Bombay High Court
Manohar Ketkar, Presently Lodged In ... vs State Of Goa, (As Rep. By The Officer In ... on 14 November, 2025
2025:BHC-GOA:2202-DB
2025:BHC-GOA:2202-DB
CRIA 18-2025
Jose/Vinita
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.18 OF 2025
Shri. Manohar Ketkar,
Son of Laximan Ketkar, 55 years of age,
Labour/Cook, Indian National and resident
of H.No. 608-A, Aronda, Bazarwadi,
Sawantwadi, M.S. Native of
Varchidhatwadi, Kasi,
Dodamarg, Maharashtra. ... Appellant
Versus
1. State of Goa
(As represented by the Officer In
charge/Police Inspector, Bicholim Police
Station)
Bicholim, Goa)
2. The Public Prosecutor
High Court Building
Alto-Betim, Porvorim, Goa ...Respondents
Mr. Pravin C. Naik with Mr. Sanket Mahambre, Mr. Aditya
Tanksali, Ms. Namrata Shirodkar and Mr. Roland Fernandes,
Advocates for the Appellant.
Mr. Shailendra Bhobe, Public Prosecutor for the State.
CORAM: VALMIKI MENEZES &
SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.
Page 1 of 57
th
14 November, 2025
::: Uploaded on - 14/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 14/11/2025 23:00:23 :::
CRIA 18-2025
Reserved on: 10th September 2025
Pronounced on: 14th November 2025.
JUDGMENT (Per Shreeram V. Shirsat, J.):
1. Registry to waive office objections and register the matter.
2. The Appeal is filed challenging the conviction of the
Appellant vide Judgment and Order dated 17/08/2024 and
22/08/2024 in Sessions Case No.29/2014 passed by the Court
of the Additional Sessions Judge, at Mapusa, wherein the
Appellant was convicted under Section 302 of The Indian Penal
Code, 1860 and was sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for life and was directed to pay fine of
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) and in default of
payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of
2 months.
3. Brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:-
a. That on 19/11/2013, a complaint was filed by Mr. Manoj
Manohar Ketkar to the effect that on 18/11/2013 at
about 14:30 hrs., Accused/Appellant Manohar Ketkar
th
14 November, 2025
CRIA 18-2025
committed murder of his wife Manisha Manohar Ketkar
(Mother of the Complainant) over suspect of her
character.
b. That upon receipt of such information, Bicholim Police
Station registered Crime No. 203/2013 at 1:30 hrs.
under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. That
in pursuance of the said complaint, a search in Ladfem
area near Nestle Factory was conducted by the Police
Inspector Mr. Neenad Deulkar and during the said
search at about a distance of around 300 to 350 meters
approximately a shed was noticed wherein a dead body
was seen lying. As it was night time, the scene of offence
was not disturbed and the same was preserved and
guarded by deploying police constables to guard the
scene.
c. Further on 19/11/2013 at 08:00hrs, Police Inspector
Neenad Deulkar along with staff of Bicholim Police
Station left for investigation. The Police Inspector then
secured presence of two Panchas namely Mr. Mohan
Chandrakant Gaonkar and Mr. Vishram Yeshwant
Gawade and photographer namely Srinivasan R. Naik
th
14 November, 2025
CRIA 18-2025
and conducted panchanama of scene of offence in the
property of Mr. Savoikar at Kulan, Ladfem, Bicholim-
Goa. During the scene of offence panchanama, certain
incriminating articles were seized which were attached
and marked. That the dead body of the deceased was
seen in the said property in a structure built with laterite
stones and partly with asbestos sheets. The said dead
body was then removed and identified by the
Complainant Mr. Manoj Ketkar to be of his mother
namely Mrs. Manisha Manohar Ketkar (Wife of the
Appellant). After concluding the scene of offence
panchanama in the presence of the same pancha
witnesses, inquest Panchanama was conducted.
d. That during the inquest Panchanama the Investigating
Officer observed that the chin of the deceased was tied
with the white cloth and with the cotton thread. Some
jute thread was seen tied around the neck of the
deceased, and both the hands of the deceased were tied
with the jute thread at the back.
e. That on 20/11/2013, Dr. Pannag S. Kumar, Assistant
Lecturer, Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, Goa
th
14 November, 2025
CRIA 18-2025
Medical College, Bambolim-Goa, conducted post
mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased
Mrs. Manisha Manohar Ketkar and vide Autopsy
Report No. 1071/2013 dated 20/11/2013 certified that
the cause of death is due to "Asphyxia as a result of
strangulation by ligature vide injury No.1 which was
ante mortem and fresh at the time of death and
necessarily fatal". The necessary exhibits and viscera
were also collected and preserved, so also sample of
blood of the deceased was collected and sent to Medical
Officer on duty of Blood Bank, GMC, Bambolim. Dr.
Clare S. D'Mello of Blood Bank, GMC Bambolim,
conducted blood grouping test in respect of blood
sample of deceased which was forwarded by the Police
Surgeon in sealed condition with the seal of the Forensic
Medicine, GMC Bambolim and certified that the blood
of the deceased was Hemolysed.
f. That on 22/11/2013, A.S.I Rama P.N. Gaonkar in the
presence of two pancha witnesses namely Mr. Vishant
Hari Tari and Vishnu Yeshwant Gawas conducted
attachment panchanama in respect of the
th
14 November, 2025
CRIA 18-2025
clothes/belongings of the deceased Mrs. Manisha
Manohar Ketkar which were found on her body at the
time of conducting Post mortem examination.
g. That on 11/01/2014, the Investigating Officer received
specific and reliable information with respect to
Accused/Appellant being found moving in Margao area
and accordingly, the Appellant was arrested in the
present crime on 12/01/2014 at 1:00 hrs. The arrest
panchanama was drawn in the presence of two pancha
witnesses, namely Mr. Atish Shriram Shetye and Mr.
Sarvesh Balkrishna Naik and incriminating articles
were attached.
4. That, on conclusion of the investigation, the Charge sheet
came to be filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First
Class at Bicholim, which was committed to the Court of Sessions
at Panaji. Thereafter charge was framed and the trial
commenced.
5. In order to establish the case against the Appellant, the
Prosecution examined 21 witnesses in total which are as under:-
th
14 November, 2025
CRIA 18-2025
SR. WITNESS NAME DEPOSITION
NO.
01 PW1 Mr. Manoj This witness was
Manohar Ketkar
examined by the
(Complainant)
prosecution being the
complainant who set
the crime into motion
and to prove Extra
Judicial Confession
made by the
Appellant.
02 PW2 Mr. Ashok Ketkar This witness is the
brother of the
Appellant.
03 PW3 Mr. Devdatta This witness was
Kamat
examined by the
prosecution to prove
that the Accused and
the deceased had a
strained relationship
between them.
04 PW4 Sagar Wadkar This witness was
examined by the
prosecution to prove
Extra Judicial
Confession of the
Accused in the present
th
14 November, 2025
CRIA 18-2025
case.
05 PW5 Mr. Atrish Shetye This witness was
(Panch Witness)
examined by the
prosecution to prove
the arrest of the
Accused.
06 PW6 Dr. Pannag S. This witness was
Kumar (Forensic
examined by the
evidence/Medical
Evidence) prosecution to prove
the nature of injuries
inflicted on the
deceased and to
further certify the
same to be the cause of
death.
07 PW7 Mr. Jagannath This witness was
Korgaonkar
examined by the
(Independent
Witness) prosecution to prove
the circumstance of
the Accused being
dropped by the said
witness on his
motorcycle at
Dodamarg.
08 PW8 Ratnakar This witness was
Salgaonkar
examined by the
(Independent
Witness) prosecution to prove
th
14 November, 2025
CRIA 18-2025
the circumstance that
the Accused was
dropped by the said
witness on his
motorcycle to Pernem.
09 PW9 Mr. Nishikant This witness was
Sukelkar
examined by the
(Independent
Witness) prosecution to prove
the Extra Judicial
Confession made by
the Accused to the
said witness over
phone call.
10 PW10 Mr. Gokul This witness was
Rambhau Rasal
examined by the
(Nodal Officer)
prosecution to prove
the CDR details of
phone bearing no.
9403273929 and to
further prove that
there was call made
from mobile No.
8805737891 to
9403273929.
11 PW11 Sulbha Naik This witness was
(Independent
examined by the
Witness)
prosecution to prove
th
14 November, 2025
CRIA 18-2025
the circumstance that
the Accused had come
to the canteen of the
said witness asking for
work.
12 PW12 Mahadev Manohar This witness is the
Ketkar
elder son of the
Appellant and was
examined by the
prosecution to prove
the circumstance that
the phone bearing No.
8805737891 was used
by the Accused.
13 PW13 Nagesh Mahale This witness was
examined by the
prosecution to prove
the circumstance that
the Accused on
23/12/2013 had
approached him for a
job and to further
prove that the
Accused was working
from 23/12/2013 till
08/01/2024 and to
prove that the
th
14 November, 2025
CRIA 18-2025
Accused was wearing
black pants and light
pink colour half
sleeves shirt with
stripes on
08/01/2024.
14 PW14 Francis Pereira This witness was
(Nodal Officer)
examined by the
prosecution to prove
the CDR details of
mobile phone bearing
No. 91587011039
15 PW15 Dattaram Angre This witness was
(Nodal Officer)
examined by the
prosecution to prove
the CDR details of
Mobile No 880573789
16 PW16 Vilas Salgaonkar This witness was
(Independent
examined by the
Witness)
prosecution to prove
the circumstance that
the Accused had come
in the month of
January 2014 to the
bar and restaurant of
the said witness from
where the Bicholim
th
14 November, 2025
CRIA 18-2025
Police, in January
2014, had arrested the
Accused and to
further prove that the
Accused at the time of
his arrest was wearing
a black long pants and
pink colour half
sleeves shirt with
strips.
17 PW17 Deepali Ketkar This witness was
examined by the
prosecution to prove
the circumstance that
the said witness called
Manisha (Deceased)
on the day of incident.
18 PW18 Ninad Deulkar The Investigating
Officer
19 PW19 Mamta Ketkar This witness was
examined by the
prosecution, to prove
the circumstance that
the deceased was
residing at Shiroda
alone on rent, and
further was at the
th
14 November, 2025
CRIA 18-2025
house of the
uncle/brother of the
Accused at Dodamarg.
20 PW20 Shri. Surendra This witness was
Kerkar
examined by the
(Police Witness)
prosecution to prove
that the said witness
had guarded the scene
of offence from
19/11/2013 from 3.00
am till around 1.00-
4.30 p.m.
21 PW21 Shri. Shrinivas This witness was
Naik
examined by the
(Photographer)
prosecution to prove
the genuineness of the
photographs that were
clicked by the said
witness at the scene of
offence.
6. On completion of prosecution evidence, statement of
Appellant under Section 313 Cr. P.C. was recorded, wherein the
Appellant denied the case of prosecution and further stated that
he was falsely implicated in the case and further was granted an
th
14 November, 2025
CRIA 18-2025
opportunity to lead any defence evidence, if so desired. That the
Appellant chose not to lead any defence. Upon hearing the
Appellant and the prosecution, the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, North Goa at Mapusa, was pleased to hold the Appellant
guilty as charged, and sentenced him as stated herein above.
7. Heard, Ld. Counsel Mr. Naik for the Appellant and the Ld.
Public Prosecutor Mr. S. G Bhobe for the State.
8. The death of the deceased is homicidal in nature and was
caused on account of asphyxia due to strangulation. Once the
death is homicidal death, the burden lies on the prosecution to
prove that the death was on account of the act committed by the
Accused with the intention and knowledge that this act would
cause the death of the deceased which would amount to offence
of murder. There is no direct evidence or any eye witness to the
said incident in question, but the case is based on circumstantial
evidence.
9. Before adverting to the circumstances, it will be pertinent
to refer to the ruling of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Abdul Nassar Vs State of Kerala and another as reported
in 2025 SCC Online SC 111 wherein it has been observed that:-
th
14 November, 2025
CRIA 18-2025
"14. Indisputably, the prosecution case rests on
circumstantial evidence. The law with regard to a
case based purely on circumstantial evidence has
very well been crystalized in the judgment of this
Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda
(supra), wherein this Court held thus:
"152. Before discussing the cases relied upon by
the High Court we would like to cite a few
decisions on the nature, character and essential
proof required in a criminal case which rests on
circumstantial evidence alone. The most
fundamental and basic decision of this Court is
Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(1952) 2
SCC 71 : AIR 1952 SC 343 : 1952 SCR 1091 : 1953
Cri LJ 129].
This case has been uniformly followed and applied
by this Court in a large number of later decisions
up to date, for instance, the cases of Tufail
(Alias)Simmi v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(1969) 3
SCC 198 : 1970 SCC (Cri) 55] and Ramgopal v.
State of Maharashtra [(1972) 4 SCC 625 : AIR
1972 SC 656]. It may be useful to extract what
Mahajan, J. has laid down in Hanumant case
[(1952) 2 SCC 71 : AIR 1952 SC 343 : 1952 SCR 1091
: 1953 Cri LJ 129]: "It is well to remember that in
cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial
nature, the circumstances from which the
th
14 November, 2025
CRIA 18-2025
conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the
first instance be fully established, and all the facts
so established should be consistent only with the
hypothesis of the guilt of the Accused. Again, the
circumstances should be of a conclusive nature
and tendency, and they should be such as to
exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to
be proved. In other words, there must be a chain
of evidence so far complete as not to leave any
reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent
with the innocence of the Accused and it must be
such as to show that within all human probability
the act must have been done by the Accused."
10. Therefore, where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature
or where the case is based on circumstantial evidence, the
circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn
should in the first instance be fully established and all the facts
so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of
the guilt of the Accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a
conclusive nature and they should be such as to exclude every
hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words,
there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave
any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the
innocence of the Accused and it must be such as to show that
th
14 November, 2025
CRIA 18-2025
within all human probability the act must have been done by the
Accused. It will therefore have to be seen from the evidence that
has come on record whether the circumstances from which the
conclusion of guilt is to be drawn is fully established and all the
facts so established are consistent only with the hypothesis of the
guilt of the Accused.
11. As stated above, in this case, there is no direct evidence and
the case is entirely based on circumstantial evidence. That the
trial Court has taken into consideration the following
circumstances to establish a complete chain viz (1) the Accused
and victim were together on the night prior to the murder; (2)
the victim/deceased informed the family that the Accused had
called her to Bicholim to arrange a job for her and that
accordingly she left home to go to meet the Accused; (3) the
mobile phone used by the victim was 9158701039; (4) that the
Accused was using mobile no. 8805737891; (5) call made by
Deepali Ketkar / PW17; (6) phone call made to the victim by PW1
and phone received by the Appellant at that point of time; (7)
extra judicial confession of the Accused to PW1 on phone that he
killed mother of PW1; (8) extra judicial confession to PW8 by the
Accused on phone; 9) extra judicial confession to PW4 by the
th
14 November, 2025
CRIA 18-2025
Accused; (10) body of victim recovered subsequent to the
information given by the Accused to PW1 on phone; (11) death of
the victim due to strangulation; (12) motive; (13) phone of the
victim recovered from the possession of the Accused during
arrest panchanama; (14) clothes worn by the deceased; (15)
Accused absconding after the incident; (16) CDR of mobile no.
9158701039 (of victim).
12. The trial Court, based on the above circumstances, has
come to a conclusion that prosecution has been successful in
proving the entire chain of circumstances beyond reasonable
doubt which points out to the guilt of the Accused and which
leaves no doubt that the Accused was the perpetrator of the
offence and killed his wife.
13. It will therefore have to be seen as to whether from the
facts of the case, the chain of evidence is so complete as not to
leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the
innocence of the Accused and it must be such as to show that
within all human probability the act must have been done by the
Accused.
14. The first circumstance taken into consideration is that the
th
14 November, 2025
CRIA 18-2025
Accused and victim were together on the night prior to the
murder. As far as first circumstance is concerned that the
Accused and victim were together on the night prior to the
murder; even if it is considered to be proved, the same will not
be of much consequence in establishing the complete chain as it
cannot be equated with the theory of last seen together before
the incident in question, which is otherwise considered as
important link in the chain of circumstances, in cases based on
circumstantial evidence. It has come in the evidence of PW1,
PW2, that on 17/11/2013, the Appellant had come to the house
of the PW2 at Kasai, Dodamarg and in the evening they all had
dinner and thereafter the Appellant and the deceased were
talking to each other. Even if this evidence is taken into
consideration, it does not take the case of the prosecution any
further or establish an important link in the chain of
circumstances. At the most it establishes that previous night they
were together but evidence that has come on record is that on the
next day the Appellant left in the morning and the deceased has
left subsequently and therefore this circumstance as a part of
chain cannot be said to be pivotal. Neither PW1 nor PW2 say
that the deceased and the Appellant left together in the morning.
th
14 November, 2025
CRIA 18-2025
15. The second circumstance which the trial Court has taken
into consideration, that the victim informed the family that the
Accused had called her to Bicholim to arrange a job for her and
that accordingly she left home to go to meet the Accused, also
cannot be considered as an important link in chain of
circumstances. PW1 in his evidence has stated that, "On the next
day in the morning i.e. on 18.11.2013 my father left the house at
6.30 am and I also left home at about 7.00 am. Before I left the
house my mother told me that the Accused had called her at
Bicholim at 10.00 am and told me that the Accused had assured
her that he will look for work for himself and for my mother"
PW2 in his evidence has stated that, "On 17.11.2013, the Accused
left my house in the early morning. Manisha got up thereafter
had bath and she told me that she had received phone call from
the Accused that he had called her at Bicholim as he has found
work". Although PW1 and PW2 are informed by the deceased
that she was called by the Appellant to Bicholim to arrange a job
for her and accordingly she left home to go to meet the Accused
also does not conclusively prove that she had indeed gone to the
place called by the Appellant in the absence of cogent evidence
to that effect. In the evidence of PW1 and PW2, it is seen that the
th
14 November, 2025
CRIA 18-2025
deceased has not given any specific address where she was
called. Saying that she was called to Bicholim does not unerringly
point out that she was called at a particular place much less at
the place of offence. It is also not the case of any of the witnesses,
that both of them left together in the morning on 18/11/2003.
Therefore, the observation of the trial Court that prosecution has
proved that the Accused and the deceased were together on the
previous day of the murder and it was the Accused who called
the deceased to Bicholim on the pretext that he had seen a job
for her and hence this circumstance also stands proved, in our
opinion, does not appear to be correct. In fact, the trial Court has
observed in this context that the evidence of PW1 and PW2 is
hearsay in this respect. Once the trial Court has come to the
conclusion that the evidence is hearsay then it cannot be said to
be a vital circumstance in the chain of circumstances.
16. In the case of Karakkattu Muhammed Basheer Vs
State of Kerala, (2024) 10 SCC 813, it has been held at as
under:-
"27. The last seen theory, furthermore, comes into
play where the time-gap between the point of time
when the accused and the deceased were last seen
th
14 November, 2025
CRIA 18-2025
alive and the deceased is found dead is so small that
possibility of any person other than the accused
being the author of the crime becomes impossible.
Even in such a case the courts should look for some
corroboration."
17. In the present case, there is no witness who has stated that
the Appellant and the deceased were last seen together. Just
because the deceased had informed the other witnesses that the
Appellant had called her to Bicholim under the pretext of giving
work, by itself cannot be said to be conclusively proving that she
had indeed gone to Bicholim. There is always a possibility that
the deceased could have encountered some other persons
enroute.
18. Another circumstance taken into consideration is the Extra
Judicial Confession of the Accused to PW1 on phone that he
killed mother of PW1. The law on the subject is well crystalized.
In the latest judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Ramu Appa Mahapatar vs State of Maharashtra,
reported in (2025)3 SCC 565 it has been held that:-
"19. Evidentiary value of an extra-judicial
confession was again examined in detail by this
Court in Sahadevan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu. That
th
14 November, 2025
CRIA 18-2025
was also a case where conviction was based on
extra-judicial confession. This Court held that in a
case based on circumstantial evidence, the onus lies
upon the prosecution to prove the complete chain of
events which shall undoubtedly point towards the
guilt of the Accused. That apart, in a case of
circumstantial evidence where the prosecution
relies upon an extra-judicial confession, the court
has to examine the same with a greater degree of
care and caution. An extra-judicial confession, if
voluntary and true and made in a fit state of mind
can be relied upon by the court. However, the
confession will have to be proved like any other
fact. The value of the evidence as to confession like
any other evidence depends upon the veracity of the
witness to whom it has been made.
19.1. This Court acknowledged that extra-judicial
confession is a weak piece of evidence. Wherever
the court intends to base a conviction on an extra-
judicial confession, it must ensure that the same
inspires confidence and is corroborated by other
prosecution evidence. If the extra-judicial
confession suffers from material discrepancies or
inherent improbabilities and does not appear to be
cogent, such evidence should not be considered.
This Court held as follows:-
14. It is a settled principle of criminal
th
14 November, 2025
CRIA 18-2025
jurisprudence that extra-judicial confession is a
weak piece of evidence. Wherever the court, upon
due appreciation of the entire prosecution evidence,
intends to base a conviction on an extra-judicial
confession, it must ensure that the same inspires
confidence and is corroborated by other
prosecution evidence. If, however, the extra-
judicial confession suffers from material
discrepancies or inherent improbabilities and does
not appear to be cogent as per the prosecution
version, it may be difficult for the court to base a
conviction on such a confession. In such
circumstances, the court would be fully justified in
ruling such evidence out of consideration
19.2. Upon an in depth analysis of judicial
precedents, this Court in Sahadevan (supra)
summed up the principles which would make an
extra-judicial confession an admissible piece of
evidence capable of forming the basis of conviction
of an Accused: (i) The extra-judicial confession is a
weak evidence by itself. It has to be examined by the
court with greater care and caution. (ii) It should
be made voluntarily and should be truthful. (iii) It
should inspire confidence. (iv) An extra-judicial
confession attains greater credibility and
evidentiary value if it is supported by a chain of
cogent circumstances and is further corroborated
by other prosecution evidence. (v) For an extra-
th
14 November, 2025
CRIA 18-2025
judicial confession to be the basis of conviction, it
should not suffer from any material discrepancies
and inherent improbabilities. (vi) Such statement
essentially has to be proved like any other fact and
in accordance with law."
19. In the present case, the Extra Judicial Confession made to
PW1 cannot be said to be cogently established. The story spun by
PW1 that the extra judicial confession was made to him by the
Accused itself does not inspire confidence for the reason that the
version of the PW1 gets negated by the evidence of CDRs & tower
locations. It is the case of PW1 that at 6:30 p.m. he called on the
mobile phone of his mother on 9158701039 from his number i.e.
from 7507286052; however, if the call logs are perused, there are
no calls made at that point of time. Therefore, the very fulcrum
of the case that when the call was made at 6:30 p.m., the
Accused-Appellant made Extra Judicial Confession does not get
cogently established. The Hon'ble Apex Court has in several
rulings stated that Extra-judicial confession is a very weak type
of evidence and requires appreciation with great caution and
especially in a case based on circumstantial evidence where the
reliance is placed on extra-judicial confession.
th
14 November, 2025
CRIA 18-2025
20. Another circumstance taken into consideration is the extra
judicial confession to PW4 by the Appellant. As far as PW4 is
concerned, according to prosecution, he is another witness to
whom the Appellant has made Extra Judicial Confession and
who has informed about the same to the police after a period of
10 days. Further upon analysing the evidence of PW4, we are of
the opinion that evidence of the PW4, at the threshold, deserves
to be taken with a pinch of salt. The Investigating Agency
appears to have planted the witness to establish corroboration to
the statement of PW1. In the first place, although according to
him, the Extra Judicial Confession is made by the Appellant, the
said PW4 does not reveal it to any person for a period of 10 days
and out of the blue, on 28/11/2013, he narrates it to the police.
This evidence, on the face of it seems to be an afterthought. In
fact, this witness was sitting in the Police Station on the day of
the incident from 9:30 p.m., but astonishingly holds himself
back from narrating the Extra Judicial Confession made by the
Appellant. The said witness also does not disclose or share such
a crucial piece of information with PW2, Subash Vijay Ketkar
and Kashiram Ketkar who were present on 18/11/2013 at 9:30
p.m. The delay in reporting the incident, the conduct of the
th
14 November, 2025
CRIA 18-2025
witness in not sharing it with anyone for a period of 10 days,
raises a doubt over the veracity of the Extra Judicial Confession
made to PW4 and therefore the same deserves to discarded from
consideration.
21. To bolster the submissions, the Ld. Advocate for the
Appellant has relied upon the judgment of Ganpat Kondiba
Chavan Vs State of Maharashtra reported Law Finder
Doc Id# 116850 also reported in 1997(2) Crimes 38 to
emphasize upon delay in disclosing the statement. The relevant
portion is quoted herein below. It has been held thus:-
"11. The Apex Court in number of case has
concluded that the conduct of a witness in not
disclosing the incident to persons whom he must
have met after the incident, is indicative of the fact
that he had not seen the incident. In this connection
we would like to refer to the decision of the Apex
Court reported in Shivaji Dayanu Patil Vs State of
Maharashtra, AIR 1989 Supreme Court 1762;
wherein the wife who had seen the murder of her
husband did not disclose the incident for two days
to anyone and on this score the Apex court did not
believe her evidence. In paragraph 11 of the said
judgment it has been observed thus:
th
14 November, 2025
CRIA 18-2025
"A wife, who has seen an assailant giving fatal
blows with a stick to her husband would name the
assailant to all present and to the police at an
earliest opportunity."
12. We would also like to emphasise that the
Supreme Court held that the circumstance of
inordinate delay in recording the statement of an
eye witness under Section 161 Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973 is a pointer to the fact that he has not
seen the incident. It is a trite that the investigating
officer in a murder case immediately after the FIR
has been registered seeks to discover as to who are
the persons who have seen the incident and
thereafter embarks upon the job of interrogating
them under Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code."
22. Further in the examination in chief, the said witness PW4
has deposed that at around 6:30 p.m., Accused (Appellant) came
to Syntica Bar (which is at Pernem) where he met and informed
that he had killed his wife and that the words uttered were "Apun
apalya baylek marle ani he bhag sabot". He goes to the extent
of saying that the Appellant showed him the Mangalsutra and
said that this is the proof. The said witness also specifically says
that he had two mobile phones. This evidence of PW4 gets
demolished by prima facie going through the tower locations of
th
14 November, 2025
CRIA 18-2025
the phone of the Appellant. From the bare perusal of the tower
locations, it can be seen that on 18/11/2013, the tower location
has been constant and the same has continued till 06/11/2013.
Therefore, even the story of this witness that he visited Pernem,
considering the distance between two places vis-à-vis the tower
location, the story crumbles like a pack of cards. The prosecution
in order to establish the circumstance that the Appellant had
travelled to Dodamarg on motorcycle has examined PW7.
However, the said evidence also does not inspire confidence as
the same gets falsified by tower location wherein if the tower
locations are perused it can be seen that the Accused/Appellant
has not moved adequately from the said place. The same can be
relevant also with respect to the examination of PW8 wherein
the prosecution has sought to examine him to establish a
circumstance that in the month of November 2013, PW8 who
was a motorcycle rider, was requested by the Appellant to drop
him to Pernem market. Although the witness has deposed about
dropping of Appellant either to Dodamarg or Pernem Market,
the same gets falsified by the fact that the tower location depicts
a different scene altogether. The scientific analysis of the tower
locations was very crucial in this case which the Investigating
th
14 November, 2025
CRIA 18-2025
Agency has not pursued with the seriousness it deserved. The
evidence of the nodal officers of the mobile phone companies do
not scientifically prove the tower locations.
23. The next circumstance taken into consideration is that the
body of victim was recovered subsequent to the information
given by the Accused to PW1 on phone. Assuming for the sake of
arguments that the body is recovered upon the information given
by the Appellant however that fact may be relevant to the extent
of discovery but that does not un-erringly prove that the
Appellant is the perpetrator of the crime or that he is the person
who has committed the murder especially in the absence of any
material of last seen together or any material with respect to
finger prints, foot prints, absence of any tower location to show
that the Appellant and the deceased were at the same spot at the
time of the incident. Even assuming that the body of the
deceased is recovered subsequent to the information given by the
Accused, that itself will not be a conclusive proof or a link to
establish that the Appellant must have committed the murder of
his wife.
24. The next circumstance that the death of the victim was due
th
14 November, 2025
CRIA 18-2025
to strangulation cannot be disputed but the same cannot be a
circumstance to nail the Accused in the absence of other material
to connect the Appellant with the crime.
25. The next circumstance considered by the trial Court as one
of the chains in the circumstance is with regard to motive for the
murder of the deceased by the Accused. The Appellant has relied
upon the judgment of Ramanand @Nandial Bharti Vs
State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2022 AIR Supreme
Court 5273 wherein it has been observed that:-
"90. Thus, even if it is believed that the Appellant-
Accused had a motive to commit the crime, the
same may be an important circumstance in a case
based on circumstantial evidence but cannot take
the place as a conclusive proof that the person
concerned was the author of the crime. One could
even say that the presence of motive in the facts
and circumstances of the case creates a strong
suspicion against the Appellant-Accused but
suspicion, howsoever strong, cannot be a
substitute for proof of the guilt of the Accused
beyond reasonable doubt."
26. It has been observed by the trial Court that it is the case of
the prosecution that the relationship between the Accused and
th
14 November, 2025
CRIA 18-2025
the deceased was strained which can be seen from the deposition
of all the witnesses. The trial Court further recorded that
evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW19 would show that the
relationship between the deceased and Accused, being husband
and wife, was strained as the Accused doubted the fidelity of his
wife. Although, it has been deposed that the Appellant used to
doubt the fidelity of his wife who is deceased, nothing has been
brought on record to show that because of this reason there was
a quarrel between the Appellant and the deceased any time
before the Appellant and deceased left the house. On the
contrary it has come on record in the deposition of PW1 that the
Appellant had come to stay at Kasai, Dodamarg house in the
evening and they all had dinner and after other family members
went to sleep, the Appellant was awake along with his mother
and they were talking to each other. It is also stated in the cross
examination of PW2 that he did not hear any quarrel between
the Accused and the victim i.e. Appellant and the deceased on
17/11/2013 when they were in the house. PW2 also goes to the
extent of saying that he did not personally hear the Accused
asking the victim to come to Bicholim on 18/11/2013. To
establish motive there should be cogent and convincing evidence
th
14 November, 2025
CRIA 18-2025
which can be said to be in proximity with the happening of the
event. In the present case, motive suggested that the Appellant
was suspecting the fidelity and therefore has committed offence
do not seem to inspire confidence especially in view of the fact
that there was no quarrel heard by any of the witnesses on the
previous day. None of the witnesses also say that when the
deceased had been informed that she had been called to
Bicholim by the Appellant, there was any friction on the previous
night. Therefore, in the absence of any proximate circumstance,
it is difficult to accept that the fidelity of his wife was the motive.
27. The next circumstance taken into consideration is that the
Accused was absconding after the incident. This circumstance
itself cannot be taken into consideration to establish the guilt of
the Appellant. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SK Yusuf
v State of West Bengal reported in (2011) 11 SCC 754, has
held thus:-
"Both the courts below have considered the
circumstance of abscondance of the Appellant as a
circumstance on the basis of which an adverse
inference could be drawn against him. It is a settled
legal proposition that in case a person is
absconding after commission of offence of which he
th
14 November, 2025
CRIA 18-2025
may not even be the author, such a circumstance
alone may not be enough to draw an adverse
inference against him as it would go against the
doctrine of innocence. It is quite possible that he
may be running away merely being suspected, out
of fear of police arrest and harassment. (Vide:
Matru @ Girish Chandra v. The State of U.P., AIR
1971 SC 1050; Paramjeet Singh @ Pamma v.State
of Uttarakhand AIR 2011 SC 200; and Rabindra
Kumar Pal @ Dara Singh v. Republic of India,
(2011) 2 SCC 490) Thus, in view of the law referred
to hereinabove, mere abscondance of the Appellant
cannot be taken as a circumstance which give rise
to draw an adverse inference against him."
28. In the latest judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Chetan Vs State of Karnataka reported in 2025 SCC
Online SC 1262 it is held thus:-
"10.9.2 It is trite that mere absconding by itself does
not constitute a guilty mind as even an innocent
man may feel panicky and may seek to evade the
police when wrongly suspected of being
involvement as an instinct of self-preservation. But
the act of abscondence is certainly a relevant piece
of evidence to be considered along with other
evidence and is a conduct under Section 8 of the
Evidence Act, 1872, which points to his guilty mind.
th
14 November, 2025
CRIA 18-2025
The needle of suspicion gets strengthened by the act
[See : Matru @ Girish Chandra v. State of Uttar
Pradesh, (1971) 2 SCC 75]."
29. No doubt the Hon'ble Apex Court in the latest judgment
has said that abscondence could be a relevant factor to be
considered along with other evidences and is a conduct under
Section 8 of the Evidence Act which points to his guilty mind and
that the needle of suspicion gets strengthened by the act. In the
present case it is a fact that the Appellant was absconding,
however in absence of other material connecting the Appellant
with the crime, this factor of abscondence in isolation, without
other cogent material cannot be taken as a circumstance which
will give rise to draw an adverse inference against the Appellant.
30. The next circumstance taken into consideration is that two
phones were found in the possession of the Accused-Appellant
at the time of his arrest. Even if it is held that the said fact is
proved after taking into consideration evidence of PW5, in our
opinion even this factor cannot be held to be conclusively
proving that the author of the crime is the Appellant in absence
of other material connecting the Appellant to the said crime.
th
14 November, 2025
CRIA 18-2025
31. The next circumstance about the mobile numbers
belonging to the Accused and the deceased and its tower location
is also not established with credible evidence. Although the
PW18, i.e. the Investigating Officer, narrates his interpretation
about the tower locations, however admits that he had not
sought any information from Idea Cellular Company or the
Vodafone company to substantiate his statement made
voluntarily. The Investigating Officer has given his own version
as to what was tower location. The said witness also refuses to
answer the specific question put to him. An excerpt from his
cross examination is reproduced herein below:-
"I say that after lodging of the complaint I tried to
track on mobile no. of the deceased and the
Accused. I personally tried to track the mobile no.
of the deceased and the Accused from the date of
lodging complaint. I say that both the mobiles i.e of
the deceased and the Accused were switched off
when I tried to track it on 19.11.2013. We do not
have any investigating agency who can trace the
mobile tracking when the mobiles are switched off.
I do not remember when was the first time I found
the mobile nos of the deceased and the Accused in
the active mode. Now I say that I personally did not
monitor both the mobile phones but the monitoring
th
14 November, 2025
CRIA 18-2025
agency is the call monitoring centre at Porvorim. It
is not true to suggest that my above statement is
false. Now I say that the call monitoring centre at
Porvorim works under the instructions of SP, North
and we have to correspond with the SP, North and
thereafter the SP Office contacts the call monitoring
centre. It is not true to suggest that my above
statement is false.
Q: Did you make specific letter to the SP, North
through whom call monitoring centre at Porvorim
operates to find out the live location of the mobile
numbers of the deceased and the Accused?
A: No. I say that there is nothing called as live
location and the tower location is the last location
as per the CDR. It is not true to suggest that my
above answer is false.
To the question that whether I had asked for tower
location of all the mobiles to which I sought
information, I say that I had asked for CDR, SDR,
Dump, IMEI No. and CAF No. I say that according
to me reflects the tower location. I add and say that
the CDR reflects the first cell ID and the last cell ID.
I say that I did not ask for the tower location of all
the mobile phones for which I had sought
information. It is true that being an investigating
officer I was required to find out the exact location
of the mobiles on the date of the incident i.e. on
19.11.2013. It is true that I have not specifically
th
14 November, 2025
CRIA 18-2025
asked for the place where the cell IDs of the
numbers shown in the CDR were located."
"It is true that in the CDR with respect to Vodafone
mobile no. 9158701039 at exhibit 90 (1) at serial no.
31 to 37, belonging to the deceased the cell ID is
constantly changing. It is true that in the CDR with
respect to Idea Cellular Ltd. mobile no. 8805737891
which is of the Accused at Exbt 100 (1 to 2) the cell
ID of sr. no. 6 and 7 is seen changing location. I
voluntarily add and say that there is such a change
in the cell ID and the hand set catches the tower
having the highest frequency of network. It is not
true to suggest that my above statement is false. I
say that I do not have any record to substantiate
my above statement but it is a standard practice
with respect to the tower location. It is true that I
have not sought any information from the Idea
Cellular Company or the Vodafone company to
substantiate my voluntary statement.
"It is true that there is no DNA found of the Accused
on any of the incriminating article that I have
attached in the present crime as evidence against
the Accused. It is true that the place of offence is a
remote and rural place. It is true that the distance
between 2 mobile towers in the rural area would be
approximately at the distance of around 2 to 5
kmts.
Q: Since the mobile of Accused was of idea
th
14 November, 2025
CRIA 18-2025
company and that of the deceased was of Vodafone
company, did you gather any information from
Vodafone company or idea company or any other
service providers to find out the distance between
the two alleged towers of Vodafone and idea
company at which according to you the alleged
offence took place?
A: I say that the CDR produced on record covers
the details in terms of cell ID. I add and say that the
cellular company gives us the data on the CD which
is available at Porvorim Call Monitoring Centre. It
is true that the investigation records produced
before this Court, there is no details regarding the
distance between two towers of Idea and Vodafone
Company. I voluntarily add and say that the details
will be available with Porvorim Call Monitoring
Centre.
It is not true to suggest that my above statement is
false as no such information was sought by me
from Call Monitoring Centre.
Q: According to your investigation you have asked
for the information regarding SDR, CDR and IMEI
tracing, DUMP and CAF of the mobiles of deceased
and the Accused and not regarding the distance
between two towers of Idea and Vodafone
Company where the alleged offence is said to have
committed, what do you have to say?
A: Yes"
th
14 November, 2025
CRIA 18-2025
32. Therefore, in absence of any authentic, credible material or
information from reliable and legitimate source, the
interpretation of the Investigating Officer about tower locations
deserves no merit. The said witness has not even taken the
trouble of getting reliable information about the distance
between two towers of Idea and Vodafone Company where the
offence is said to have been committed. The distance between
two tower locations would have been very vital to establish the
circumstance about location of the Appellant and the deceased.
33. The circumstances viz phone call made to the victim by
PW1 and the phone received by the Appellant at that point of
time and subsequently phone of the victim recovered from the
possession of the Appellant at the time of arrest by itself is not
sufficient to lead to an unerring conclusion that in all
probabilities the Appellant must be the perpetrator of the crime
in question.
34. It appears that the investigation is done in a slipshod and
in a very perfunctory manner. Further the Investigating Officer
has not taken trouble of recording of statements of those persons
to whom the phones actually belong. The phone number
th
14 November, 2025
CRIA 18-2025
7507286052 of the Accused belongs to one Rohtas Singh as
deposed by PW15 (Nodal Officer of Vodafone), and statement of
said Rohtas Singh has not been recorded. There is no material to
show that the actual owners of the phone numbers had permitted
to use their mobile phones. Further, in the absence of any
conversation on record, it is difficult to believe that the Appellant
has made any Extra Judicial Confession to PW1. In fact, even the
phone of PW1 belongs to one Sanjay Morajkar. In effect, no
palpable connection is established between the said mobile
numbers. In the absence of such a tangible link, the CDRs and
contents thereof are practically useless in establishing the
prosecution case. No doubt it has been established that, as per
deposition of PW2, the phone number 9158701039 which was
used by the deceased was given to her by PW2 and so also that
the phone number used by the Appellant was 8805737891 which
was given by his elder son PW12 Mahadev Ketkar, however that
PW1 and PW12 were permitted by their actual owners has not
been conclusively established. The trial Court has refused to
accept it by observing that if the Accused was not using the
mobile number he could have very well stated so in his statement
under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. recorded by the Court which fact
th
14 November, 2025
CRIA 18-2025
was within his knowledge. However, if statement under Section
313 is perused, no specific question is put to the Appellant to
which he could have answered. Inability of the Appellant to
explain certain circumstances could not be made the basis to
relieve the prosecution from discharging its primary burden.
35. The Ld. Counsel for the Appellant has relied upon the
judgment of Rajesh v. State of M.P., (2023) 15 SCC 521,
wherein it is held thus:-
"The proverbial last nails in the coffin of the
prosecution's case, if at all needed, are the
shocking lapses and the slipshod investigation on
the part of the police. It is on record that when the
investigating officer (PW16) undertook the first
search of Om Prakash Yadav's house under Ext. P-
37 Panchnama, nothing was found. However, a
later search with the aid of Brijesh Yadav led to
the seizure of two mobile phones from a trunk in
one of the rooms of Om Prakash Yadav's house. As
to why these phones were not found during the
first search is not explained. That apart, Shaival
alias Bambam (PW9), a witness to the seizure of
the phones, claimed that there were no SIM cards
in the mobiles but candidly admitted that they did
not open the mobiles and look inside. He said that
they did not try to operate the mobiles or see the
th
14 November, 2025
CRIA 18-2025
numbers inside and that both the phones were
turned off. The self-contradictory deposition of
this witness does not aid the dubious investigative
process adopted by the police. As regards the call
data and the ransom calls, we may note that
Santosh Jadhav, Assistant Nodal Officer, Reliance
Communication, was examined as PW17 and
spoke of the call data of mobile number
8305620342 from which the ransom calls were
made. According to him, the SIM card with the
said mobile number was given to one Bhuraji, son
of Deepu, whose address was House No. 433,
Sanjay Gandhi Ward, Tehsil Jabalpur. He
produced Bhuraji's "Customer Application Form"
along with his attached Election ID card. These
documents were marked as Ext. D-6. The call data
of 28-3-2013 showed that this SIM card was used
on the mobile handset with IMEI No.
358327028551270. He marked in evidence Ext. P-
35 in that regard. Therefore, the mobile number
from which ransom calls were made was in the
name of one Bhuraji, s/o Deepu, and his address
was available. However, the police did not even
attempt to contact Bhuraji or examine him to find
out how and why his SIM card was used for
making the ransom calls. Even more startling is
the fact that, though PW17 placed on record actual
proof of the allotment of this mobile number to
th
14 November, 2025
CRIA 18-2025
Bhuraji (Ext. D-6), no such steps were taken by the
police to establish the link between Om Prakash
Yadav and mobile number 9993135127, which
was attributed to him. PW15 baldly stated that the
said mobile number was allotted to Om Prakash
Yadav but did not mark in evidence any document
in proof thereof. Surprisingly, he had stated in his
deposition that he had brought the certified copy
of the application form and the ID used when this
SIM card was allotted to the subscriber, Om
Prakash Yadav, but the same were not marked. In
effect, no palpable connection is established
between the said mobile number and Om Prakash
Yadav. In the absence of such a tangible link, the
call data report (Ext. P-31) and the contents
thereof are practically useless in establishing the
prosecution's case that the ransom calls were
made from Om Prakash Yadav's mobile phone
handset by inserting Bhuraji's SIM card, with
mobile number 8305620342, therein."
36. At this stage the conduct of PW1 also needs to be taken into
consideration. From the CDRs, it can be seen that PW1 is in
constant contact with the Appellant for a period of 8 days, which
fact he refuses to divulge to the police. Even during the recording
of FIR at 1:30 a.m. on 19/11/2013, the PW1 is in contact over
th
14 November, 2025
CRIA 18-2025
phone with the Appellant who was absconding. If the tower
locations are seen, of which the Investigating Officer/
Prosecution has failed to lead scientific evidence, it is constant
for approximately 8 days without any variations. PW1 could have
given the whereabouts/location of the Appellant but for the
reasons best known, though he registers FIR against his father
i.e. the Appellant but does not cooperate with the police to
apprehend the killer of his mother. The entire approach of the
PW1 seems to hoodwink and mislead the Investigating Agency
and therefore does not inspire confidence to place reliance on the
Extra Judicial Confession.
37. The evidence of PW2 also does not lead the case of the
prosecution any further. There is no witness to say that the
deceased was found at the place of offence with the Appellant.
However, just to establish that the victim had gone upon being
called by the Appellant, the PW2 has tried to answer in the cross
examination that Deepali, who is his daughter, had told him that
the victim was with the Accused/Appellant. This fact he does not
remember whether he had informed the police and therefore, the
said witness cannot be believed on this count. It is further stated
by the said witness that victim had informed him that she has
th
14 November, 2025
CRIA 18-2025
received a call from the Accused and he had called her at
Bicholim as he had found work. However, in the cross-
examination the said witness says that he does not recollect that
the victim had informed him that Accused had called her in
connection with some work at Bicholim. He further changes his
stand to say that Accused had informed the victim on the
previous night when he had come to his house about the said
work, but he did not personally hear the Accused asking the
victim to come to Bicholim on 18th November 2013, therefore,
this witness is of no vital importance to establish, as claimed,
that the victim had gone to Bicholim to meet the Appellant.
38. The next circumstance which is taken into consideration is
that the dead body was recovered as per the information given to
the PW1 over phone by the Appellant. The said recovery cannot
be said to be a recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
The PW1 informs the police that the Accused had informed him.
We have already observed above that the evidence of the PW1
cannot be believed for many reasons which are referred above
for instance the PW1 states that he spoke to his father i.e. the
Appellant at 6:30 p.m. but the CDRs do not support this aspect
as there are no calls made at that time and it does not get
th
14 November, 2025
CRIA 18-2025
established. PW1 for the reasons best known does not disclose
the whereabouts of the Appellant with whom he is in contact over
phone for a period of 8 days and even at the time of registration
of the FIR and therefore we find PW1 cannot be said to be
completely believable.
39. It will be apposite to refer to the judgment of Ramanand
@Nandial Bharti Vs State of Uttar Pradesh reported in
2022 AIR Supreme Court 5273, wherein it has been
observed that:-
"116 Thus, none of the pieces of evidence relied on
as incriminating by the courts below, can be
treated as incriminating pieces of circumstantial
evidence against the Accused. Realities or truth
apart, the fundamental and basic presumption in
the administration of criminal law and justice
delivery system is the innocence of the alleged
Accused and till the charges are proved beyond
reasonable doubt on the basis of clear, cogent,
credible or unimpeachable evidence, the question of
indicting or punishing an Accused does not arise,
merely carried away by heinous nature of the
crime or the gruesome manner in which it was
found to have been committed. Though the offence
is gruesome and revolts the human conscience but
th
14 November, 2025
CRIA 18-2025
an Accused can be convicted only on legal evidence
and if only a chain of circumstantial evidence has
been so forged as to rule out the possibility of any
other reasonable hypothesis excepting the guilt of
the Accused. In Shankarlal Gyarasilal (supra), this
Court cautioned "human nature is too willing,
when faced with brutal crimes, to spin stories out
of strong suspicions". This Court has held time and
again that between "may be true" and "must be
true" there is a long distance to travel which must
be covered by clear, cogent and unimpeachable
evidence by the prosecution before an Accused is
condemned a convict."
40. In the case of Karakkattu Muhammed Basheer Vs
State of Kerala, (supra) it has been held:-
"14. This Court in Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy
v. State of A.P. [Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy
v. State of A.P., (2006) 10 SCC 172 : (2006) 3 SCC
(Cri) 512] while referring to the various earlier
judgments which have been passed by this Court
from time to time, summarised key principles
which act as a guide for the courts to come to a
conclusion with regard to the guilt of an accused in
cases which are solely dependent on the
circumstantial evidence. The same have been
referred to as the "panchsheel principles" and are
th
14 November, 2025
CRIA 18-2025
discussed in paras 26 to 28 of the said judgment,
which read as follows : (SCC p. 181)
"26. It is now well settled that with a view to base a
conviction on circumstantial evidence, the
prosecution must establish all the pieces of
incriminating circumstances by reliable and
clinching evidence and the circumstances so proved
must form such a chain of events as would permit
no conclusion other than one of guilt of the accused.
The circumstances cannot be on any other
hypothesis. It is also well settled that suspicion,
however grave it may be, cannot be a substitute for
a proof and the courts shall take utmost precaution
in finding an accused guilty only on the basis of the
circumstantial evidence. (See Anil Kumar Singh v.
State of Bihar [Anil Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar,
(2003) 9 SCC 67 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1167] and Reddy
Sampath Kumar v. State of A.P. [Reddy Sampath
Kumar v. State of A.P., (2005) 7 SCC 603 : 2005
SCC (Cri) 1710] )
"17. Even in the case of a conviction where in an
appeal the chain of evidence is found to be not
complete or the courts could reach to any another
hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused, the
accused person must be given the benefit of doubt
which obviously would lead to his acquittal.
th
14 November, 2025
CRIA 18-2025
Meaning thereby, when there is a missing link, a
finding of guilt cannot be recorded."
41. In the case of Vaibhav Vs The State of Maharashtra,
reported in 2025 INSC 800, in paragraphs no. 21, 24,25, 27
and 28 have held as under:-
"24. In the subsequent decision in Shivaji
Chintappa Patil v. State of Maharashtra
(2021) 5 SCC 626, this Court relied upon the
decision in Anwar Ali and observed as under:-
"27. Though in a case of direct evidence, motive
would not be relevant, in a case of circumstantial
evidence, motive plays an important link to
complete the chain of circumstances. The
motive......"
More recently, in Nandu Singh v. State of
Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh (Criminal
Appeal No.285 of 2022), the position was
reiterated by this Court in the following words:
"10. In a case based on substantial 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
th
14 November, 2025
CRIA 18-2025
weighs in favour of the accused."
"25. Thus, a complete absence of motive, although
not conclusive, is a relevant factor which weighs in
favour of the accused. No doubt, the final effect of
such absence on the outcome of the case shall
depend upon the quality and weight of surrounding
evidence. 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. Even the
father of the deceased has testified to that effect.
The relevance of motive in a case of homicide has
been a subject of prolonged discussion. Ordinarily,
in cases involving direct evidence of the
commission of crime, motive has little role to play
as presence or absence of motive is immaterial if
the commission of the crime stands proved through
other evidence. Even otherwise, motiveless crimes
are not unknown to the society. However, in cases
purely based on circumstantial evidence, the
absence of motive could raise serious questions and
might even render the chain of evidence as
doubtful. It is so because the presence of motive
does the job of explaining the circumstantial
evidence. For instance, in the facts of the present
case, any evidence of enmity between the appellant
and the deceased would have made suspicious the
act of the appellant of taking the deceased to his
th
14 November, 2025
CRIA 18-2025
home prior to his death. However, since the
evidence suggests that they were friends, the fact
that the appellant brought him home could not be
termed as per-se incriminating. Therefore, motive
explains the circumstances on record and enables
the Court to draw better inference in a case based
on circumstantial evidence.
"27. No doubt, the subsequent acts of cleaning up
the crime scene and making false enquiries amount
to disappearance of evidence and raise grave
suspicion against the appellant. However, mere
suspicion, no matter how grave, cannot take the
place of proof in a criminal trial. The suspicion
ought to have been substantiated by undeniable,
reliable, unequivocal, consistent and credible
circumstantial evidence, which does not leave the
probability of any other theory. In the present case,
the theory put across by the appellant is fairly
probable and is supported by medical evidence
including the examination of the bullet injury and
trajectory. Contrarily, the conclusion drawn by the
Courts below is not supported by medical evidence
and is not consistent with the bullet injury and
trajectory, as discussed above. We have come far
since our acknowledgement that in a case purely
based on circumstantial evidence, it must be
established that the chain of circumstances is
complete. Such chain must be consistent with the
th
14 November, 2025
CRIA 18-2025
conclusion of guilt only and must not support a
contrary finding. The rigid principles underlying
an examination based on circumstantial evidence
are based on the premise that the very act of
arriving at a finding of guilt on the basis of
inferences must be performed with great caution
and margin of error must be kept at a minimum.
Having said so, we may also observe that
naturally, there could be some inconsistencies in
the chain of circumstances in the natural course of
things and mere presence of inconsistencies does
not automatically demolish the case of the
prosecution. However, the prosecution must be
able to explain the inconsistencies to the
satisfaction of the Court. For, the ultimate test is the
judicial satisfaction of the Court. In the present
case, the counter probabilities and inconsistencies
in the chain of circumstances have not been
explained.
"28. Momentarily, even if it is believed that the view
taken by the Courts below is a possible view, it
ought to have been examined whether a reasonable
counter view was possible in the case. It is 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 a
counter possibility goes to the accused in such
th
14 November, 2025
CRIA 18-2025
cases."
42. In the case of Mohamed Sameer Khan Vs State
represented by Inspector of Police, 2025 INSC 1269, it
is held that:-
"24. 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. In the absence of any forensic evidence
when there is no eyewitness and the case is of
circumstantial evidence, benefit would go to the
Accused."
"26. The prosecution evidence raises doubts
regarding the involvement of the Accused. In the
judgment of this Court in Kali Ram v. State of
Himachal Pradesh (MANU/SC/0121/1973), it has
been held that in cases wherein the guilt of the
Accused is sought to be established by
circumstantial evidence, if two views are possible
on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to
the guilt of the Accused and the other to his
innocence, the view which is favourable to the
Accused should be adopted.
"27. In the present case, the prosecution has failed
to connect the Appellant to the offence through
th
14 November, 2025
CRIA 18-2025
medical or forensic evidence as 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."
"32. 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, leading
to other possible hypotheses as aforementioned.
Due to such missing links, a finding of guilt cannot
be recorded. The benefit of the doubt with regard to
this must flow to the Accused. In this light, the guilt
of the Accused has not been proved beyond
reasonable doubt and the impugned judgments
are, thus, liable to be set aside."
43. Taking into consideration the evidence that has been
brought on record, does not unerringly point towards the guilt of
the Accused/Appellant. No doubt it raises suspicion about the
involvement of the Appellant; however, it is a settled law that
suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take the place of
proof beyond a reasonable doubt and the Accused cannot be
convicted on the ground of suspicion, no matter how strong it is.
An Accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty
th
14 November, 2025
CRIA 18-2025
beyond reasonable doubt. The circumstances brought on record
also do not form a complete chain so as to lead to irresistible
conclusion about the involvement of the Appellant in the present
crime. Establishing one or two circumstances beyond reasonable
doubt is not sufficient to hold that the entire chain is complete
as the chain of circumstances must be so complete that it leads
to no other conclusion than the guilt of the Accused person,
which is not so in the present case. The degree of proof required
to hold him guilty beyond reasonable doubt, on the strength of
circumstantial evidence, is clearly not established. Due to the
missing links findings of guilt cannot be recorded and the benefit
of doubt must flow to the Appellant.
44. We are therefore satisfied that the prosecution has failed
to bring home the guilt of the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt
and the Appellant deserves to be acquitted.
45. As a result, we pass the following order:
i. The Appeal is allowed.
ii. The conviction and sentence of the Appellant under
Section 302 of Indian Penal Code recorded vide
impugned judgment and order dated 17/08/2024
th
14 November, 2025
CRIA 18-2025
and 22/08/2024 is quashed and set aside and the
Appellant is acquitted of all the charges he is charged
with.
iii. The Appellant is on bail. His bail bond stands
cancelled and sureties are discharged. Fine amount
paid by the Appellant be refunded to the Appellant
within a period of eight weeks from today.
SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J. VALMIKI MENEZES, J.
th
14 November, 2025
