Supreme Court acquits appellant in murder case due to circumstantial evidence: Vinod Kumar vs. State (2025) INSC 209 (13 February 2025)

Date of the Judgment: 13 February 2025

Citation: 2025 INSC 209

Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J., Ujjal Bhuyan, J.

Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on circumstantial evidence if critical pieces of that evidence are questionable? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in the case of Vinod Kumar vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), where the appellant was accused of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court, comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, overturned the conviction, highlighting significant inconsistencies and omissions in the prosecution’s evidence.

Case Background

The case revolves around the death of Dharminder, who was a neighbor of the appellant, Vinod Kumar. On July 12, 1995, around noon, Vinod Kumar visited Dharminder’s residence and invited him to come along. PW-3 (the mother of the deceased) inquired about their destination, to which Vinod Kumar replied that they would return shortly. PW-1 (the father of the deceased) was present but asleep due to night duty as a security guard.

When Dharminder did not return by 1 PM, PW-3 went to Vinod Kumar’s house to inquire about his whereabouts. Vinod Kumar told her that Dharminder had gone to watch a movie. After waiting the entire night and with Dharminder still missing, PW-3 visited Vinod Kumar’s house again at 7 AM on July 13, 1995. Vinod Kumar’s mother informed her that Vinod Kumar had left for work and would return by 9 PM. The parents searched for Dharminder throughout the day.

Later, at 8 PM, they returned to Vinod Kumar’s house and found his answers inconsistent. Initially, Vinod Kumar stated that Dharminder had gone to purchase manjha (kite-flying thread). Then, he claimed he had left Dharminder on the road and finally stated that he had left him at his residence. Unsatisfied with these responses, the parents threatened to file a police complaint. Consequently, at 10 PM, PW-1 lodged a missing report at the police station.

Accompanied by the police, the parents returned to Vinod Kumar’s house, only to find that Vinod Kumar and his father had absconded. On July 14, 1995, at approximately 8 AM, PW-5 (the cousin of the deceased) informed PW-1 that Dharminder’s body was in a bathroom on the terrace of a building. PW-1 identified the body, noting that a rope was tied around the neck and the hands were tied behind the back. A First Information Report (FIR) was registered under Section 302 of the IPC. The prosecution’s case was built on circumstantial evidence.

Timeline

Arguments

The counsel for the appellant argued that the evidence presented by PW-3, the mother of the deceased, was inconsistent, contained improvements, omissions, and contradictions, making her testimony unreliable. The counsel highlighted specific omissions from the cross-examination of PW-3, arguing that these were so vital that her testimony should not be believed. The defense also pointed out that PW-3 was declared hostile and cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor, further questioning her credibility.

The appellant’s counsel contended that the critical circumstance of the deceased being last seen with the appellant was not established beyond a reasonable doubt. They also challenged the allegation that the appellant provided evasive replies about the whereabouts of the deceased to PW-1 and PW-3. Therefore, the defense concluded that the conviction could not be sustained due to these evidentiary weaknesses.

The counsel for the respondent, NCT of Delhi, argued that the emotional state of PW-1 and PW-3 should be considered, given the loss of their son. They maintained that PW-3’s testimony regarding the appellant and the deceased being last seen together was not effectively challenged during cross-examination. The prosecution also asserted that the appellant’s evasive replies and subsequent absconding from his residence after the FIR registration, along with the recovery of bloodstained clothes, established his guilt.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

1. Whether the prosecution had successfully proven the chain of circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt to warrant a conviction under Section 302 of the IPC.
2. Whether the High Court was correct in upholding the conviction based on the evidence presented, considering the alleged inconsistencies and omissions in the testimonies of key witnesses.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The judgment refers to Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which defines the punishment for murder. The court also considered Section 161 and 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 regarding the examination of witnesses by police and statements to police not to be signed:

• Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Deals with the punishment for murder, which is central to the case as the appellant was convicted under this section.
• Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Relates to the examination of witnesses by the police.
• Section 162, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Addresses statements made to the police and their use in evidence, particularly concerning contradictions and omissions.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The judgment does not explicitly cite or discuss specific authorities (previous case laws) in detail but refers to the general principles governing cases based on circumstantial evidence.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision in Vinod Kumar vs. State was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Doubtful Witness Testimony: The inconsistencies, omissions, and improvements in the testimony of PW-3 (mother of the deceased) significantly undermined her credibility.
• Incomplete Chain of Circumstantial Evidence: The failure to conclusively establish the “last seen together” theory and the questionable nature of the appellant’s alleged evasive replies weakened the prosecution’s case.
• Lack of Motive: The absence of a clear motive for the commission of the crime further contributed to the Court’s skepticism, especially given that the case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence.

Fact:Law

The court emphasized the importance of fully establishing each circumstance in cases relying on circumstantial evidence, ensuring that the chain of evidence leaves no room for conclusions inconsistent with the accused’s innocence. The high percentage for “Fact” indicates that the court’s decision was heavily influenced by the factual inconsistencies and omissions in the evidence presented.

Logical Reasoning

Issue: Whether the prosecution had successfully proven the chain of circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt to warrant a conviction under Section 302 of the IPC.

Key Takeaways

• ✓ Reliability of Witness Testimony: The importance of consistent and credible witness testimony is crucial, especially in cases lacking direct evidence.
• ✓ Burden of Proof: The prosecution must establish each piece of circumstantial evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to form a complete and unbroken chain.
• ✓ Motive: While not always necessary, the absence of a discernible motive can weaken a case built on circumstantial evidence.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case reinforces the principle that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully established. There must be a complete chain of circumstances that does not leave any ground for conclusions inconsistent with the innocence of the accused. This judgment underscores the judiciary’s cautious approach towards convictions based solely on circumstantial evidence, especially when critical elements of that evidence are questionable.

Conclusion

In Vinod Kumar vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), the Supreme Court acquitted the appellant, Vinod Kumar, of murder charges under Section 302 of the IPC. The decision was based on significant inconsistencies and omissions in the prosecution’s evidence, particularly in the testimonies of key witnesses and the failure to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence. The court emphasized that in cases relying on circumstantial evidence, each circumstance must be fully established to eliminate any reasonable doubt about the accused’s innocence.