INTRODUCTION
In a remarkable judgment passed by B.V. Nagarathna, J. and Satish Chandra Sharma, J., the Hon’ble Apex Court on 04.06.2025 acquitted a youth convicted under Section 302 and 201 IPC, 1860 by holding that the circumstantial evidence on record was not consistent and left a reasonable possibility of an alternate outcome i.e. of innocence of the appellant on the charges of murder and illegal usage of fire arm. The Hon’ble Court observed that it was a time-tested proposition of law that when a Court is faced with a situation wherein two different views appear to be reasonably possible, the matter is to be decided in favour of the accused. The benefit of counter possibility goes to the accused in such cases. The Court while acquitting the appellant has held that in law, there is a significant difference in the evidentiary burden to be discharged by the prosecution and the accused. Whereas, the former is expected to discharge its burden beyond reasonable doubt, the latter is only required to prove a defence on the anvil of preponderance of probabilities. If the accused leads defence evidence in the course of a criminal trial, the same ought to be tested as probable or improbable in the facts and circumstances of the case.
FACTS OF THE CASE
Vaibhav (the appellant, referred as A1 in the judgment) and Mangesh (the deceased) were first-year students at Bagla Homeopathy Medical College. On 16.09.2010, they travelled together on the deceased’s scooter to the Appellant’s house after visiting a tea stall. The deceased’s body was found, on 17.09.2010, in the courtyard of the Appellant’s residence. Not only was it admitted by the Appellant regards the handing of the body and cleaning the bloodstains of the deceased from the floor using Phenyle under his father’s fear, the weapon used also belonged to the Apellant’s father. No ballistic report or forensic matching of fingerprints was produced. PW-9, the doctor who conducted the post mortem, in her statement had mentioned that she was unsure whether the incident was homicidal or accidental.
STATUES INVOLVED
Section 302, IPC- murder
Section 201, IPC- causing disappearance of evidence
Section 5, read with Section 25 (1)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959- possession and usage of fire arm without license
Section 8 of the Evidence Act, 1872- motive, preparation and conduct
Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872- discovery of facts pursuant to information from accused
ISSUES INVOLVED
- Whether the death of the deceased was homicidal or incidental?
- Whether there was any motive for the Appellant, A1 for committing the murder?
- Whether the circumstantial evidence formed a complete chain pointing exclusively to the guilt of the Appellant?
- Whether Section 8 of the Evidence Act justified reliance on the Appellant’s post-incident conduct?
JUDGMENTS REFFERED
- Anwar Ali and Another v State of Himachal Pradesh1: the motive may be considered as a circumstance which is relevant for assessing the evidence but if the evidence is clear and unambiguous and the circumstances prove the guilt of the accused, the same is not weakened even if the motive is not a very strong one.
- Shivaji Chintappa Patil v State of Maharashtra2: though in case of direct evidence, motive would not be relevant in case of circumstantial evidence, motive plays an important link to complete the chain of circumstances.
- Nandu Singh v State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chattisgarh)3: In a case based on substantive evidence, motive assumes great significance. It is not as if motive alone becomes the crucial link in the case to be established by the prosecution and in its absence the case of prosecution must be discarded. But, at the same time, complete absence of motive assumes a different complexion and such absence definitely weighs in favour of the accused.
RATIO DECIDENDI
- The conviction under Section 302 and Arms Act was set aside as the prosecution failed to conclusively prove who fired the shot. The bullet trajectory and medical opinion supported the possibility of accidental death. The prosecution’s reliance on the Appellant’s post-incident behavior could not substitute for missing foundational facts including ballistic proof or a clear motive.
- The Hon’ble Court held that merely proving that the death occurred due to a bullet from the Appellant’s father’s pistol was insufficient unless the prosecution could definitively show who fired it.
- The Hon’ble Court held that without forensic or ballistic evidence and in the face of an inconclusive medical testimony, the prosecution’s theory of murder was legally unsustainable.
- Motive being a critical link in circumstantial cases, its complete absence weakened weakened the prosecution’s case.
- The subsequent conduct of cleaning up the scene and restoring the living room in its original shape, although punishable in law, does not become so unnatural that it could be made the basis to convict him for the commission of murder without additional evidence to that effect.
OBITER DICTUM
- The Hon’ble Apex Court held that in circumstantial evidence cases, each link must be established beyond reasonable doubt and must point only to the guilt of accused.
- Absence of motive, in a purely circumstantial case, significantly benefits the accused.
- Suspicion, no matter how grave, cannot substitute legal proof.
- The burden of proof never shifts to the accused unless the prosecution proves guilt first.
DECISION
- Conviction under section 302 and section 5 read with 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959 was set aside.
- Conviction under Section 201 IPC (disappearance of evidence) was upheld.
- Appellant acquitted of murder, and the sentence was reduced to the period already undergone for Section 201 IPC.
JUDGMENT TITLED: VAIBHAV V THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
CASE NUMBER: SLP (CRL) NO. 1643 OF 2012
JUDGMENT DATED: 04.06.2025
QUORUM: B.V. NAGARATHNA, J. AND SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.