High Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case, Citing Weak Forensic Evidence and Lack of Corroborative Proof

In a significant ruling, the High Court has acquitted the appellants/accused Ramesh and Krishan in a murder case, highlighting the weak forensic evidence and the absence of corroborative proof. The judgment, delivered by Hon'ble Justice A.B. Chaudhari and Hon'ble Justice D.K. Jain, emphasized the importance of establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the presumption of innocence.

The case revolved around the murder of the deceased, Tirlok Chand, and the alleged involvement of Ramesh, Krishan, and another accused, Vinod. The trial court had earlier found Ramesh and Krishan guilty based on the recovery of a wallet from Ramesh, containing a photograph of the deceased, and a knife allegedly recovered from Krishan. However, the High Court meticulously examined the evidence presented and raised several critical observations.

The judgment highlighted that the forensic evidence, particularly the identification of footprints, lacked sufficient scientific vigor to base a conviction solely on footprints. The court referred to the FSL Report (Ex.PY), which indicated that the foot and footwear impressions of Ramesh and Krishan did not match those lifted from the crime scene. The court emphasized that while the science of footprint identification is not yet an exact science, it should not be solely relied upon for conviction.

Regarding the recovery of the wallet, the court expressed doubts about its credibility. The wallet was found in Ramesh's possession approximately two months after the crime, and its connection to the deceased was not firmly established. The court noted that the recovery raised suspicions and lacked conclusive evidence to link Ramesh to the murder.

The court also scrutinized the disclosure statements made by Ramesh and Krishan. It highlighted that the disclosed places were already known to the investigating officer, rendering the statements insignificant and offering no support to the prosecution's case. Moreover, the court underscored the presumption of falsity attached to confessions made under certain circumstances, noting that the disclosure statements failed to establish the guilt of the appellants.

Regarding the recovery of the knife, the court found it unconvincing and inconclusive. It emphasized that the prosecution failed to establish its use in the crime or connect it to the offense. The serological report remained inconclusive, further weakening the case against the accused.

High Court observed  that the case relied solely on circumstantial evidence and that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt. It emphasized that the evidence was defeated at every stage, including medical and forensic evidence, witness testimony, and the alleged motive.

The court also addressed the role of Vinod, the co-accused, whose acquittal had been challenged by the State and the complainant. However, the court upheld his acquittal, citing the unreliable identification by a witness and the insufficient weight of the footprints matching in the FSL report.

This ruling underscore the importance of carefully evaluating evidence, especially in cases relying on circumstantial proof. It reiterates that a conviction cannot be based solely on weak scientific evidence or unsubstantiated recovery of items. The presumption of innocence remains a crucial cornerstone of criminal justice, and an acquittal reinforces this presumption, particularly in the absence of compelling and conclusive evidence.

 Date of Decision: 02 May 2023

State of Haryana vs Vinod