13 February 2025 Acquittal >> Criminal Law  

In a recent judgment of Vinod Kumar Vs State Govt of NCT of Delhi, the Supreme Court of India overturned the conviction of an individual accused of murder, citing significant flaws in the prosecution's circumstantial evidence. The appellant, initially convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment, was acquitted due to inconsistencies and omissions in the testimony of key witnesses.

The case revolved around the death of Dharminder, whose body was found with his hands tied and a rope around his neck. The prosecution's case rested heavily on circumstantial evidence, attempting to link the appellant, a neighbor of the deceased, to the crime. Five key circumstances were presented by the prosecution: the "last seen" theory, evasive replies given by the appellant, the proximity of the time of death to the deceased leaving his residence, the appellant's subsequent absconding, and the recovery of blood-stained clothing.

The court, however, found significant weaknesses in the prosecution's narrative. The testimony of the deceased's mother (PW-3), a crucial witness in the "last seen" theory, was riddled with inconsistencies, improvements, omissions, and contradictions. Key details about the appellant and deceased leaving together, as well as the appellant's alleged evasive answers about the deceased's whereabouts, were either omitted from her initial statements to the police or contradicted by her later testimony. The court emphasized that these omissions were so vital that they cast serious doubt on her credibility. Furthermore, the deceased's father (PW-1), who was presented as another witness to these events, admitted to being asleep at the time and his subsequent testimony was deemed hearsay.

The Supreme Court highlighted that the "last seen" theory, a cornerstone of the prosecution's case, could not be established beyond a reasonable doubt due to the unreliable testimony of PW-3 and the lack of direct evidence from PW-1. Similarly, the court found that the allegation of the appellant providing evasive replies was also unsubstantiated.

The judgment underscored the importance of establishing a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances in cases based on circumstantial evidence. When such crucial links are missing or weakened, the court cannot sustain a conviction. In this case, the failure to reliably establish the "last seen" theory and the appellant's alleged evasive replies severely weakened the prosecution's case.

The Supreme Court also took the opportunity to address a procedural irregularity observed in the trial court. The practice of reproducing portions of prior statements used to contradict witnesses within the deposition itself was criticized. The court reiterated the established legal procedure: such portions must be marked for identification but cannot be included in the deposition unless formally proven through the investigating officer.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The conviction and sentence were quashed, and the appellant was acquitted. This case serves as a reminder of the stringent standards of proof required in criminal cases, particularly those relying on circumstantial evidence, and the importance of credible and consistent witness testimony.

  Section 302., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

  Indian Penal Code, 1860