Call Details and Tower Location Without Ownership Proof Cannot Establish Guilt: Rajasthan High Court Affirms Acquittal in Murder Case

Benefit of Doubt Rightly Extended Where Chain of Circumstances is Incomplete”, Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur, in a Division Bench comprising Justice Avneesh Jhingan and Justice Bhuwan Goyal upholding the acquittal of the accused Harkesh in a murder case. The Court dismissed the appeal filed by the complainant Ramniwas against the judgment of acquittal by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hindaun City, emphasizing the settled principle that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, “the chain of circumstances must be complete, and every link must lead to the guilt of the accused, excluding every other hypothesis.”

Reiterating the foundational doctrine laid down by the Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, the High Court observed, “These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence.”

Acquittal of Accused Upheld for Lack of Complete Circumstantial Chain

In this appeal, the complainant sought to overturn the acquittal of Harkesh, accused of murdering Ramkesh, based on circumstantial evidence that included alleged illicit relationship, call detail records, recovery of blood-stained articles, and co-location evidence. The High Court, after reappraising the entire evidence, affirmed the trial court’s judgment dated 22.12.2021 acquitting the accused, holding that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The prosecution case originated from FIR No. 470 dated 02.07.2016, lodged at Police Station Hindaun City on the recovery of the dead body of Ramkesh. The accused included Harkesh and four co-accused (minors tried under Juvenile Justice Act), all allegedly involved in the murder motivated by illicit relations between the deceased’s wife and the accused. The prosecution relied on extra-judicial confessions, recovery of blood-stained towel and gloves, call detail records indicating contact between the accused and the deceased’s wife, and common tower location on the date of the incident.

The Trial Court, however, acquitted all the accused, observing that the circumstantial chain remained incomplete, which led to the present appeal by the complainant.

On Circumstantial Evidence and the Five Golden Principles

The Court commenced by reiterating the “five golden principles” enunciated by the Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116, stating: “The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established… There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability, the act must have been done by the accused.”

The Court emphasized that any missing link in the chain of circumstantial evidence would be fatal to the prosecution.

On Blood-Stained Articles and DNA Deficiency

Discussing the recovery of blood-stained towel, gloves, and rope, the Court held: “The human blood stains on the rope, towel and gloves of Group-A does not prove that the blood stains on the recovered articles were of deceased. No DNA test was undertaken… even the RH factor of the blood group was not determined.”

The Court ruled that merely finding human blood of the same ABO group, without DNA confirmation, was insufficient to directly link the accused with the crime.

On Recovery of Earring and Motorcycle

Addressing the seizure of an earring allegedly belonging to the deceased’s wife, the Court found: “The ownership of the earring was not proved and there is no evidence or statement of wife of the deceased that the earring belonged to her.”

Similarly, no direct evidence connected the recovered motorcycle to the crime, rendering these recoveries inconsequential.

On Call Details and Location Evidence

The Court was critical of reliance on call detail records without necessary corroboration: “The mobiles were never seized and no documentary evidence was adduced that these two belonged to the respondent and the wife of the deceased. The mobiles being used in the same tower location is not a conclusive proof… as coverage range of the tower was not proved.”

Thus, the supposed circumstantial links through telephonic communication and location remained unsubstantiated.

On the Scope of Appellate Interference in Acquittal

Citing Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar vs. State of Karnataka (2024) 8 SCC 149, the Court held: “The appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was possible.”

The Court observed that the view taken by the trial court was a “plausible view” that could not be disturbed merely because another view was also possible.

Rejecting the appeal, the High Court held: “The impugned judgment of acquittal suffers from no factual or legal error much less perversity, calling for no interference by this Court.”

The Court concluded that the trial court had rightly granted the benefit of doubt, adhering to settled legal norms regarding circumstantial evidence and the limited scope of interference in appeals against acquittal.

This judgment reaffirms the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that suspicion, however grave, cannot substitute for proof beyond reasonable doubt. The Rajasthan High Court meticulously applied the settled standards governing appeals against acquittal and concluded that the prosecution’s evidence was riddled with gaps, thus justifying the acquittal.

By emphasizing the “five golden principles” and limited interference in acquittals, the High Court reinforced judicial restraint in criminal appeals where the prosecution’s case is not free from doubt.

Date of Decision: 8th July 2025