Acquittal in Murder Case Due to Failure to Establish Circumstantial Evidence

The Supreme Court in a murder case acquitted the accused due to failure of the prosecution to establish circumstantial evidences. The appellant Wadla Bheemaraidu, was convicted by the Trial Court and sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of K. Nagesh (the deceased), the High Court of Telangana upheld the appellant's conviction while acquitting two co-accused. however, the Supreme Court of India, in this judgment, overturned the conviction and acquitted the appellant.

Background: It was alleged by the prosecution that the deceased, K. Nagesh was allegedly involved in an extra-marital affair with the accused/appellant’s wife. Total eight accused persons were put up for trial and Wadla Bheemaraidu along with another accused were charged and tried for the offences punishable under Sections 384, 364, 302 and 201 of IPC.

The Supreme Court relied on the falilure of the prosecution in estbilishing the motive, inadequate proof and lack of failure to establish the circumstantial evidence aginst the accused, which are as follows:

Failure to Prove Motive: The prosecution’s theory of motive, that the appellant killed the deceased due to an extra-marital affair with his wife, was not supported by evidence. None of the prosecution witnesses, including the deceased's parents (PW-1 and PW-2), testified about the alleged affair. The Investigating Officer (PW-22) also did not present any evidence other than a photograph (Exhibit P-37) that was not identified by the deceased's parents.

Inadequate Proof of Disclosure Statement and Discovery: The prosecution relied heavily on the alleged discovery of the deceased's skeletal remains, purportedly based on information provided by the appellant to the Investigating Officer. This information was presented as a crucial link in the chain of circumstantial evidence against the appellant. However, the court found that the Investigating Officer failed to prove that the disclosure was voluntary and uninfluenced, as required under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act (IEA).

The Apex Court relied on its earlier judgment in Babu Sahebgouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka(Click To Download) with respect to the standards of proof of information provided by the accused to the Investigating Officer under Section 27 IEA.

The Court thus observed that the Investigating Officer’s testimony did not mention the specific words spoken by the appellant regarding the location of the remains, nor did it state that the appellant accompanied the police to the crime scene. This, coupled with the testimony of the Medical Officer (PW-15) and panch witnesses (PW-9 and PW-19) that the police showed them the location, cast doubt on the validity of the discovery.

Unreliable DNA Evidence: It was contented by the prosecution that the DNA profile of the skeletal remains collected from the crime scene matched the DNA profile that of the deceased's mother. however, the Apex Court observed that neither the prosecution nor the mother or the medical examiner ever brought the episode of drawing blood samples of the deseased's mother for DNA profiling and the Court has held that the DNA profiling report appears pales into insignificance and cannot be treated as an incriminating circumstance against the accused. The court found this lack of evidence rendered the DNA report unreliable.

Circumstantial Evidence Not Conclusively Establishing Guilt: The court reiterated the well-established principle that in cases based purely on circumstantial evidence, each link in the chain of incriminating circumstances must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. The court concluded that the prosecution failed to meet this standard, as the circumstances presented did not conclusively establish the appellant's guilt and were open to other interpretations.

The Court concluded and held that "35. As a consequence of the above discussion, we have no hesitation in holding that none of the incriminating circumstances portrayed by the prosecution in its endeavour to bring home the charges against the accused appellant were established by cogent and clinching evidence, and therefore, the conviction of the accused appellant as recorded by the trial Court and affirmed by the High Court cannot be sustained."

The Supreme Court, citing the prosecution's failure to prove motive, establish the validity of the discovery of the skeletal remains, and present reliable DNA evidence, acquitted Wadla Bheemaraidu of all the charges.

Coram: Justice Deepankar Datta and Justice Sandeep Mehta.
Between: Wadla Bheemaraidu Vs State Of Telangana
Date of Judgement: 03-12-2024