Court’s Decision
In a judgment delivered on 4 June 2025, the Supreme Court partially set aside the conviction of the appellant, who had been held guilty under Sections 302 IPC and Section 5 read with Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act for allegedly murdering his college friend. The Court found the circumstantial evidence inconsistent and observed:
“Mere suspicion, no matter how grave, cannot take the place of proof in a criminal trial.”
The Court held that while the appellant’s conduct post-incident, including destruction of evidence, attracted Section 201 IPC, there was insufficient proof beyond reasonable doubt for the charge of murder. Consequently, the appellant was acquitted under Sections 302 IPC and the Arms Act, but his conviction under Section 201 IPC was sustained, limited to the period already undergone.
Facts
The case arises from an incident on 16.09.2010 when the deceased, a first-year student at a homeopathy medical college in Maharashtra, went missing and was later found dead with a gunshot wound. He had last been seen with the appellant, his friend and classmate. The service pistol used in the incident belonged to the appellant’s father, a police officer. After a missing person complaint, investigation led to the appellant, who admitted to having been with the deceased and to having found him shot at home. He also confessed to cleaning the scene and moving the body out of fear.
The trial court convicted the appellant under Sections 302, 201 r/w Section 34 IPC and Section 5 r/w 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act. The Bombay High Court upheld the conviction under all counts, relying heavily on circumstantial evidence and the appellant’s post-incident conduct. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court.
Issues
- Whether the conviction of the appellant for murder was sustainable based solely on circumstantial evidence.
- Whether the trajectory of the bullet and medical evidence negated the theory of homicidal death.
- Whether the appellant’s post-incident conduct was sufficient to draw an inference of guilt.
- Whether absence of motive impacts the chain of circumstantial evidence in a murder trial.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The appellant contended that:
- The bullet’s trajectory, as observed by PW-9, indicated an accidental death. The bullet entered through the eye and exited from the lower skull, yet struck a ventilator located above the deceased’s height.
- PW-9, the medical expert, had stated she could not conclusively determine whether the death was accidental or homicidal.
- He was unaware the pistol was accessible; when he heard the shot, he found his friend dead and panicked, fearing his father.
- The cleaning of the scene and movement of the body stemmed from fear, not a guilty conscience.
- There was no motive for murder, and the friendship between the two had been corroborated by witnesses, including the deceased’s father.
- The High Court wrongly placed the burden of proof on the appellant instead of ensuring the prosecution first discharged its burden beyond reasonable doubt.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State argued that:
- The appellant was the last person seen with the deceased and admitted the death occurred at his house.
- The pistol used was his father’s service weapon, kept at home on the relevant day.
- His actions—cleaning the crime scene, moving the body, making false inquiries—were indicative of guilt.
- The High Court rightly applied Section 8 of the Evidence Act to consider the appellant’s conduct post-incident as a relevant fact establishing a guilty mind.
- The ballistic match and admissions supported the prosecution theory of homicidal death.
Analysis of the Law
The Court analyzed the circumstantial framework and underscored that while the appellant’s conduct raised grave suspicion, “suspicion cannot take the place of proof.” The evidence linking the appellant to the actual act of pulling the trigger was absent. The Court reiterated that:
- In circumstantial evidence cases, the chain must be so complete as to point unerringly to the guilt of the accused.
- Section 8 of the Evidence Act permits consideration of conduct, but only after the prosecution has first established the fundamental elements of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Further, the Court emphasized that:
“The failure to offer an explanation cannot become the basis to relieve the prosecution from discharging its primary burden.”
Precedent Analysis
The Court relied on:
- Anwar Ali v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2020) 10 SCC 166 – Established that absence of motive in circumstantial cases could weigh in favour of the accused.
- Babu v. State of Kerala (2010) 9 SCC 189 – Held that motive is relevant but not essential if circumstantial evidence is conclusive; however, its absence strengthens the defence.
- Shivaji Chintappa Patil v. State of Maharashtra (2021) 5 SCC 626 – Reiterated that motive is crucial in circumstantial evidence cases.
- Nandu Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh), Crl. Appeal No. 285 of 2022 – Emphasized that complete absence of motive strongly supports the accused.
These judgments informed the Court’s conclusion that, in the absence of motive and with an alternate plausible theory, the conviction could not be sustained.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found:
- The ballistic trajectory suggested an accidental shooting was more plausible than a homicidal one.
- PW-9’s inability to ascertain whether the death was accidental or homicidal cast doubt on the prosecution’s theory.
- The appellant’s account of the deceased accidentally triggering the gun was consistent and supported by forensic details.
- The prosecution failed to explain the most critical question: who pulled the trigger?
- The High Court had erred by focusing disproportionately on the appellant’s conduct without establishing a completed chain of incriminating circumstances.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court set aside the conviction under Sections 302 IPC and 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act, holding:
“The theory put across by the appellant is fairly probable and is supported by medical evidence… Contrarily, the conclusion drawn by the Courts below is not supported by medical evidence.”
The appellant was, however, found guilty under Section 201 IPC for destruction of evidence and was sentenced to the period already undergone.
Implications
This judgment reaffirms foundational principles in criminal law:
- The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
- In circumstantial cases, the chain of evidence must be complete and unbroken.
- Absence of motive and presence of alternate theories of death—especially when supported by medical evidence—must be judicially considered.
- Post-offence conduct, while relevant, cannot form the sole basis for conviction without independent corroborative evidence.
Also Read: Supreme Court Holds Deemed Closure Valid Where No Proper Order Issued by Competent Authority