Bombay High Court Acquits Two Men Convicted for Murder, Finds Circumstantial Evidence Incomplete

A division bench of Justices Manish Pitale and Shreeram V. Shirsat heard appeals by two men against their convictions for offences under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 IPC, imposed by the Sessions Court for Greater Bombay on 12 January 2018. The appellants challenged life sentences and fines imposed after a trial based on circumstantial evidence arising from the discovery of a woman’s dead body near the Railway Claims Tribunal at P. D’Mello Road, Mumbai.

The High Court allowed both appeals and quashed the convictions and sentences, holding that the prosecution had failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court found that the “last seen together” circumstance, recoveries made at the instance of the accused and forensic findings did not form a complete chain of circumstances pointing exclusively to the appellants. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “Therefore, where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature or where the case is based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the Accused. Therefore, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, 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 bench observed that suspicion, however strong, could not substitute proof and that the benefit of doubt must go to the appellants.

Background The prosecution case stated that on 25 March 2016 a dead female body, about 55–60 years old, was found in a ditch near the Railway Tribunal compound. The police registered CR No. 74/2016 and arrested the two appellants on 27 March 2016. Trial proceeded on charges under Sections 302 and 201 r/w 34 IPC; the prosecution examined ten witnesses including the informant ASI Pandharinath Darade, the woman who first reported the body (PW-2 Rajashree Sharma), a “last-seen” witness (PW-3 Adesh Shejav), four panch witnesses to recoveries and the doctor who conducted post-mortem (PW-8). The Sessions Court convicted both accused and sentenced them to life imprisonment with fines.

On appeal, defence counsel argued false implication, gaps in the circumstantial chain, defects in the “last seen” evidence, and that recoveries made at the instance of the accused were tainted — some witnesses admitted the accused were handcuffed during disclosure. The State relied on PW-3’s account of seeing the appellants with the deceased late at night, the recoveries of bricks/stones and clothes reportedly bearing blood stains, and forensic tests indicating blood group ‘B’ on some items.

The High Court analysed each circumstance: it held the last-seen evidence was not conclusive because of a wide time-gap between the alleged last sighting (around midnight) and recovery of the body at 9 a.m., and because the place was of public access where intervention by others could not be excluded. The Court treated the recoveries with caution, noting discrepancies between panch witnesses, admissions that accused were handcuffed when statements were made, lack of testimony about sealing of recovered items at the spot, and that some forensic results were inconclusive or showed no blood on particular garments. The bench relied on Supreme Court and High Court authorities cautioning against treating last-seen circumstances as conclusive and on precedents holding that recoveries made when an accused was handcuffed raised doubts as to voluntariness. The Court concluded that the evidence raised suspicion but did not exclude every hypothesis of innocence; accordingly it allowed both appeals, quashed the convictions and directed that the appellants be released forthwith if not required in any other case. All pending applications stood disposed.

Case Details: Case No.: Criminal Appeal Nos. 629 of 2021 & 752 of 2022 Case Title: Mukesh Mahadev Musahar & Avinash Bhushan Pimpalkar @ Raju v. The State of Maharashtra Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Dattatray Solankar, Advocate; Mr. Prosper D'Souza, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Dr. Dhanlakshmi S. Krishnaiyer, Additional Public Prosecutor