21 March 2024 Acquittal >> Criminal Law   |   Evidence >> Criminal Law   |   Murder Homicide >> Criminal Law  

The Supreme Court of India overturned the convictions of two men accused of murder in a case that hinged on circumstantial evidence. Raghunatha and Manjunatha were initially found guilty by a trial court and sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of Ramu. The High Court lessened the sentence but did not acquit them.

The prosecution argued that the men murdered Ramu due to a business disagreement. However, the Supreme Court found the evidence insufficient to convict beyond a reasonable doubt.

Circumstantial Evidence Deemed Insufficient:

The prosecution's case relied on three main pieces of circumstantial evidence:

• Last Seen Theory: Witnesses claimed to have seen the appellants near the crime scene before the murder.
• Motive: The prosecution argued that a business disagreement between Raghunatha and the deceased provided motive for the crime.
• Recovery of Murder Weapon: A chopper, believed to be the murder weapon, was found near the crime scene.

The Supreme Court found the evidence unconvincing on all three points. The "last seen theory" was based on weak witness testimony that did not establish the deceased was definitively last seen with the appellants. The motive argument was deemed insufficient as the extent of the financial disagreement was unclear. Finally, the recovery of the weapon alone was not enough to connect the appellants to the crime.

Conclusion:

Due to the lack of solid evidence, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the appellants. The convictions from both the trial court and the High Court were overturned, and Raghunatha and Manjunatha were acquitted of all charges.