Supreme Court upholds acquittal where prosecution evidence on motive, last‑seen and recoveries proved infirm

A Bench of Justices Sandeep Mehta and Joymalya Bagchi heard appeals filed by the State of Rajasthan challenging the Division Bench judgment of the Rajasthan High Court, which set aside convictions in a 2006 murder trial and acquitted three accused for lack of reliable evidence. The State sought reversal of the High Court’s order that had allowed criminal appeals under Section 374(2) CrPC by extending the accused the benefit of doubt.

The Court dismissed the appeals and affirmed the High Court’s acquittal, holding that the prosecution had failed to prove the alleged conspiracy or the accused’s complicity beyond reasonable doubt. The judgment noted that key strands of the prosecution case — motive, "last seen" evidence and recoveries — were not established by admissible and reliable material and that several incriminating items and electronic records were not proved as required by law. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “41. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope of interference by an appellate court for reversing the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial court in favour of the accused has to be exercised within the four corners of the following principles: 41.1. That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; 41.2. That the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; and 41.3. That no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record. 42. The appellate court, in order to interfere with the judgment of acquittal would have to record pertinent findings on the above factors if it is inclined to reverse the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial court.” The Court further recorded that there was “no evidence worth the name on the record of the case so as to connect” two of the accused with the murder and noted that the “recovery of chunni was concocted and planted.”

Background The prosecution alleged that Suresh Sharma was murdered on 22–23 January 2006 and that the three accused hatched a conspiracy, hired contract killers, strangled the deceased and abandoned his body on a roadside. The trial Court convicted the accused for offences including murder (Section 302 read with 120‑B IPC), unlawful assembly (Section 143) and evidence‑tampering (Section 201), and sentenced them to life and other terms. The High Court however allowed the appeals on 14 December 2011, recording insufficiency and patent infirmities in the prosecution case and acquitting the accused.

On appeal to the Supreme Court, the State challenged that acquittal. The Supreme Court re‑examined the evidence and endorsed the High Court’s findings. The Court highlighted significant defects: delay and inconsistency in testimony of key witnesses regarding the deceased being last seen near an accused’s house; absence of Forensic Science Laboratory opinion to link blood on a recovered chunni to the deceased; failure to produce call detail records and corresponding Section 65‑B certificates to prove alleged telephonic conversations; reliance on handwritten notes without examining the scribe; and lack of direct evidence of movement of the body in the recovered Maruti van. The Court held that isolated threats or disputed land litigation did not substitute for proof of conspiracy to murder. The Supreme Court relied upon and applied principles laid down in earlier authorities governing interference with acquittal, concluding that no two reasonable views were not possible on the record to warrant reversal. The appeals were dismissed and related impleadment application was also dismissed; no interim directions were issued.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 1166 (Criminal Appeal Nos. 1954–1956 of 2013) Case Title: State of Rajasthan v. Bhanwar Singh & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): [Not indicated in the judgment text] For the Respondent(s): [Not indicated in the judgment text]