Acquittal Where Chain of Circumstances Broke: SC Quashes 302 Conviction in 1995 Death

A bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan heard Criminal Appeal No. 2482 of 2014 contesting a conviction under Section 302 IPC arising from the death of Dharminder, and the confirmation of that conviction by the Delhi High Court. The appeal challenged the reliance on circumstantial evidence, the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and certain trial practices relied upon to impeach witness statements.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant on the ground that the prosecution had not proved a complete chain of circumstances necessary in cases resting on circumstantial evidence. The Court observed that several material circumstances found proved by the High Court were either not established or were vitiated by omissions and contradictions in testimony. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “When the prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. There must be a chain of circumstances so complete as not to leave any ground for any conclusion inconsistent with the innocence of the accused. In this case, two significant circumstances forming the chain have not been established.” The Court further criticised trial procedure in relation to use of prior statements, stating that “The correct procedure is that the Trial Judge should mark the portions of the prior statements used for contradicting the witness... The marked portions cannot form a part of the deposition unless the same are proved.”

Background

The dispute arose from the disappearance on 12 July 1995 of Dharminder, a neighbour of the appellant. The prosecution case was premised chiefly on circumstantial evidence. PW-3 (the mother) alleged that she last saw the deceased leave with the appellant at about noon; the parents made repeated enquiries thereafter; the body was discovered on 14 July 1995 on a terrace bathroom with a rope around the neck and hands tied. A First Information Report for murder was registered and the Sessions Court convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine; the Delhi High Court affirmed that conviction.

The High Court had treated a bundle of circumstances as proved: that PW-3 was “last seen” evidence of the appellant taking the deceased; that the appellant gave evasive replies to the parents’ enquiries; the proximity in time between disappearance and death; the appellant’s alleged abscondence after the FIR; recovery of blood-stained clothes at his instance; and unexplained injuries on the appellant. On appeal, the Supreme Court scrutinised the evidence and found fatal weaknesses. It recorded that PW-1 (father) was not an eyewitness to the last-seen event and his testimony contained hearsay; PW-3’s testimony contained omissions, improvements and contradictions, and parts were even rejected as hostile during trial. The Court concluded that two of the five circumstances relied upon by the High Court were not established beyond reasonable doubt, breaking the necessary chain of circumstantial proof.

The Court also pointed out improper trial practice where portions of prior statements shown to witnesses for contradiction had been reproduced in their depositions without being proved by the investigating officer; this, the Court said, was contrary to settled procedure and could not be permitted to substitute for admissible evidence.

Final result: the impugned judgments of conviction and sentence were quashed and set aside and the appellant was acquitted. The Court directed that bail bonds furnished by the appellant stand cancelled.

Case Details: Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 2482 of 2014 (2025 INSC 209) Case Title: Vinod Kumar … Appellant versus State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) … Respondent Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): [Not indicated in the judgment] For the Respondent(s): [Not indicated in the judgment]