Total summary
Appeal
The appellants are the accused persons challenging the judgment and order passed by the High Court which affirmed their conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Paragraphs 1-2].
Brief facts
The prosecution case stems from an incident where the deceased left his house on the morning of July 17, 2006, under the pretext of going to Ankleshwar to play volleyball with the accused, but failed to return, leading his family to search for him and subsequently discover that his body was found drowned in a river [Paragraph 1].
Lower courts verdicts
The Trial Court convicted both the accused under Sections 302, 34 and 201 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, sentencing them to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (along with a default sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment) under Section 302, and further substantive sentences of rigorous imprisonment of five years and two years with respective fines under Sections 120B and 201.
The High Court considered the matter on appeal and confirmed the judgment and conviction handed down by the Trial Court, upholding the findings regarding the guilt of the accused.
Arguments
The appellants argued that the prosecution’s case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence and a weak, uncorroborated extra-judicial confession which suffered from material contradictions and failed to complete an unbroken chain of circumstances pointing exclusively to their guilt, whereas the respondent state contended that the concurrent findings of the lower courts properly established guilt based on the last seen theory and the incriminating extra-judicial statement [Paragraphs 3-8].
Ratio
The Supreme Court established the principle that in cases resting solely on circumstantial evidence, the links in the chain must be established beyond reasonable doubt to point exclusively to the guilt of the accused, and a confession cannot form the sole basis of conviction and no fully corroborated by independent cogent evidence [Paragraphs 9-14].
Important paragraphs
Death cannot be concluded as homicidal
8. The first aspect to be examined is as to whether the death was homicidal. The post-mortem report is produced as Annexure A-2 and after the report of the chemical examination of viscera, there was a further report on 12.10.2006, produced as Annexure A-3. Both these reports clearly indicate the cause of death as ‘Cardio-Respiratory arrest due to Asphyxia due to drowning’. The post-mortem report also indicates that there were 3 injuries on the body: a contused lacerated wound on the frontal bone above the left eyebrow, abrasion between the left eye and left ear and an abrasion on the right mid clavicular region, reddish in colour. The wounds were not grievous and as the Doctor opined in cross-examination, the three injuries could be caused either when taking a bath in the river or when dragged in the flow of the water; on the body coming into contact with a hard substance like a stone with a sharp edge.
10. A reading of the post-mortem report, juxtaposed with the testimony of the Doctor who conducted the postmortem, PW-1, cannot lead to a finding that the death was homicidal. There is nothing to indicate that the victim was hit on the head, rendered unconscious and then drowned deliberately in the river, as the prosecution propounded before the Trial Court. The post-mortem report leans in favour of the defense version of an accidental drowning.
FIR was recorded 4 months after the recovery of dead body
12. As we noticed, there was gross delay in raising the allegations against the accused, who had admittedly accompanied the victim to the river for a bath and probably consumed alcohol. Even after the confession of the accused and recovery of the body, no allegations were levelled against the accused, till the date on which the FIS was recorded. As we saw, it was about 4 months later that an FIR was registered, which again was on the basis of the motive alleged.
Motive is not acceptable
13. Insofar as the motive is concerned; the deceased is said to have had a relationship with A-1’s sister; continued even after her marriage, which enraged A-1. A-2 is said to have had a quarrel a few days back with the deceased regarding a cricket match. But the motive alleged, by the brother did not obviously deter the family of the deceased from sending him with the accused, when he was taken away from his home in the early hours of 17.07.2006; the purpose of which was also asserted to participate in a volleyball game at Ankleshwar. The very conduct of the family members of the deceased, as coming out from the testimonies of PW-12 and PW-13, the brother and sister, indicates rather friendly relationship between the deceased and the accused.
PW18 and 19 did not recognise the accused in the dock while identification
17. PW-19 was managing a Pan Parlor from where the accused had purchased snacks before they went for soda to PW-18. PW-18 and PW-19 were asked to identify the accused in court, which they did. Obviously, PW-18 and PW-19 are not acquainted with the accused, in which event the identification in court, when the two accused were in the dock, cannot at all be reckoned. The prosecution does not have a case that a test identification parade was carried out after the arrest of the accused, especially since the specific allegation of murder is levelled after four months, with the story of a motive raised by the brother of the deceased.
PW8 did not incriminate the accused through they were seen together with the deceased
20. Again, the testimony of PW-8 does not inculpate the accused of the murder alleged, though, they were seen together. As stated by PW-12 and as discernible from the testimony of PW-8, the riverbank where the accused and the deceased were found drinking, was not a lonely spot and it was frequented by people. It is very unlikely that the accused would have chosen such a spot for the premeditated murder of their friend, especially in broad daylight. The testimony of PW-18 and PW-19 also does not incriminate the accused, and they could, at best, be alleged to have consumed alcohol and not returned a soda bottle.
Defence of the accused is that the deceased accidentally drowned and the post-mortem report did not suggest homicide
21. The motive, as we observed, was an afterthought. The last seen theory and the presence of the accused near the scene of occurrence is admitted by the accused and their defense is that the deceased accidentally drowned. As for homicidal death, there was nothing coming out from the post-mortem report and the testimony of the Doctor, PW-1, in proof of homicide. On the contrary the medical evidence tilts the scales towards an accidental drowning. The silence of the accused and their having not informed the family members of the deceased, cannot be an incriminating circumstance since that was a probable conduct, even if there was an accident of drowning. In fact, the specific testimony of PW-12 was that, though not initially, but later, the accused confessed to have fled in panic, on seeing the deceased drowning. The conduct of the accused having lied to PW-15 about having dropped her brother at 02:30 pm in a specific location, again does not incriminate the accused, given the defense.
Presumption of High Court on the conduct of accused that no person would go to a movie is rejected
22. Admission in the bail application, as relied on by the High Court, is a very difficult premise to accept. In this context, we also have to notice the High Court’s presumption that no person who saw his friend drowning would go to a movie or would take the trouble of bringing back empty soda bottles to the shop from where they purchased it. If such a presumption is accepted then it can be presumed that even after a premeditated murder, the accused would not conduct themselves in that manner. The human mind, as has often been held by this Court, is at the same time fickle, manipulative and imaginative and the actions, the result of a deprived or a foolish mindset, especially in the face of adversities, which cannot be predicted. The subsequent conduct on which the High Court found possible the prosecution story of murder rather than of drowning, in this case we are unable to accept. It is the hypothesis of an accidental drowning that looms large from the evidence led at the trial; more plausible than a homicide.
Conclusion
Hypothesis of innocence is crystal clear
23. None of the circumstances having been proved, we are inclined to find the probable and more possible version of the accused, that the deceased drowned accidentally. The accused are guilty of having fled from the spot and not having attempted to rescue the drowning person, by crying out for help. Their conduct of having gone for a movie after witnessing their friend drowning, though reprehensible, cannot be found to be an incriminating circumstance, to establish murder rather than drowning. The hypothesis of innocence is crystal clear, and circumstances indicate an accident and not a premeditated murder.
24. We find absolutely no reason to sustain the order of the Trial Court as confirmed by the High Court. We reverse both the orders and acquit the accused.
25. The accused shall be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case, if they are still in custody. If they have been released on bail, the bail bonds shall stand cancelled.
26. The appeal is allowed with the above directions.
Cited Judgments
- State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakuran (2007) 3 SCC 755: Cited regarding the principle that extra-judicial confessions are a weak piece of evidence and require corroboration.
- Sahadevan v. State of Tamil Nadu (2012) 6 SCC 403: Quoted to outline the core principles governing extra-judicial confessions, emphasizing that they must be voluntary, trustworthy, and corroborated.
- Anjan Kumar Sarma v. State of Assam (2017) 14 SCC 359: Utilized to reinforce that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances must be complete and point exclusively to the guilt of the accused.
- Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116: Referenced for the “पंचशील” (five golden principles) standard of proof required in circumstantial evidence cases.
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: Sections 302 (Murder), 201 (Causing disappearance of evidence), and 34 (Common intention).
Party
Taher Vajiyuddin Rangwala & Anr. v. The State of Gujarat - Criminal Appeal No. 76 of 2020 - 2026 INSC 859 - August 13, 2026 – Hon’ble Mr. Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Vinod Chandran, J.
