Supreme Court Acquits Murder Accused, Observes That Deceased And Accused Were Not Last Seen Together

The Supreme Court of India, on September 19, held that the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.

Bench of Justices MR Shah and Krishna Murari heard an appeal against the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court whereby the appeals of the original accused were dismissed and they were convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC).

Wife And In Laws Convicted For Murder

The complainant, Prakash, was the brother of the deceased. He claimed that his brother was killed by his wife, her boyfriend and her family members. It was alleged that the couple was having differences with each other. 

The prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses and a statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973 (Cr.P.C.) was also recorded. 

The Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused persons and the High Court upheld the decision.

Hence, the instant appeal was preferred.

Appellant Argued Absence Of Direct Evidence

The counsel representing the appellants submitted that there was no direct evidence. It was claimed that the star witness, the daughter of the deceased, had nowhere deposed that she had seen the appellants kill her father. It was also submitted that the prosecution could not prove that the witness had seen the deceased and appellants together.

State Contended That Appellants Had Motive

The state argued that the guilt of the appellants was established beyond reasonable doubt. It was submitted that the prosecution had established and proved that there were quarrels which took place between the deceased and the appellants and there was a motive for the appellants to have murdered the deceased.

No Direct Evidence To Convict Appellants: Court

The Court observed that, "There is no direct evidence by which it can be said that the appellants killed or committed the murder of the deceased. There is no direct evidence recorded indicating involvement of the appellants in the crime and as observed hereinabove, the case of the prosecution is based on the circumstantial evidence."

The Court cited its judgment in Babu vs. State of Kerala (2010) 9 SCC 189 wherein guidelines regarding cases based on circumstantial evidence were laid down.

Deceased And Appellants Were Not Last Seen Together

The Court observed that there was no evidence given by the daughter of the deceased that indicated that the accused and the deceased were last seen together.

"There was no evidence what happened after the deceased went to the room and had gone to sleep."

Court Acquits Appellants

The Court therefore, under the circumstances, held that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt and complete chain of events, which may have led to the only conclusion that the appellants alone committed murder and/or killed the deceased. 

The Court set aside the judgment of the Trial Court and the High Court and acquitted the appellants.