Painted guilty on ‘suspicion’: Bombay High Court sets aside man’s life term over 2016 murder

The 38-year-old was awarded a life sentence in the case along with one other accused, Subash Kengar, who also filed an appeal challenging the conviction but died during its pendency.

“In the absence of any cogent and convincing material being brought on record showing involvement of the present appellant, it will be hazardous to confirm the conviction of the appellant. Mere suspicion, however strong it may be, is not enough and cannot take the place of proof,” the April 7 order read.

The Bombay High Court noted that the victim’s mother was a witness who claimed that her son was last seen with the two accused and was later found dead.

A call, death and a decade-long ordeal

It was claimed by the mother of the victim that on May 26, 2016, the victim received a call from the accused, and later he went away with him at about 11 pm. The next day, he was reportedly found dead in a pool of blood at around 4 am.

The post-mortem disclosed that the death was due to a crush injury to the head, along with blunt trauma to the chest and abdomen.

Subsequently, the mother filed a complaint against the two accused, which led to the initiation of the investigation. Later, the accused and the others were arrested on May 27, 2016, and the matter went to the trial court.

The trial court, on December 18, 2019, convicted the two under Section 302 (murder) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs 5,000 and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order of conviction of 2019, the accused has approached the Bombay High Court by way of an appeal.

It was noted by the court that the co-accused had also preferred the appeal challenging the conviction, but he died during the pendency of the appeal.

‘No complete chain of evidence’

• There must be a chain of evidence 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, the Bombay High Court noted.
• It pointed out that motive can be an important circumstance in a case based on circumstantial evidence but cannot take the place as conclusive proof that the person concerned was the author of the crime.
• It further added that one could even say that the presence of motive in the facts and circumstances of the case creates a strong suspicion against the accused.
• However, the Bombay High Court also emphasised that no matter how strong the motive is, it cannot be a substitute for proof of the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
• It was placed on record that the accused and victim were last seen together at 11 pm, and the victim was found dead at around 3 am.

• Therefore, the court found that the time gap is also wide and the possibility of any third person intervening cannot be ruled out.
• 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.
• The Bombay High Court recorded that the man called the victim on his phone but said that this piece of evidence by itself is not sufficient to hold him guilty of the murder of the victim, especially in the absence of any other incriminating material.
• From the facts and evidence placed on record, none of the circumstances had been proved which could sustain the conviction of the appellant, the court found.
• The Bombay High Court quashed the order of the conviction and sentencing of the man, and released him from all charges.

Plea of the parties

Appearing for the accused, advocate Priyal G Sarda submitted before the Bombay High Court that there is no eyewitness and the case is based on circumstantial evidence. He further submitted that although the accused was last seen with the victim, it was nothing unusual, as they were known to each other.

He further submitted that no quarrel took place and, therefore, no ostensible motive was brought on record by the prosecution.

Assistant public prosecutor Sharmila S Kaushik, on the other hand, argued that the last seen theory is absolutely believable and there is nothing to disbelieve the said witnesses, who are the mother and the brother of the victim.