Accused Acquitted Where Circumstantial Case Collapsed After Key Witnesses Turned Hostile

A bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale heard the appeal against the High Court's confirmation of convictions under Sections 302, 364 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code in a murder and disappearance case arising from Nellore. The appellant, originally convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment and a concurrent seven years' rigorous imprisonment by the trial court, challenged the judgments confirming conviction and sentence.

The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction, holding that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The judges found that the case against Accused No.1 rested primarily on circumstantial evidence and on testimony from PW-5 and PW-6, both of whom had turned hostile at the trial and did not identify the accused as participating in the alleged abduction or killing. The Court noted that the prosecution had not established that the deceased was last seen in the company of the appellant and that there was no reliable evidence linking him to the offence. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, and keeping in mind the five golden principles which constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the commission of the offence at the hands of A-1." The Court further recorded that PW-5 and PW-6 "have not uttered a single word so as to prove the kidnapping" and emphasised that "there is no evidence to either prove the kidnapping of the deceased Bhoominadhan or that he was last seen in the company of A-1."

Background: The dispute arose after a series of incidents between the families of the deceased, an auto driver named Bhoominadhan, and the appellant, who was also involved in the auto business. On 22 March 2016 an initial complaint led to criminal proceedings between the parties; cross-FIRs were filed. On 27 March 2016 the father of the deceased lodged FIR No.118/2016 alleging that on 26 March the deceased was forcibly taken from his auto near a banyan tree in Talpagiri Colony and abducted. The next day the dead body of Bhoominadhan was found with multiple injuries near Sarvepalli Reservoir. The FIR was altered to include murder (Section 302 IPC).

Prosecution relied on eyewitness statements by PW-5 and PW-6 recorded under Section 161 CrPC and later under Section 164 CrPC, and on circumstantial inferences including alleged motive arising from prior animosity. At trial and before the High Court the appellant was found guilty and sentenced; the High Court confirmed the conviction on 19 June 2024. Before the Supreme Court, counsel for the appellant argued that there was no eye-witness who identified him committing the offence and that the case rested on an incomplete circumstantial chain, particularly since PW-5 and PW-6 turned hostile and did not support the prosecution's version about kidnapping or last-seen facts.

The State contended that motive and other circumstances supported the inference of guilt and that the accused had not offered an explanation for the deceased's disappearance after he was allegedly taken by them. The Supreme Court reviewed the oral testimony, the Section 164 statements, and the available evidence against the five well-known principles governing circumstantial cases. The Court found the prosecution evidence legally insufficient and concluded that both the trial court and the High Court had erred in convicting the appellant on a "complete misreading of the evidence." The appeal was allowed, the impugned judgments were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted and directed to be released forthwith if not detained in any other case. No precedent was expressly followed or overruled in the judgment; the Court applied established principles governing circumstantial evidence.

Case No.: 2025 INSC 1124 (Criminal Appeal No. 4623 of 2024) Case Title: THAMMINENI BHASKAR v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. K.K. Mani, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Ms. Prerna Singh, Advocate