime scene approximately 30 minutes prior to the time of murder and were close to 11/4 miles away from the said scene

In order to prove this circumstance, the prosecution relied on the testimonies of the deceased’s mother (PW- 2), the deceased’s daughter (PW- 3), a worker (PW- 6), a taxi driver (PW- 13) and a driver of a private car (PW- 14)-

• As per PW-2, the deceased informed her on 4th June, that she was asked by the accused to visit with him at Changanassery on 15th June. Accordingly, the deceased left her house on 15th June, alone, at about 1:00 PM, as mentioned by PW- 3 as well.
• PW- 14 stated that on 15th June, while he was at a petrol pump in Thiruvalla, at about 10:00 PM, he was approached by the accused and a woman, who he identified as the deceased. The accused asked him whether he could take them to Mannamaruthi, to visit his sick mother. However, PW- 14 refused to do so, on the grounds that his car was not a taxi. Instead, he arranged a taxi for them, which they finally travelled in. PW- 14 also pointed out that the accused was clothed in a cassock, had spectacles on, and also carried a three-celled electric torch. The woman was in traditional attire and carried an umbrella and a two-cell electric torch.
• PW- 13’s statement was not consistent with PW- 14’s statement. He held that he had not given the accused a ride in his taxi on 15th June. His account book confirmed the same. He stated that neither recognised the accused nor did he ever travel in his taxi. 

Later on, with the permission of the court, PW- 13 was cross-examined by the respondent, wherein it was found that he seemed to have contradicted his previous statement to PW- 42 (the Deputy Superintendent of Police). Therefore, that previous statement does not amount to substantive evidence, and PW- 13’s statement was not taken into consideration. It did not refute PW- 14.

• PW- 6 claimed that on 15th June, while working near Mannamaruthi junction, he saw a car approach, from which emerged the accused and a Christian woman. They proceeded to walk towards the scene of the crime. PW- 6 stated that he saw both of them clearly under the light of the electric lamp he had with him. He recalled that the accused was wearing the cassock of a Catholic priest and spectacles. He was also carrying an electric torch in his right hand, and a bag under his left armpit. The woman was wearing a mundu, chatta and neriyathu (upper cloth) and was carrying an umbrella and an electric torch. When PW- 6 saw the body of the murdered woman the next day, he recognised her as the woman he had seen accompanying the accused the previous night. 

3. Soon after midnight, the accused was seen in a considerably agitated state within about 30 minutes of the murder. He was seen at a place which was about six furlongs from the scene, going towards the Archbishop’s Palace in Changanassery

The prosecution presented PW- 5, a mechanic at Chandrika Motor Service (PW- 7), a welder (PW- 8), owner and driver of a taxi (PW- 9) and an attendant who supplied petrol (PW- 19) as the witnesses to prove this circumstantial evidence-

• PW- 5 and her neighbour Thanka, were taking her old mother-in-law to the hospital to visit her dying grandson. As per PW-5, she saw the accused as she approached Mannamaruthi junction. She described him as a Catholic priest carrying an electric torch in his right hand, and a blue bag under his left armpit, along with an umbrella. She stated that the accused was walking at a fast pace, as if he were afraid, anxious or agitated. The accused was on the same path as PW- 5 for about a 100 feet. While Pw- 5 proceeded in the direction of her house, the accused continued on that path.
• PW- 7 was at his workshop about 3.5 miles south of Mannamaruthi Junction. He stated that at about 1:30 AM, on the night of 15th June, while he was standing outside after completing their work, the accused approached them in seeking a car to go to Thiruvalla to search for a doctor and some medicine for his father, who was seriously ill at Mannamaruthi Hospital. He described the accused as a Catholic priest carrying an electric torch in his right hand and a blue bag under his left armpit, along with an umbrella. PW- 7 took the accused to PW- 8, who owned a private car.
• PW- 8 agreed to drive the accused to Thiruvalla. He described the accused in the same manner as PW- 5 and PW- 7 did. While PW- 7 was sitting in the front seat, the accused got into the back seat. The accused gave PW- 8 a 10 rupee note for the purpose of refilling fuel in the car. However, he was in such a hurry that he refused to wait to collect the change. PW- 19 confirmed the same.
• When the car reached S.C. Junction, the accused paid PW- 8 Rs. 10 and left. At 3:00 AM, while returning after having coffee, PW- 7 and PW- 8 came across the accused, around 50 yards away from the place where they had dropped him. PW- 8 asked him whether he wished to hire a car again. The accused answered negatively. 
• PW- 9, stated that around 3:30 AM, a Catholic priest, carrying an umbrella, a blue bag, and an electric torch, approached the driver for a ride to Changanassery. Around 4:00 AM, about five miles away from Thiruvalla, the accused was dropped off in front of Changanassery Palace. He paid Pw- 9 Rs. 6.

4. The bedsheet found on the body of the deceased belonged to the accused 

In order to prove this circumstance, two dhobis (PW- 10 and PW- 11) were presented-

Both PW- 10 and PW- 11 were persons who washed the accused’s clothes. According to their statement, they took his clothes on 2nd June and returned them a week later. They identified the bedsheet of the accused because it had their specific laundry marks. PW- 10 marked the accused’s clothes with the letter “N” in black, and PW- 11 marked the accused’s clothes with “3” in red. 

5. During a chemical examination, human blood stains were found on the knife, which was recovered from the scene of crime, as pointed out by the accused.
6. During a chemical examination, human blood stains were found on the blue bag, which the accused was carrying with him, according to the witnesses.

Judgement in Father Benedict vs. State of Kerala (1967)

The circumstantial evidence relied upon was not established. There were neither any eyewitnesses nor did the accused confess to the crime. The prosecution presented a story and evidence to favour the same. The theories presented before the court were mere speculations from the prosecution’s side. 

Taking these into consideration, the Court acquitted the accused and ordered his release. 

Rationale behind the judgement 

First circumstance 

The Court observed that the prosecution’s witnesses had not seen the accused and the witnesses themselves, in any manner, do not have any personal knowledge about the matter in hand. Everything they mentioned was based only on what was told to them by Mariyakutty. These statements conveyed by Mariyakutty were clearly hearsay, which  would not fall under Section 60 of the Evidence Act. No other provision of this Act holds it relevant either. Meanwhile, the prosecution contended that these statements of Mariyakutty would be considered under the scope of Section 32(1), as well as Section 7, Section 8 and Section 11 of the Evidence Act. 

The Court explained that under Section 32(1), not every statement made by a deceased person is a relevant fact, in cases where the question is regarding their cause of death. A statement can be considered as a relevant fact only when it is about the cause of the person’s death or about any circumstances of the transaction that caused the death. In the present matter, the statements made by Mariyakutty certainly did not reflect the cause of her death. They were observed to be too remote from the chain of events that might have caused her death. 

A reference was made to Narayana Swamy v. Emperor (1939), wherein it was observed that the circumstances stated must be the circumstances of the transaction. The general emotions of fear or suspicion, or statements not directly related to the cause of death, are not admissible. However, statements made by the deceased, which include his intention to visit the location where the crime was committed or state any reasons to proceed to such a location, or the fact that he was going to meet a particular person or was invited by a person, would all be circumstances of the transaction. This would stand regardless of whether the person was known or unknown or was not the person who was accused. These statements have the potential to exonerate or clear up the guilt of the accused. This Court went on to clarify that the terms “circumstances of the transaction” and “circumstantial evidence” are not exactly the same. The former’s scope is narrower than both “circumstantial evidence” and “res gestae.” These circumstances must be closely connected to the concerned incident. The present circumstances, which suggested a possible motive for the murder, cannot be directly related to the actual transaction behind the death of Marriyakutty. Additionally, the Court disagreed with the observations in T. Retnakaran v. State of Kerala (2005), wherein the murdered woman was pregnant by the accused and stated that the pregnancy merely indicates a motive and cannot be considered to be directly connected to the murder. Any statement made by the deceased about such a situation cannot be admissible under Section 32(1). The Court reiterated its stance while citing the case of  Re: Baggam Appalanarasayya vs Unknown (1940), wherein statements made by the deceased, which suggested the motive of the accused, were held to be inadmissible.

The Court also turned its attention towards the case of Sarayanabhavan v. State of Madras (1965), in which Saravanabhavan was accused of three murders. He was scolded by Peramia (one of the deceased), who told him that he would revoke the will, in which the accused was the legatee. Peramia relayed this incident to Balasubramaniam, the witness. The same night, the three murders took place. However, this Court noted that while admitting Peramia’s statement as proof of a transaction relating to the murders, the judges did not refer to Section 32(1). Instead, they must have referred to Section 6. 

The Court explained that, apart from being directly connected to the issue, statements are usually not admissible unless certain conditions are met. A fact is relevant only if it is proved by direct evidence and not hearsay evidence, unless the statement is relevant under Section 6, Section 8 explanation 1, Section 14 or Section 32 of the Evidence Act. Furthermore, an earlier statement of a witness could be admissible under Section 157 for corroboration or under Section 145 for contradiction. The Court referred to the case of Allijan Munshi v. State of Bombay (1969), wherein the statement was held to be relevant under Section 8 explanation 1, since it was made while carrying out an action that had an impact on the facts. 

In the present matter, the Court found it highly unreliable to consider a statement by a woman regarding the father of the illegitimate child, which was not even cross-examined. It was held that the prosecution had failed to prove the motive of the accused to murder the deceased. 

Second and third circumstances 

The Court found that there might exist a degree of artificiality in the manner in which all of the presented witnesses described the attire and movements of the accused as well as of the deceased. Great details were mentioned. Witnesses described the accused with a three-cell electric torch in his right hand, a blue bag under his left armpit, an umbrella precisely hanging from his arms and spectacles. The deceased was described as wearing a mundu, chatta and neriyathu (upper cloth).

The Court questioned the probability of some of the testimonies, such as, if the accused was on the way to commit a murder, why did he come in close contact with the witness, or if he was escaping after committing a murder, why did he go near someone who could see him clearly with the help of a torch? This was considered as unusual behaviour for a person who had committed a murder.

The Court further stated that the witnesses had seen the accused for the first time at night, by artificial light, and from some distance. Furthermore, no lineup was conducted for identification as well. This would not have given the witnesses an opportunity to observe the accused closely. Under such circumstances, there are high chances that the witnesses could make mistakes in identifying the accused. The Court found that the identification of the accused by the witness was more influenced by suggestion and can’t be held reliable. It also raised serious questions regarding the reliability of the mechanic’s (PW- 7) statements, who claimed that the accused was wearing white pants with black stripes and a shirt, while there exists evidence that the accused was in his clerical garb when he was seen at the police club. The Court also emphasised that it was crucial to conduct an identification parade in the present situation. 

The statements of these witnesses were refused to be considered evidence on the ground that they were not satisfactory. 

Fourth circumstance

The Court observed that MO-13, which was supposed to be a red and white checkered bedsheet, as per the reports, now turned out to be a blood-stained brownish rag. It seemed difficult to identify the bed sheet, as mentioned in the reports. Additionally, the marks “N” and “3” were found on it, but since these marks are not unique, there could be a high chance that they were not present when the body was found. The laundry worker’s statement regarding recognition of the marks was deemed to be unreliable. The fact that similar marks were found on the other clothes of the accused was also not enough to determine whether the marks were always present or not. The Court doubted the evidence due to some suspicious features. Both reports of the investigating officers only mentioned mark “3,” which was noticed by the officers. 

On 27/7/1966, the investigating officer had taken this evidence back from the court for further investigation and had shown it to the laundry workers. On 31/7/1966, the witness PW-10, recognized the mark “N.” On 4/8/1966, after the accused was arrested and his clothes were seized, which had the marks “N” and “3,” the investigation officer returned this evidence back to the court. The Court remarked that it was impossible to exclude the chances that the mark “N” was marked during the period between 27/7/1966 and 4/8/1966. 

The Court held that since the evidence had passed through various hands, there were high possibilities that the concerned identification marks were added later on. The Court decided that it cannot be established that the evidence, MO- 13, belonged to the accused. 

Fifth and sixth Circumstances 

On 1st August, when the accused’s room was searched for investigation, the police found the blue plastic bag. It was the initial interrogation of the accused that led them to this evidence. However, the Court could not find any such information in the police report, which suggested that the accused had made such a confession. Hence, this evidence would be inadmissible. Furthermore, a subsequent act by the accused pointing out the location of the knife would also not be admissible. As seen in Ramkishan Mithanlal Sharma v. State of Bombay (1955), pointing out evidence to a police officer is not admissible.

Since the accused had pleaded innocence before the Magistrate, the Court found it unlikely that he had helped the police gather evidence. The Court observed that if the prosecution’s case was true, to have changed his attitude suddenly, the accused must have been under some pressure or compulsion. It would violate Article 20(3) of the Constitution if the accused was compelled to testify against himself by pointing out the evidence. The Court referred to the case of State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu (1961), wherein it was held that if the accused provides the information voluntarily, without any compulsion, only then  can it be used as evidence in the court and the court said that this shall not amount to a violation of Article 20(3) of the Constitution. 

It was contended that the allegations made by the accused regarding the police’s torture and forced confession could be false because, during his first questioning before the Magistrate, he mentioned not having any complaints regarding the police and, furthermore, refused another Magistrate’s offer to be sent to another doctor. The Court observed that this could be the result of any legal advice sought by him, which was probably given so in order to lay a foundation for his claim of innocence. However, it does not matter if the statement was correct or incorrect. The primary doubt revolves around why a person who initially made a statement to clear his name (irrespective of whether that was true or false) would go on to help in finding evidence against him. 

The Court stated that the discovery of blood on the accused’s bag and also on the knife does not prove that the accused is guilty of murder. The blood on the bag would not be enough to prove guilt. As far as the knife is concerned, it seemed unlikely for it to have remained as shiny and smooth as it is, along with the blood stain still intact, if it was left in the rain at the crime scene. Hence, these were not considered to be strong evidence.  

The Court did not find any of the circumstances of the prosecution satisfactory enough to convict the accused. 

Critical analysis of Father Benedict vs. State of Kerala (1967)

In the present case, acquittal of the accused signifies the application of the important legal principle of “presumption of innocence.” The said principle states that every person is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty. This provides the accused with the right to a fair trial and representation. The prosecution must ensure that the guilt of the accused is proved beyond any reasonable doubt. 

In this case, the burden of proving the accused’s guilt lay on the prosecution, which failed to do so. None of the presented witnesses or evidence could sufficiently indicate the guilt of the accused. There were high probabilities that the evidence presented was manipulated and the statements recorded seemed to be scripted dialogues. In such situations where there are no eyewitnesses to the murder, proving the guilt of the accused is absolutely difficult, but not impossible. 

In the case of Sanatan Naskar and anr. v. State of West Bengal (2010), there were no eyewitnesses present at the time of the incident. However, the prosecution established the chain of evidence or proved the circumstantial evidence. They achieved this on the basis of reliable evidence, proving every circumstance and linking them to each other. In such cases, where there is an absence of eyewitnesses and the case depends on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has to establish an absolute chain of events that directly proves the guilt of the accused without considering any other probabilities. 

In the case of State of Up v. Ravindra Prakash Mittal (1992), the Court laid down the following with regards to the circumstantial evidences:

• The circumstances that are to be assumed must be established by the court and the circumstances should be conclusive in nature. 
• Each fact or circumstance established should be indicating the guilt of the accused. 

This makes it evident that in such situations, wherein there are no eyewitnesses present, the prosecution must ensure that each presented piece of evidence and statement indicates the guilt of the accused and leaves no room for any other assumption. 

Conclusion  

It is evident from this case analysis that to prove a fact and build a case around circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must have strong witnesses and evidence by their side. However, in cases wherein circumstantial evidence is considered, the decision equally depends on the judge’s perspective and interpretation of the statements. In such cases, the trials, especially the examination and cross-examination of witnesses, play a crucial role. This case also explains the application of the important Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, which allows the accused to restrain themselves from making confessions, which may affect their own case. This ensures that the investigation is held fairly and that there is no prejudice towards the accused. 

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What is the summary of the judgement in Father Benedict v. State  of Kerala?

In this case, Father Benedict, who was accused of murdering a woman, was initially sentenced to a rigorous imprisonment of 5 years and a death sentence, appealed against the same. Since there was an absence of eye-witnesses and any confession, the case relied on circumstantial evidence. The High Court of Kerala stated that most of the evidence presented was hearsay, which weakened the prosecution’s case. On the basis of each evidence and examination, the Court acquitted the accused.

The following were some of Court’s primary observations behind the same-

• All statements made by a dying person do not become relevant under Section 32 (1) of the Evidence Act. The statement stated must have a proximate relation to the actual occurring events. 
• To prove the relevancy of a fact under Section 7, Section 8 and Section 11 of the Evidence Act, the evidence must be direct and not hearsay. 
• In such cases, it is crucial to conduct a test identification parade, to completely accept a witness’s statement and rely on it.
• Any self-incriminatory information made by the accused can only be admitted when the statement is made voluntarily and without any pressure. 

What is hearsay evidence? 

Hearsay evidence, in simpler terms, is when the witness primarily has not experienced the event by his/her own senses and instead is aware of a fact because they have heard about the same from elsewhere. Such persons are not considered as witnesses and such statements are not admissible in court. 

There are only two exceptions when hearsay evidences are accepted in the courts: 

• When It forms a transaction of the chain of events .i.e., res gestae , 
• When it is a dying declaration. 

How is the doctor’s report included as evidence? 

Under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, when the court needs to form an opinion regarding any subject which needs any specialised knowledge about the same, it shall seek expert opinion. The subject matter can be relating to foreign law, science, art or handwriting or fingerprint, etc. Hence, the doctor’s report is considered as an expert opinion, however, it is the court’s decision to make the decision in accordance with the report or against it.

What is the evidentiary value of circumstantial evidence? 

Circumstantial evidence in India is an important aspect in criminal trials. When a strong chain of events can be formed and proven, the court shall consider the circumstantial evidence. However, in cases where the eye-witness statement contradicts the circumstantial evidence, direct evidence shall be considered over circumstantial evidence. 

References

• https://blog.ipleaders.in/all-about-circumstantial-evidence/#What_do_you_mean_by_Circumstantial_Evidence