District Judiciary Retirement Age | Supreme Court Directs Enhancement To 62 Years To Arrest Attrition Of Judicial Talent Slogans Inciting Armed Rebellion Or Challenging Sovereignty Cannot Be Equated With Religious Expressions: Allahabad High Court Denies Bail Revisional Authority Under AP ROR Act Has Jurisdiction To Direct Inquiry Into Illegal Transfers Of Assigned Land: Andhra Pradesh High Court Indian Law Does Not Recognise 'Joint Parenting' As A Statutory Concept; Child Welfare Remains Paramount: Bombay High Court Order 26 Rule 9 CPC | Court Must Appoint Survey-Knowing Commissioner In Suits Alleging Physical Encroachment And Boundary Disputes: Calcutta High Court Section 33-C(2) ID Act | Labour Court Has Jurisdiction To Recover Consequential Benefits Arising From CAT Orders: Delhi High Court Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) CPC | Procedural Law Is Meant For Advancement Of Justice; Technicalities Should Not Scuttle Opportunity To Lead Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court High Court Can Condition Condonation Of Delay In Land Acquisition Appeals Upon Waiver Of Interest For Delayed Period: Bombay High Court Employees Compensation Act | Insurance Company Not Liable To Indemnify Penalty Imposed On Employer Under Section 4-A(3)(b): Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees’ Compensation Act | Failure To Frame Issue On Employer-Employee Relationship Vitiates Commissioner’s Award: Kerala High Court Default Bail Under Section 187 BNSS | Period Of Investigation Depends On Substance Of Allegations In FIR, Not Merely Mentioned Sections: Madhya Pradesh High Court SARFAESI Act | Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Must Be Challenged Under Section 17 Before DRT, Not Via Writ Petition: Kerala High Court

In the Absence of Motive and Conclusive Evidence, ‘Last Seen’ Theory Fails to Establish Guilt: Supreme Court Acquits in Circumstantial Murder Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India acquitted Arun Shankar in a murder case, underscoring the insufficiency of circumstantial evidence to conclusively prove guilt.

The apex court emphasized the principles for cases based on circumstantial evidence, drawing from the landmark Sharad Birdhichand Sarda judgment. The Court highlighted that for conviction, the circumstances must be fully established and consistent solely with the accused’s guilt, forming a complete chain pointing towards no conclusion other than guilt.

Arun Shankar was convicted for the murder of Sushildhar Dubey based on circumstantial evidence including the ‘last seen’ theory, recovery of the murder weapon, and medical evidence. The central issue revolved around the reliability and conclusiveness of this evidence, particularly in the absence of a clear motive.

 

Weak ‘Last Seen’ Theory: Regular interactions and absence of a motive or altercation between Shankar and Dubey weakened the last seen theory.

Unproved Weapon Recovery: Testimonies of key witnesses failed to conclusively establish the recovery of the murder weapon at Shankar’s instance.

Alternative Theory of Accidental Death: The possibility of Dubey’s accidental death was supported by the presence of glass pieces at the crime scene and medical opinions indicating such injuries could be caused by glass.

The Supreme Court found the circumstances did not conclusively point to Shankar’s guilt, allowing for reasonable doubt. Consequently, Shankar was acquitted of the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC, and his bail bonds were cancelled

Date of Decision: April 10, 2024

Arun Shankar vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Latest Legal News