Delhi High Court Acquits Appellant in Murder Case: “Circumstantial Evidence Riddled with Contradictions; Suspicion Cannot Replace Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt”

---

Court’s Decision

The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed under Section 374 CrPC and acquitted the appellant (wife of the deceased) of charges under Sections 302/34 IPC. The Court found the prosecution’s case based entirely on circumstantial evidence, riddled with contradictions, and lacking credibility. The judgment and sentence were set aside as the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

---

Facts of the Case

1. November 6, 1999:
   • The appellant lodged two missing person reports at different police stations (Kotwali and Darya Ganj) about her husband, Naushad.
   • Later that day, Naushad’s body was discovered near the Yamuna River.
2. Post-Mortem Report:
   • Cause of death: Asphyxia due to ligature strangulation.
   • Signs of abrasions and bruises were found, but no fractures on the hyoid bone.
3. Allegations:
   • The prosecution alleged that the appellant conspired with two co-accused, Niyaz (absconding) and Akbar Shah (acquitted), to murder Naushad due to her illicit relationship with Niyaz.
4. Charges:
   • Framed under Sections 302/34 IPC for murder with a common intention.
   • The appellant and Akbar Shah were tried, while Niyaz was declared a proclaimed offender.

---

Issues for Determination

1. Whether the appellant was married to the deceased and had a motive to kill him?
2. Whether the circumstantial evidence, including the “last seen” theory, conclusively proved the appellant’s guilt?
3. Whether contradictions in witness testimonies (PW-2, PW-3, and PW-6) weakened the prosecution’s case?
4. What is the effect of the co-accused Akbar Shah’s acquittal on the appellant’s conviction?

---

Petitioner’s (Appellant’s) Arguments

1. Circumstantial Evidence:
   • The entire case relied on circumstantial evidence, which failed to establish a complete chain of events.
2. Contradictions in Witness Testimonies:
   • PW-2 and PW-3 gave inconsistent and contradictory statements regarding the “last seen” evidence and their interactions with the deceased.
   • PW-6, a police informer, improved her statements substantially in court, raising doubts about her credibility.
3. Questionable Missing Reports:
   • The appellant argued that the missing reports (Ex. P3, P4) were fabricated and backdated. She also emphasized that she was illiterate and could not have signed in Urdu, as alleged by the police.
4. Post-Mortem Report:
   • The absence of significant findings, such as a fractured hyoid bone (common in strangulation), weakened the prosecution’s case.
5. Effect of Co-Accused Acquittal:
   • With co-accused Akbar Shah acquitted, the prosecution’s theory of common intention under Section 34 IPC collapsed.

---

Respondent’s (State’s) Arguments

1. Motive:
   • The appellant had a motive to kill her husband due to her alleged illicit relationship with Niyaz.
2. Last Seen Theory:
   • PW-2 deposed that the appellant was last seen with the deceased near the Yamuna River on November 5, 1999, at 10:00 PM.
3. Conduct of Appellant:
   • Filing two missing reports and absconding for three days after the body was discovered pointed towards her guilt.
4. Post-Mortem Findings:
   • The fact that the food in the deceased’s stomach was undigested supported the prosecution’s theory that he was killed shortly after dinner.

---

Analysis of the Law and Evidence

1. Unreliable Witness Testimonies

• PW-2 (Farooq):
  • Contradictions: PW-2’s statements on identifying the deceased’s body and the timeline of events were inconsistent.
  • He admitted that the deceased met him only twice, raising doubts about his credibility.
  • Failure to Inform Police: Despite claiming to have seen the appellant and deceased together, PW-2 did not initially inform the police about the appellant being the wife of the deceased.
• PW-3 (Sagir):
  • Similar contradictions were noted in PW-3’s testimony. He also failed to mention the appellant’s role when identifying the deceased’s body.
  • The Court observed that both PW-2 and PW-3 appeared to be planted witnesses.
• PW-6 (Shama):
  • She admitted to being a police informer and gave exaggerated and improved statements during her testimony.
  • Her admission of informing the police regularly undermined her reliability.

2. Breakdown of “Last Seen” Theory

• The prosecution relied heavily on PW-2’s deposition that the appellant was last seen with the deceased on the evening of November 5, 1999.
• The Court noted severe contradictions in this testimony and disbelieved the claim that PW-2 saw the deceased and the appellant together.

3. Effect of Co-Accused’s Acquittal

• Co-accused Akbar Shah was acquitted as the prosecution failed to establish any role or motive.
• The common intention argument under Section 34 IPC crumbled, as the prosecution relied on the collective presence of all accused.

4. Post-Mortem Findings

• The post-mortem report did not conclusively establish that the appellant was involved in the crime.
• The absence of a fractured hyoid bone weakened the prosecution’s strangulation theory.

5. Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Circumstantial Evidence

The Court reiterated that in a case based on circumstantial evidence:

• The chain of events must be complete and point unerringly to the accused’s guilt.
• “Suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof.”

The broken chain of events and unreliable witnesses left significant doubts about the appellant’s role.

---

Court’s Reasoning

1. The prosecution failed to prove the foundational facts, such as the appellant’s relationship with the deceased and the alleged illicit affair.
2. The last seen theory was discredited due to contradictions in PW-2 and PW-3’s testimonies.
3. The acquittal of co-accused Akbar Shah further weakened the prosecution’s case, as the common intention argument collapsed.
4. Circumstantial evidence fell short of the legal standard, and the Court reiterated:“Each link in the chain of circumstances must be complete. Suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof.”

---

Conclusion

• The Court set aside the judgment and sentence passed by the Trial Court.
• The appellant was acquitted of all charges, and the Court ordered the discharge of bail bonds.

---

Implications

The judgment reinforces critical legal principles:

1. Circumstantial Evidence: Guilt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, with no missing links in the chain of evidence.
2. Witness Credibility: Contradictions and exaggerations in witness testimonies can weaken the prosecution’s case.
3. Suspicion vs. Proof: Courts must ensure that suspicion does not substitute proof, upholding the principle of fairness in criminal trials.

Also Read – Delhi High Court Sets Aside Penalty for Overstaying Leave Due to Medical Illness, Holds Non-Willful Absence Cannot Constitute Misconduct in Employment Disciplinary Proceedings