Circumstantial Evidence Must Exclude Every Other Hypothesis: Supreme Court Acquits Man in Triple Murder Case

Suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt. On October 17, 2024, the Supreme Court of India acquitted Vishwajeet Kerba Masalkar, who had been sentenced to death for the alleged murders of his wife, daughter, and mother. The Court found that the prosecution failed to conclusively establish the guilt of the accused based on circumstantial evidence and that the conviction was unsustainable. The decision overturned the judgments of both the Bombay High Court and the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune.

In its judgment, the Court stressed the panchsheel of circumstantial evidence—a set of five guiding principles established in earlier rulings, particularly in Sharad Birdhichand Sharda v. State of Maharashtra. The evidence must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the accused's guilt, and it should exclude every possible hypothesis except that of guilt. The Court emphasized: “The accused ‘must be’ and not merely ‘may be’ guilty before a court can convict”​.

The case revolved around the deaths of Shobha Masalkar (mother of the accused), Archana Masalkar (wife of the accused), and Kimaya Masalkar (his two-year-old daughter), who were found dead in their Pune home on October 4, 2012. Vishwajeet informed the police that his family had been killed in a robbery, but investigators soon suspected him, particularly after it was revealed that he was having an extramarital affair and intended to divorce his wife.

Despite circumstantial evidence, such as the recovery of a hammer allegedly used in the murders, blood-stained clothes, and conflicting testimony from a neighbor, the courts found inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case​​.

The Court’s decision to acquit focused on the unreliable nature of the evidence presented, particularly the testimony of Madhusudhan Kulkarni (PW-12), a neighbor of the Masalkars and an injured witness. His statement was recorded six days after the incident, despite him being conscious and oriented at the time of hospitalization. The delay raised doubts about the credibility of his testimony, especially since no neighbors corroborated his account, even though he claimed to have interacted with them after the attack.

Additionally, the recovery of the hammer from a canal was deemed unreliable due to questions about its condition and the fact that it was found in a location accessible to the public​.

Given the failure to establish a complete chain of evidence that conclusively pointed to Vishwajeet's guilt, the Supreme Court ruled in his favor. The Court concluded that the prosecution had not proven the case beyond reasonable doubt, and the conviction was quashed. Vishwajeet was ordered to be set at liberty unless required in another case​.

Date of Decision: October 17, 2024

Vishwajeet Kerba Masalkar v. State of Maharashtra