“Suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot take the place of proof…” cautioned, the Supreme Court in its examination of a murder conviction resting solely on circumstantial evidence. A body discovered in a river, the accused last seen with the deceased, and a series of unanswered questions. But as the Court peeled back the layers of the prosecution’s case, deeper questions emerged: Was the evidence truly conclusive? In examining the fragile links in the prosecution's chain, the Court revisited key principles that define justice in criminal trials. The judgment that followed reaffirms a core principle of criminal law and challenges assumptions about what it means to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Brief Facts:
The appellant challenged the Orissa High Court’s judgment dated 15.04.2024, which upheld the appellant’s conviction under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Trial Court had sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine for murder, and two years' imprisonment with fine for causing disappearance of evidence.
The case relates to the death of Akash Garadia, who was last seen on 04.04.2016 with the appellant near a river and later in a cashew field. The next day, his body was found floating in the river. The deceased’s father lodged an FIR alleging murder.
The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, including “last seen together,” motive, and recovery of the weapon. The Trial Court convicted the appellant, and the High Court affirmed the verdict.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The appellant argued that there is no direct evidence linking him to the crime and that the chain of circumstantial evidence is incomplete. It was contended that key incriminating circumstances were not put to him during his examination under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The delay of 20 hours in lodging the FIR, inconclusive chemical examination, and inconsistencies regarding the location of the body’s recovery were also highlighted. Additionally, the appellant claimed that no motive for the crime was established.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The State submitted that both the Trial Court and High Court rightly convicted the appellant based on a thorough evaluation of evidence. It was argued that the “last seen together” theory, coupled with other incriminating circumstances, sufficiently proved the appellant’s guilt.
Observation of the Court:
The Court began its analysis by reaffirming the foundational principle that in cases relying on circumstantial evidence, “the prosecution is obliged to prove each circumstance, taken cumulatively to form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probabilities, crime was committed by the accused and none else.”
Citing Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984), the Court reiterated the five golden principles that must guide courts in such cases, including that the circumstances must be conclusive and consistent only with the guilt of the accused.
Upon evaluating the evidence on record, including the testimonies of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, and PW-13, the Court noted inconsistencies and deficiencies in the prosecution's case. Though witnesses testified that the appellant and the deceased were last seen together before the incident, the Court observed that the appellant neither attempted to flee nor made any incriminating admissions. Instead, he cooperated in the search efforts for the deceased, a fact which "suggests that he did not run away from the village nor admitted his guilt as probably he had nothing to hide."
The Court placed particular emphasis on the absence of any recovery of the alleged weapon at the appellant’s instance and the lack of any memorandum statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. It noted that although human blood was detected on the stone and the appellant’s shirt, the blood group was not matched, rendering the chemical examination report inconclusive.
Discussing the purported motive suggested during the trial, namely, suspicion of the appellant’s wife's infidelity, the Court found it to be speculative and unsubstantiated, particularly as it emerged for the first time during in-court testimony and was not corroborated by the deceased's father (PW-3), a close relative of the appellant.
Relying on its earlier decision in Kanhaiya Lal v. State of Rajasthan (2014), the Court reiterated:
“The circumstance of last seen together does not by itself and necessarily lead to the inference that it was the accused who committed the crime. There must be something more establishing connectivity between the accused and the crime.”
Further, in Rambraksh @ Jalim v. State of Chhattisgarh (2016), the Court had held:
“It is trite law that a conviction cannot be recorded against the accused merely on the ground that the accused was last seen with the deceased.”
In the present case, the Court concluded that except for the “last seen” circumstance, there was no other incriminating material linking the appellant to the crime. The prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of evidence pointing unerringly to the guilt of the accused.
Reiterating the principle laid down in Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam (2013), the Court warned against convicting an accused based on conjecture or suspicion:
“Suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot take the place of proof… In a criminal case, the court has a duty to ensure that mere conjectures or suspicion do not take the place of legal proof.”
The Court thus held that the circumstantial evidence on record, though raising suspicion, fell short of the threshold for conviction. It accordingly granted the appellant the benefit of doubt and set aside the conviction under Section 302 IPC.
The decision of the Court:
In view of the above discussion, the conviction and sentence imposed by the High Court and the Trial Court were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of the charges under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was directed to be set at liberty if not required in any other case.
Case Title: Padman Bibhar v. State Of Odisha
Case No: SLP(Crl.) No. 17440 OF 2024
Citation: 2025 Latest Caselaw 596 SC
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
Counsel of the Appellant: Adv. Manju Jetley
Counsel of the Respondent: Adv. Shovan Mishra
Read Judgment @ Latestlaws.com, click here
Picture Source :
