Himachal Pradesh High Court Acquits Murder Accused, Points to Possible Suicide Pact in "Tragic Love Affair"

The Himachal Pradesh High Court, in a recent judgment, acquitted Sanjiv Dubey, accused of the murder of Rama Mahajan, citing the insufficiency of circumstantial evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court upheld the trial court's earlier acquittal, concluding that the evidence pointed more towards a failed suicide pact rather than homicide. The judgment, delivered by Justices Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Sushil Kukreja, emphasized that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, each link in the chain must be conclusive and exclude every hypothesis except guilt.

The case arose from the tragic death of Rama Mahajan, a widow who ran a boutique in Kathua (J&K). On August 2, 2011, her body was found at the bottom of a gorge in Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, with deep cuts on her wrists and a severe head injury. Sanjiv Dubey, her close acquaintance, was found injured nearby with similar wrist cuts. The prosecution alleged that Dubey murdered Mahajan to escape a hefty loan he had borrowed from her. Both had checked into a hotel together the previous night before the incident.

The trial court, however, acquitted Dubey in 2013, finding the evidence insufficient to prove murder. The State appealed the acquittal, arguing that the trial court had overlooked key pieces of evidence and failed to appreciate the circumstantial chain.

The High Court reiterated the well-settled legal principle that, in cases based purely on circumstantial evidence, each link in the chain must be proven beyond doubt and must unequivocally point to the guilt of the accused. The court cited the Supreme Court's ruling in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, which lays down five golden principles for assessing circumstantial evidence:

“The circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt and exclude every possibility of innocence,” the court emphasized.

The court noted that the prosecution's evidence in this case failed to meet the stringent standard required to convict based on circumstantial evidence.

The prosecution's case rested heavily on the claim that Dubey had borrowed large sums of money from the deceased and intended to murder her to avoid repaying the loan. Testimonies from family members suggested that Dubey had illicit relations with the deceased, which were known to both families and had caused unrest.

However, the court found these claims unsubstantiated, stating that no documentary or direct evidence was presented to prove the alleged financial transactions. Furthermore, the court found the testimony regarding the loan amount to be hearsay and noted inconsistencies in witness statements.

The court accepted the defense's argument that the incident could have been a failed suicide pact between Dubey and the deceased. Evidence presented included phone records and a call made by Dubey on the day of the incident, in which he expressed his intention to end his life. Additionally, the deceased had asked a mutual acquaintance to take care of her children, further supporting the suicide theory.

Post-mortem reports showed that Mahajan had deep wrist cuts, consistent with self-inflicted injuries. The court observed that the presence of a blood-stained razor inside the vehicle, the cuts on both Dubey and the deceased's wrists, and the lack of defensive injuries on the deceased all pointed towards suicide rather than murder.

Medical evidence showed that Mahajan had sustained fatal head injuries, likely from falling down the steep gorge, along with deep cuts on her wrists. The court emphasized that the presence of the razor in the vehicle and the manner of injuries on both individuals made it plausible that Mahajan had jumped or fallen, rather than being pushed by Dubey.

"The injuries on both wrists of the deceased and the presence of the razor on the dashboard of the vehicle are clear indicators that both the deceased and the accused had attempted to take their own lives," the court noted.

The forensic analysis of the bloodstains found in the vehicle further supported this conclusion, as it was found that the blood belonged to both Dubey and Mahajan, indicating that they had both been injured inside the car before the fatal fall.

The court extensively reviewed the legal standards for conviction based on circumstantial evidence, reaffirming that suspicion, no matter how strong, cannot substitute for proof. The judgment cited the Supreme Court's ruling in Raj Kumar Singh v. State of Rajasthan, which held that:

"Suspicion, however grave, cannot take the place of proof, and the mental distance between 'may be true' and 'must be true' must be covered by clear, cogent, and unimpeachable evidence".

The High Court held that the prosecution had failed to establish a clear, unbroken chain of events leading to the conclusion of Dubey’s guilt. It also emphasized that in the absence of direct evidence, the burden of proof in a criminal trial remains on the prosecution, and the benefit of doubt must always go to the accused.

"The evidence, at best, raises a suspicion of wrongdoing, but that suspicion does not reach the high threshold of proof required in criminal cases, particularly where the entire case hinges on circumstantial evidence".

"The evidence on record points towards the possibility of a suicide pact between the accused and the deceased, which, although tragic, does not fulfill the criteria for a murder conviction".

The Himachal Pradesh High Court’s judgment underscores the importance of rigorous standards in cases based on circumstantial evidence. By affirming the trial court’s acquittal of Sanjiv Dubey, the court reinforced the principle that the prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, especially in cases where no direct evidence is available.

Date of Decision: 21 August 2024