Jodhpur: In a landmark judgment reinforcing the principle that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt, the Rajasthan High Court has acquitted a man who had been sentenced to death for allegedly murdering his wife.
The Court refused to confirm the capital punishment awarded by the trial court, holding that the prosecution had failed to establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence linking the accused to the crime.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur and Justice Chandra Shekhar Sharma allowed the criminal appeal filed by accused Premlal while dismissing the murder reference forwarded by the trial court for confirmation of the death sentence.
The Bench held that the conviction under Section 302 IPC was unsustainable in law as the evidence on record suffered from serious inconsistencies, investigative lapses, and missing links.
The state contended that, Nima, who had been married to Premlal for nearly seven years and had two children, had been living separately at her parental home due to matrimonial disputes after the accused allegedly entered into a second marriage.
According to the prosecution, on 12 January 2023, Premlal telephoned Nima asking her to meet him. She left home carrying food and was later found dead in a field near Village Sindhu. The prosecution claimed that the accused had deceitfully lured her to the spot and murdered her by repeatedly striking her with stones.
Following investigation, a charge sheet was filed under Section 302 IPC, and the trial court awarded him the death penalty after treating the case as falling within the “rarest of rare” category.
High Court Finds ‘Last Seen Together’ Evidence Inadequate to Sustain Conviction
The High Court found that the prosecution’s entire case rested primarily on the last seen together theory, but the evidence supporting it was neither reliable nor convincing.
The Bench noted that the principal witnesses claiming to have seen the deceased with the accused disclosed this crucial fact only after an unexplained delay of nearly 15 to 20 days. Even after the deceased went missing and her body was recovered, these witnesses neither informed the police nor disclosed the alleged fact despite having multiple opportunities.
The Court observed that such unnatural conduct created a serious doubt regarding the credibility of their testimony. court also noted that the Investigating Officer himself admitted that during the initial investigation no evidence had surfaced indicating with whom the deceased was last seen before her death.
Holding that the “last seen” evidence formed the foundation of the prosecution case, the Court ruled that once this circumstance became doubtful, the entire chain of circumstantial evidence stood weakened.
Serious Lapses in Police Investigation
The Division Bench expressed serious concern over the quality of the investigation. It found that statements of material witnesses were recorded after unexplained delays, no independent witnesses were associated with the alleged recoveries, no CCTV footage or independent electronic evidence was collected, and several crucial aspects of the case remained unexplored.
The Court observed that the prosecution failed to properly investigate the alleged motive, the movements of the deceased, or the accused’s whereabouts during the relevant period.
Holding that the investigation suffered from serious procedural defects, the Court observed that where a prosecution case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence, every link must be established through cogent, reliable and legally admissible evidence. In the present case, however, the investigation itself left several vital gaps, creating substantial doubt regarding the prosecution’s version.
Medical Evidence also fail to Support Prosecution Theory
The Bench also found that the medical evidence did not conclusively support the prosecution’s case. While the post-mortem confirmed that Nima died due to ante-mortem head injuries, both doctors admitted during cross-examination that there were no injuries indicating any struggle on the deceased’s body and that similar injuries could also result from an accidental fall on rocks.
Significantly, the accused had no injuries, scratches or blood stains on his body when medically examined, a circumstance the Court considered inconsistent with the prosecution’s allegation of a violent stone attack.
FSL and DNA Evidence Held Merely Corroborative evidences
The High Court further held that the forensic evidence could not independently establish the accused’s guilt. Although the DNA report confirmed the presence of the deceased’s biological material on certain seized articles, the Court observed that forensic evidence is only corroborative in nature and cannot cure defects in the prosecution case when the recoveries themselves are doubtful.
The Bench pointed out that the alleged recoveries were made without independent witnesses, disclosure statements were recorded solely in the presence of police officials, and there were material contradictions between the investigating officers regarding the recovery of blood-stained articles.
Similarly, the Court held that the Call Detail Records merely established that telephone calls had been exchanged between the accused and the deceased before the incident.
In the absence of proper proof regarding the ownership and recovery of the mobile phones and compliance with statutory requirements governing electronic evidence, the CDRs could not establish that the accused had accompanied the deceased to the place of occurrence or committed the crime.
Death Penalty Cannot Rest on Doubtful Circumstantial Evidence
The High Court emphasised that before imposing the irreversible punishment of death, courts must ensure that the prosecution establishes guilt through an unimpeachable chain of evidence leaving no room for reasonable doubt.
In the present factual matrix Bench observed that the prosecution failed to prove several crucial links, including motive, last-seen evidence, recoveries, and electronic evidence. Once these circumstances became doubtful, the accused was entitled to the benefit of doubt.
Reiterating settled principles of criminal jurisprudence, the Court held that “however grave the suspicion may be, it cannot substitute legal proof.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the appeal, rejected the murder reference, set aside the conviction and death sentence awarded by the trial court, and acquitted Premlal of the charge under Section 302 IPC.
The Court directed that he be released forthwith, if not required in any other case, subject to furnishing a personal bond under Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to secure his appearance before the Supreme Court, if required.