Supreme Court Acquits Man Convicted of Matricide, Cites Medical Ambiguity and Flawed Circumstantial Chain

A bench of Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice K. Vinod Chandran heard the appeal by Nilesh Baburao Gitte challenging his conviction under Section 302 IPC for the alleged killing of his mother, and the confirmation of that conviction by the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench. The appeal required the Court to test whether the circumstantial case assembled by the prosecution could exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence and sustain a life sentence imposed by the trial court.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the convictions, holding that the prosecution had failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court found critical infirmities in the medical evidence, deficiencies in investigation and evidence of recoveries, and unreliable witness testimony that fractured the chain of circumstantial proof relied upon below. The Court emphasised the settled law governing circumstantial evidence and its exacting tests. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established: (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established... (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused... (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.” Applying these principles, the Court found the evidence deficient and acquitted the appellant.

Background

The prosecution case arose from events of 22–23 July 2010 at Talani village where the deceased, Sunanda (also known as Nanda Gitte), was found with injuries and a funeral pyre being prepared. Police and local officers intervened, removed the body from the pyre, conducted an inquest and a post‑mortem the same afternoon. The trial relied entirely on circumstantial evidence: medical opinion that death was "asphyxia due to strangulation", alleged discovery of incriminating articles and blood‑matching results from FSL, the appellant’s alleged proximity and subsequent conduct (including arranging cremation), and an asserted motive of property gain. The High Court had dismissed the appellant’s challenge and confirmed conviction and life sentence; a co‑accused had been acquitted by the High Court.

Before the Supreme Court, counsel for the appellant argued that the post‑mortem and doctor’s testimony admitted the possibility of hanging or self‑inflicted injury and that ligature marks were inconsistent with strangulation; that an old psychiatric certificate suggesting past schizophrenia had not been exhibited; that recoveries and panch testimony were unreliable and contradicted; and that FSL and blood evidence were inconclusive without DNA and were not put to the accused under Section 313 CrPC. The State relied on the medical evidence to posit homicidal asphyxia, the FSL report and motive, and invoked the principle that occupants or close associates must explain suspicious deaths.

The Court found substantial doubt on homicidal causation because the doctor (PW‑6) conceded absence of ligature mark at the back of the neck could not rule out hanging and that certain abrasions could arise in other circumstances. The Court noted apparent investigative lapses — failure to identify or examine the crowd present at the first attempted cremation, delay in recording key statements, contradictions in panch witness evidence, and the fact that the co‑accused was acquitted on the same material. Observing that the tests in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda were not satisfied, the Court concluded the circumstantial chain was not complete and allowed the appeal. The Court directed discharge of the appellant’s bail bonds: “The appellant is on bail. The bail bonds shall stand discharged.”

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 1191 (Criminal Appeal No.1471 of 2013) Case Title: Nilesh Baburao Gitte v. State of Maharashtra Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. K. Parmeshwar, Learned Senior Counsel; Mr. Dilip Annasaheb Taur, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Advocate for State of Maharashtra