Gaps In Investigation, Missing Witness Testimony Led To Doubt’: Supreme Court Acquits Man Accused Of Raping, Robbing And Killing 85-Year-Old Woman
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih set aside the conviction and sentence of a man accused of raping, robbing, and murdering an 85-year-old woman in Coimbatore. The Court held that the prosecution’s case, resting entirely on circumstantial evidence, did not conclusively prove the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It further observed that the failure to examine a key witness who was last seen with the accused created material gaps in the investigation and raised a serious possibility of false implication. Finding that the chain of evidence was incomplete and the recovery and forensic links doubtful, the Bench acquitted the accused of all charges and directed his release from custody.
The case arose from the death of an 85-year-old woman residing alone in Coimbatore, who was found strangulated in her home on the morning of 19 December 2016, with two gold bangles missing from her hands. A complaint was lodged by her daughter, and an FIR was registered at the Rathinapuri Police Station. Investigation led to the arrest of the accused, who had been staying in a nearby house. He was charged under Sections 302, 376, 394, and 449 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The prosecution’s case was entirely based on circumstantial evidence. It relied on the testimony of neighbours and other witnesses who stated that the accused was last seen near the deceased’s house and had been residing temporarily in the vicinity. The prosecution further claimed recovery of the deceased’s gold bangles from the accused during interrogation, allegedly seized in the presence of an independent witness. Forensic evidence was collected from the crime scene, and the post-mortem report confirmed death by asphyxiation due to compression of the neck with a towel and signs of sexual assault.
The defence contended that the accused was falsely implicated and that no direct or scientific evidence connected him to the offence. It was argued that the recovery was fabricated, the alleged confession was involuntary, and crucial witnesses—particularly one person who was last seen with the accused before the incident—were neither examined nor associated with the investigation. The defence maintained that the accused’s injuries were inflicted during police custody and not as claimed by the investigating officer. Both the trial court and the High Court convicted the accused, but the Supreme Court later reviewed whether the chain of circumstantial evidence was sufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The Bench observed that “there is no eyewitness to the alleged incident. This case, thus, is of circumstantial evidence.” Referring to established principles, the Court stated that “the chain of events needs to be so established that the court has no option but to come to one and only one conclusion i.e. the guilt of the accused person. If an iota of doubt creeps in…the benefit thereof should flow to the accused.”
Examining the prosecution’s material, the Court recorded that the alleged recovery of the gold bangles was doubtful, observing that “it appears to be unreasonable that the Appellant would be carrying the bangles with him at these odd hours i.e. 4:00 a.m., and that too, two days after the incident.” It added that “planting of the gold bangles upon the Appellant cannot be ruled out, casting serious doubt upon the alleged recovery.”
The Court stated that the testimony of a key witness, who claimed to have seen the accused leaving the compound, “has only established his proximity to the place, with him merely been seen coming out of the compound, and not specifically out of the house of the deceased.” It further recorded that the identity of the informant who allegedly tipped off the police about the accused’s presence was never disclosed, and “no Test Identification Parade had been carried out of the Appellant after his arrest.”
The Bench also noted “the non-recording of the statement of Marcus, who is the person who had been with the Appellant and had last seen him.” It stated that this omission “creates a doubt as he could be a suspect and in any case the person who would have indicated as to how long he and the Appellant were together.”
Regarding forensic evidence, the Court stated that “no blood, hair or skin sample, or fingerprint belonging to him has been found on the body of the deceased, the recovered articles, or at the place of occurrence.” The Bench reiterated that “merely because the medical evidence proves the unfortunate loss of life would not be enough to convict a person since he happened to be in the vicinity.”
The Court observed that “the prosecution has failed to bring forth reliable evidence forming a complete string of events…leading to the guilt of the Appellant. The chain of events being sought to be projected is laden with deficiencies creating significant gaps.”
The Court declared that “the present appeal is allowed.” It further ordered that “the impugned judgment passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 28.10.2021 and the judgment dated 17.11.2017 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Special Court for Bomb Blast Case, Coimbatore, convicting and sentencing the Appellant under Sections 302, 449, 376 and 394 of the Indian Penal Code are thereby set aside. The Appellant Mohamed Sameer Khan is acquitted of the charges and is ordered to be released forthwith from Central Prison Kovai, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, if not required in any other case.”
Case Title: Mohamed Sameer Khan v. State represented by Inspector of Police
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1269
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 2069 of 2024
Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih
