Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Due to Lack of Evidence (2025) INSC 116

Date of the Judgment: 28 January 2025
Citation: 2025 INSC 116
Judges: B.R. Gavai, J., Prashant Kumar Mishra, J., K.V. Viswanathan, J.
Can a conviction for murder be upheld based on circumstantial evidence alone? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving a gruesome murder, ultimately acquitting the accused due to insufficient evidence. This judgment highlights the stringent standards required for convictions based on circumstantial evidence. The bench comprised Justices B.R. Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra, and K.V. Viswanathan, with the judgment authored by Justice K.V. Viswanathan.

Case Background

The case revolves around the murder of a 23-year-old woman, referred to as ‘EA’, who was working in Mumbai. On 4th January 2014, EA traveled from Vijayawada to Mumbai by train. Her father, PW-26, dropped her at the railway station at 5:00 AM. EA called her father at 9:00 PM when the train was crossing Solapur. After reaching Mumbai, EA did not contact her father, and he could not reach her by phone. PW-26 was informed that EA had not reached her hostel. He lodged a missing person complaint on 5th January 2014.

PW-26 searched for his daughter with the help of the police. The last signal of her mobile was found at Bhandup. On 16th January 2014, EA’s burnt and decomposed body was found in bushes near the Express Highway. PW-26 identified her by a ring on her finger. A complaint was lodged at Kanjur Marg Police Station, and an FIR was registered for murder.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Sections 302, 364, 366, 376(2)(m), 376A, 392 read with 397, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant was sentenced to death for the offense under Section 302, Indian Penal Code. The High Court of Judicature at Bombay upheld the conviction and the death sentence. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court of India.

Legal Framework

The appellant was charged under several sections of the Indian Penal Code:

• Section 302, Indian Penal Code: Punishment for murder.
• Section 364, Indian Penal Code: Kidnapping or abducting in order to murder.
• Section 366, Indian Penal Code: Kidnapping or abducting a woman to compel her marriage, etc.
• Section 376(2)(m), Indian Penal Code: Rape of a woman who is under twelve years of age.
• Section 376A, Indian Penal Code: Punishment for causing death or resulting in persistent vegetative state of victim.
• Section 392, Indian Penal Code: Punishment for robbery.
• Section 397, Indian Penal Code: Robbery or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt.
• Section 201, Indian Penal Code: Causing disappearance of evidence of offense, or giving false information to screen offender.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The CCTV footage was inadmissible under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, due to the lack of a proper certificate.
• Witnesses were unreliable due to significant delays in recording their statements.
• The identification parade was flawed because the appellant’s photos had already been circulated in the media.
• The extra-judicial confession to PW-9 was unreliable and not corroborated by other evidence.
• The time gap between the alleged last seen and the discovery of the body was too long to establish guilt.
• The recoveries of the trolley bag and other articles were not linked to the appellant.

Prosecution’s Arguments:

• The CCTV footage showed the appellant and the deceased together at the railway station.
• Witnesses placed the appellant near the crime scene.
• The appellant’s conduct of performing a puja indicated guilt.
• Recovered articles belonged to the deceased.
• The extra-judicial confession by the appellant to PW-9 was valid.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the CCTV footage was admissible as evidence under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872?
2. Whether the witnesses’ testimonies were reliable given the delays in recording their statements and other inconsistencies?
3. Whether the identification parade was valid given the prior circulation of the appellant’s photographs in the media?
4. Whether the extra-judicial confession to PW-9 was credible and reliable?
5. Whether the prosecution established the “last seen together” circumstance beyond reasonable doubt?
6. Whether the recoveries of the trolley bag and other articles were sufficiently linked to the appellant and the crime?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• The Court followed the principles laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116* regarding circumstantial evidence.
• The Court relied on Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer & Ors. (2014) 10 SCC 473* and Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal & Ors. (2020) 7 SCC 1* to reject the CCTV footage for lack of a Section 65B certificate, overruling the earlier view in State (N.C.T. of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru (2005) 11 SCC 600* and Shafhi Mohammad v. The State of Himachal Pradesh (2018) 2 SCC 801*.
• The court cited Sonu @ Amar vs State of Haryana (2017) 8 SCC 570* to note that objections about Section 65B(4) compliance cannot be taken at the appellate stage if not raised earlier, but made an exception in this case due to the seriousness of the charges.
• The Court also relied on Sundar @ Sundarrajan vs. State by Inspector of Police (2023) SCC OnLine SC 310* and Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2023) 3 SCC 654* to exclude electronic evidence without proper certification in death penalty cases.
• The Court used State of Goa Vs. Sanjay Thakran & Anr. (2007) 3 SCC 755* and Anjan Kumar Sarma & Ors. Vs. State of Assam (2017) 14 SCC 359* to highlight the importance of a close time gap in “last seen together” cases.
• The Court used Suryamoorthi and Another v. Govindaswamy and Others (1989) 3 SCC 24* and Gireesan Nair & Ors. v. State of Kerala (2023) 1 SCC 180* to reject the identification parade because of media exposure.
• The Court cited Sattatiya @ Satish Rajanna Kartalla v. State of Maharashtra (2008) 3 SCC 210* to highlight the unreliability of witnesses recalling chance encounters after a long period.
• The Court cited Reg vs. Hodge [1838] 2 Lew 227* and Hanumant Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR (1952) SC 343* to emphasize the need for caution in circumstantial evidence cases.
• The Court cited Nikhil Chandra Mondal v. State of W.B. (2023) 6 SCC 605* to reject the extra-judicial confession due to its weak nature and lack of corroboration.
• The Court cited Laxmi Raj Shetty vs. State of T.N. (1988) 3 SCC 319* to reject newspaper evidence.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court emphasized the necessity of concrete, reliable evidence for a conviction, especially in cases involving serious charges such as murder. The Court was particularly concerned about the lack of adherence to legal procedures regarding electronic evidence and the questionable reliability of witnesses. The Court also highlighted the importance of a complete chain of circumstances for convictions based on circumstantial evidence.

Logical Reasoning:

The Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court stated, “The circumstances relied upon when stitched together do not lead to the sole hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and we do not find that the chain is so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused.” The Court also noted, “On the available evidence, we are of the opinion that it will be extremely unsafe to sustain a conviction against the appellant.” Additionally, the Court emphasized, “The prosecution has not established its case beyond reasonable doubt.” The Court found that the prosecution’s evidence was too weak to support a conviction, especially in a case involving a death sentence. The Court also highlighted the importance of adhering to legal procedures, particularly regarding the admissibility of electronic evidence.

Key Takeaways

• The judgment reinforces the mandatory requirement of a Section 65B certificate for the admissibility of electronic evidence.
• It highlights the critical need for reliable witnesses and the importance of recording statements promptly.
• The ruling emphasizes the high standards of proof required for convictions based on circumstantial evidence.
• It serves as a reminder of the importance of maintaining fair procedures in criminal investigations and trials.
• The judgment underscores the weak nature of extra-judicial confessions and the need for corroboration.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellant be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that convictions based on circumstantial evidence require a complete chain of evidence that excludes every other reasonable hypothesis. The Supreme Court also emphasized the strict adherence to procedural laws, particularly regarding the admissibility of electronic evidence under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. This judgment reinforces the importance of reliable witnesses and the need for corroboration of extra-judicial confessions. This case has not changed the previous position of law, but it has reaffirmed the importance of following the law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of India acquitted the appellant in this murder case, emphasizing the lack of reliable evidence and the procedural lapses in the investigation. The Court’s decision underscores the high standards required for convictions based on circumstantial evidence and the importance of adhering to legal procedures. The judgment serves as a reminder of the need for a thorough and fair investigation to ensure justice.