Circumstantial Evidence Must Form an Unbroken Chain: Bombay High Court Acquits Man Accused of Murder to Fake Death"

Failure to Establish Victim's Identity and Complete Chain of Circumstances Must Result in Acquittal: - In a significant judgment Bombay High Court set aside the conviction of an accused charged with murder under Section 302 of the IPC, holding that the prosecution had utterly failed to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence linking the accused to the alleged crime. The Court, comprising Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale, ruled that when critical links such as identification of the deceased and "last seen together" evidence are missing, the law mandates that the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused.

The case involved the discovery of a charred and decapitated body found in a flat at Sai Aashiyana Society, Mira Road, Mumbai, in August 2003. The prosecution alleged that the appellant killed Julfikar Umarkhan to fake his own death and avoid legal prosecution. Despite these serious allegations, the case rested solely on circumstantial evidence with no direct witnesses or forensic proof conclusively tying the appellant to the murder. The Trial Court convicted him in 2019 after years of delay. Upon appeal, the High Court scrutinized the evidence minutely and found glaring gaps that rendered the conviction unsustainable.

The Bombay High Court reiterated the classic principle that "circumstantial evidence must form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that the crime was committed by the accused alone and none else." Citing authoritative precedents including Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra and Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of M.P., the Court stressed that mere suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute for legal proof.

The Court observed with particular emphasis, "The prosecution has failed to even establish who the deceased was. No witness has deposed to having seen the deceased alive last, nor have any family members of the deceased been examined." The Court held that "identification of the deceased is a sine qua non in a case of murder," and when the very identity of the deceased remains unproven, the entire prosecution case collapses.

Further rejecting the prosecution's reliance on the "last seen" theory, the Court noted, "The so-called 'last seen' witnesses have not seen the deceased in the company of the appellant. They saw the appellant entering the building, but not in the company of the deceased. This does not satisfy the test of last seen evidence."

On the applicability of Section 106 of the Evidence Act (burden on the accused to explain special facts within his knowledge), the Court clarified, "Section 106 comes into play only when the prosecution has first discharged its primary burden of proving the complete chain of circumstances. Here, the prosecution has failed in its primary duty."

In a strong rebuke to the prosecution, the Court remarked, "The case was conducted in an extremely casual manner. Vital witnesses were not examined, and essential links were left unexplored." Directing that a copy of the judgment be sent to the Director of Prosecution, the Court made it clear that serious lapses in prosecuting grave offences like murder would not be tolerated.

The Court further observed, "When even foundational facts such as the victim's identity are not proved, the Court is left with no choice but to acquit the accused." It underlined that "the burden of proof never shifts from the prosecution unless and until it first establishes a prima facie case."

Setting aside the conviction and acquitting the appellant, the Bombay High Court has forcefully reaffirmed the fundamental principle that "suspicion, however grave, cannot take the place of legal proof." The judgment stands as a stern reminder to prosecutors that cases based solely on circumstantial evidence demand the highest degree of diligence and proof to secure a lawful conviction.

Date of Decision: 23 April 2025