Supreme Court acquits murder accused in 30-year-old case

The Supreme Court recently acquitted a murder accused in a 1995 case after noting that there were significant omissions and contradictions in key witness testimonies and the circumstantial evidence did not establish a chain of events which could pin the guilt on the accused [Vinod Kumar v. State of NCT of Delhi]..A Bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan emphasised that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, all circumstances must be fully established to form a complete chain leading to guilt."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," the Court said.In the present case, the prosecution relied on the last-seen-together theory, evasive responses by the accused, his absconding, recovery of blood-stained clothes and unexplained injuries. But omissions and contradictions in the testimonies of the victim and her mother made their statements unreliable, the Court said.As the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the Court acquitted the accused, one Vinod Kumar..Kumar was convicted under Section 302 (murder) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of ₹2,000.The case concerned the murder of one Dharminder, the neighbor of the accused Vinod Kumar. On July 12, 1995, Kumar took Dharminder along, assuring his mother that they would return soon. However, when Dharminder did not come back, his parents repeatedly questioned Kumar, who provided conflicting statements.On July 13, Dharminder’s father filed a missing person report. The following day, his body was discovered in a terrace bathroom, with his hands tied and a rope around his neck. The police subsequently registered an FIR under Section 302 of the IPC, and the case was built on circumstantial evidence.The Additional Sessions Judge at Shahdara in Delhi convicted Kumar for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of ₹2,000.The same was confirmed by the Delhi High Court which led to the appeal before the Supreme Court..Kumar's counsel argued that the testimony of the victim’s mother was inconsistent, contradictory, and unreliable. He highlighted key omissions in her cross-examination and noted that she was declared hostile.He also pointed out that the victim and her mother's claims of repeatedly visiting the appellant’s house were absent from earlier statements.He contended that the crucial "last seen together" circumstance was not proven beyond doubt and that the accused’s alleged evasive replies were not established, making the conviction unsustainable.On the other hand, the respondent’s counsel emphasised the emotional state of the victim and her mother, considering their loss.She argued that the victim's mother's claim of last seeing the victim with the accused remained unshaken in cross-examination.She also pointed out that the accused had absconded after the FIR was filed and that bloodstained clothes were recovered at his instance, strengthening the case against him and therefore, the conviction should stand..After hearing the parties and considering the facts, the Court noted that the chain of events was not established since there were major omissions in the witness testimonies."There are significant improvements and omissions in the evidence of PW-3 (mother of the deceased). Thus, it is very difficult to accept the testimony of PW-3 as reliable. PW-1 (father of the deceased) is not a witness to the theory of last seen together. Therefore, it is not possible to hold that the theory of last seen together was proved by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt. Even the finding of the High Court that the appellant gave evasive replies to misguide the parents of the deceased cannot be sustained," the Court said.Hence, it acquitted the accused and set aside his conviction after 30 years."The conviction and sentence of the appellant cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned judgments are quashed and set aside, and the appellant is acquitted of the offences alleged against him. The Appeal is accordingly allowed. Bail bonds furnished by the appellant stand cancelled," the Court held.Advocates Mukesh K Giri and Mandaar Mukesh Giri appeared for the accused.Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, Senior Advocates Swarupama Chaturvedi and Ruchi Kohli and advocates Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Chitrangda Rashtravara, Priyanka Terdal, Poornima Singh and Koney Rama Mohan Rao appeared for the State and other respondents. .[Read Judgment]