-
by sayum
27 May 2026 2:25 PM
“Enmity Is a Double-Edged Weapon; It May Provide Motive, But Also Opens Doors to False Implication” – Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, comprising Justice Manoj Kumar Garg and Justice Ravi Chirania, delivered a significant judgment where set aside the conviction and life sentence awarded to the appellant Sanjay Kumar by the Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Abu Road, under Section 302 IPC, holding that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt in a case based solely on circumstantial evidence and an unproven revenge theory.
The High Court emphasized that "in the absence of direct evidence, circumstantial evidence must form a complete and unbroken chain", which, in this case, was absent, and the trial court's findings were based on unreliable, contradictory witness testimonies and unproven assumptions.
“There Must Be Proof, Not Presumption. Circumstantial Evidence Requires a Complete Chain, Not Gaps and Guesses” – Rajasthan High Court Follows Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Doctrine
The appeal arose from a conviction under Section 302 IPC for the alleged murder of one Madan Jha, whom the appellant Sanjay Kumar was accused of deliberately running over with a pick-up van, allegedly due to past enmity arising from an attempt to establish an illicit relationship with the deceased’s wife. The Sessions Court had relied upon statements of hearsay witnesses, and inconsistent versions, to convict the appellant.
However, the High Court noted that no eye-witness saw the alleged incident and held that the entire case was built on contradictions, presumptions, and uncorroborated claims.
On 20.04.2015, a written report (Exhibit P/1) was lodged by Sanjeet Jha (PW-1) at Police Station Pindwara, alleging that the accused Sanjay Kumar had prior enmity with the deceased due to an attempt to form an illicit relationship with Ranju Jha (PW-7), wife of the deceased. It was further alleged that Sanjay Kumar had threatened to kill Madan Jha and later ran him over with a pickup van on the night of 19.04.2015, resulting in Madan Jha’s death.
The police registered FIR No. 123/2015 under Section 302 IPC, conducted investigation, and filed a charge sheet against Sanjay Kumar. The trial court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to life imprisonment with a fine of ₹25,000.
Whether a conviction under Section 302 IPC can be sustained without direct evidence and on contradictory circumstantial evidence?
The Court held that “no eyewitness account” existed and “contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses” were material. The statements of PW-1 and PW-7 were hearsay, and PW-12 Parveez, who allegedly informed PW-7, turned hostile, stating:
“I do not know who the deceased was, nor who hit him.”
The Court noted that "no recovery of the vehicle, no eyewitness, and no forensic certainty linking the accused to the act" was established.
Whether the revenge theory, based on an alleged illicit relationship, constituted a sufficient motive to sustain conviction?
The Court observed that no FIR, complaint, or any other documentary evidence was presented to show that the accused had attempted to establish any illicit relationship with the deceased's wife. The only document, Exhibit P/20 (dated 14.02.2014), referred merely to a general complaint under Sections 151 and 107 CrPC, and did not mention any sexual advances or criminal intimidation.
Relying on Aslam @ Imran v. State of M.P., 2025 LiveLaw SC 365, the Court reiterated: “Enmity is a double-edged weapon. It may supply motive but also raises the possibility of false implication.”
Further, in Maukam Singh v. State of M.P., 2025 INSC 435, the Court had emphasized: “Animosity alleged can even lead to false allegations on the part of the complainant to deliberately implicate the accused.”
Whether the trial court erred in relying on presumptive evidence and unverified witness accounts?
The High Court found that PW-1, PW-4, and PW-7 were all interested witnesses and had based their statements on what was told to them by others, without witnessing the incident themselves.
The Court sharply criticized the casual approach of the Investigating Officer (PW-6), who based the charge sheet on unverified revenge theory and failed to examine key witnesses such as reporter Vikram Purohit, who, according to PW-1, first informed him of the incident.
“The investigation appears to have proceeded blindly on the complainant’s version without corroboration or independent verification.”
The Court relied on Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, 1984 (4) SCC 116, laying down the five golden principles for conviction based on circumstantial evidence. The Court concluded that:
No chain of circumstances was established beyond reasonable doubt.
No last-seen theory was proven.
No motive was established with documentary proof.
The statements of PW-1 and PW-7 were riddled with contradictions.
The prosecution failed to produce crucial witnesses (e.g., the reporter) or prove how the alleged pick-up van was involved.
On the last-seen theory, the Court referred to Sahadevan & Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2012) 6 SCC 403, stating: “The last seen theory should be applied only when the time gap between last seen and death is so small that the possibility of another person committing the offence is completely ruled out.”
In this case, no such evidence existed.
Setting aside the conviction, the High Court concluded:
“It appears that on presumptions and in absence of any eyewitness, name of the appellant was reported to the police, and the police, blindly believing the story of the complainant and PW-7, filed the charge-sheet. The trial court erred in convicting the appellant based on such weak and uncorroborated evidence.”
The appeal was allowed, and the judgment dated 03.05.2016 of the trial court was quashed and set aside. The Court directed that the appellant be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.
Date of Decision: 08.09.2025
