Suspicion Cannot Replace Proof In Criminal Trial | Supreme Court Acquits Man Of Murder As Prosecution Fails To Prove Who Pulled The Trigger
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma has partially set aside a conviction under Sections 302 IPC and Section 5 read with 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act, acquitting the appellant of murder charges while sustaining the conviction under Section 201 IPC. The Court concluded that the circumstantial evidence presented was not consistent with the sole hypothesis of guilt and that a reasonable counter-view supporting the theory of accidental death was possible. Accordingly, the appellant was acquitted of the charges of murder and illegal use of a firearm, with the sentence under Section 201 IPC limited to the period already undergone.
The incident involves two friends, Vaibhav and Mangesh, students of Bagla Homeopathy Medical College, Arvat, Chandrapur, Maharashtra. On September 16, 2010, the two left college together on Mangesh's scooter and were last seen together that afternoon at Vaibhav's residence. When Mangesh did not return home, his father, PW-1, lodged a missing person report. The following day, Mangesh’s dead body was discovered in the courtyard behind Vaibhav’s house, initiating a criminal case against unknown persons.
PW-1 later raised suspicion against Vaibhav, leading to a chargesheet alleging that Vaibhav had shot Mangesh using a service pistol belonging to his father, PW-12, a police officer. The Trial Court convicted Vaibhav under Sections 302, 201 read with 34 IPC, and Section 5 read with 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act. The co-accused Vishal was convicted under Section 201 read with 34 IPC but later acquitted by the High Court.
On appeal, the Bombay High Court upheld Vaibhav’s conviction, relying primarily on circumstantial evidence and the subsequent conduct of the accused. The High Court noted that the case lacked direct evidence and instead relied on testimonies establishing the presence of the deceased at the accused's house, the use of the father’s service pistol, and the accused’s behaviour following the incident.
Key materials forming the basis of conviction included:
- The service pistol with 30 rounds entrusted to PW-12.
- The admission by Vaibhav that Mangesh was last seen with him.
- Vaibhav’s telephone call to his father seeking keys to the rear door leading to an abandoned quarter.
- The discovery of the body behind Vaibhav's house.
- Vaibhav’s conduct of feigning concern, assisting in the search, and cleaning the crime scene.
The High Court held that Vaibhav's explanations were inconsistent, particularly concerning how the deceased could have accessed the pistol kept under a mattress in the bedroom. The High Court rejected the possibility of accidental death and concluded that the circumstances, though circumstantial, formed a complete chain pointing exclusively to the appellant's guilt.
Before the Supreme Court, the appellant challenged the conclusions, arguing that the trajectory of the bullet, as deposed by PW-9, and the lack of direct evidence warranted acquittal. The appellant asserted that the bullet entered through the eye and exited the lower skull before striking a ventilator placed at a height, supporting a theory of accidental discharge. The defence maintained that Mangesh accidentally triggered the pistol while inspecting it.
Further, the appellant contended that PW-9 could not conclusively determine the nature of death—whether homicidal or accidental. It was argued that the courts below erroneously dismissed this ambiguity and unfairly relied on the accused's inability to explain certain aspects.
The appellant also stated the absence of any motive, asserting that their relationship was friendly, and that in a circumstantial evidence case, the lack of motive was a crucial consideration. The defence insisted that the burden rested with the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, which, it argued, had not been discharged.
The Supreme Court stated, "The cause of death of the deceased is undisputed, as it is admitted that the deceased was shot by the service pistol belonging to PW-12, the father of the appellant." However, the Court observed that the prosecution failed to clarify the crucial question: "who pulled the trigger?"
The Court held that circumstantial evidence must be evaluated as a complete chain, stating, "the truth is found concealed in the layers of incriminating and exonerating facts, and the Court is required to arrive at a judicial finding on the basis of the best possible inference which could be drawn from a comprehensive analysis of the chain of circumstances."
Regarding bullet trajectory, the Court recorded: "after taking an exit from the lower skull, the bullet hit against a ventilator which was installed above the door of the living room... thereby meaning that the bullet travelled upwards after it left the skull of the deceased." It held the prosecution provided "no effort to prove the directions of entry or exit or to explain the inward or outward journey of the bullet."
It noted that the appellant's version was "that the deceased, on finding the service pistol of PW-12, got curious, picked it up, started looking into it with one eye from a close distance and accidentally pressed the trigger." The Court found this version "fairly probable" and more consistent with the trajectory than the prosecution's narrative.
On PW-9’s deposition, the Court observed: "PW-9 has deposed regarding the trajectory of the bullet... PW-9 had also annexed a diagram... which revealed that the bullet entered through the eye of the deceased and exited from the lower part of the skull from the back." The Court faulted the High Court for dismissing this crucial medical evidence.
On evidentiary burden, the Court recorded: "The inability of the appellant to explain certain aspects could not be made the basis to relieve the prosecution from discharging its primary burden." It further stated, "in criminal jurisprudence, it is a time-tested proposition that the primary burden falls upon the shoulders of the prosecution."
On motive, the Court stated: "There is no rule of law that the absence of motive would ipso facto dismember the chain of evidence... But a complete absence of motive is certainly a circumstance which may weigh in favour of the accused."
It added: "In the present case, the testimonies of prosecution witnesses have invariably revealed that the appellant and the deceased were friends and there was no ill-will between them." This, according to the Court, was not properly weighed by the courts below.
On subsequent conduct, the Court held: "That his act of removal of the dead body and concealment of articles was a result of fear of his father - is quite natural. A young boy... would certainly have become scared."
The Court stated: "Mere suspicion, no matter how grave, cannot take the place of proof in a criminal trial." It further stated: "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 Supreme Court stated: "We hereby conclude that the High Court has erred in arriving at the finding of guilt and in upholding the verdict of the Trial Court." It recorded that the circumstantial evidence "is not consistent and leaves a reasonable possibility of an alternate outcome i.e. of innocence of the appellant."
Accordingly, the Court ordered: "The impugned order and judgment are partially set aside to the extent of conviction of the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 302 IPC and Section 5 read with 25(1)(a) of Arms Act."
It directed: "The appellant is acquitted for the offences under Section 302 of IPC and Section 5 read with 25(1)(a) of Arms Act."
On the remaining conviction, the Court held: "His conviction under Section 201 IPC is sustained and he is sentenced for the period already undergone by him, for reasons discussed above."
It concluded: "The captioned appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Interim application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Satyajit A. Desai, Advocate; Mr. Siddharth Gautam, Advocate; Mr. Ananya Thapliyal, Advocate; Mr. Abhinav K. Mutyalwar, Advocate; Mr. Sachin Singh, Advocate; Mr. Pratik Kumar Singh, Advocate; Ms. Anagha S. Desai, Advocate-on-Record
For the Respondents: Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Advocate-on-Record; Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Advocate; Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Advocate; Mr. Bharat Bagla, Advocate; Mr. Sourav Singh, Advocate; Mr. Aditya Krishna, Advocate; Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Advocate
Case Title: Vaibhav v. State of Maharashtra
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 800
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 1643 of 2012
Bench: Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
[Read/Download order]
