Last Seen, No Motive, No Direct Evidence — You Can’t Jail a Man on Doubt Alone: Bombay High Court Acquits Man Convicted of Killing His Partner

“Section 106 of the Evidence Act cannot substitute the prosecution’s burden — it can only supplement it after a strong chain of circumstances is established. That chain was missing here.” In a major judgment reaffirming the core principles of criminal justice, the Bombay High Court on April 7, 2025, set aside the life imprisonment awarded to Dattu @ Datta Bhika Tongare, who was convicted of killing his partner in 2012. The Court found that the prosecution’s case, built entirely on circumstantial evidence, failed to meet the legal standard required to sustain a conviction under Section 302 IPC.

Delivering the verdict Division Bench of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Dr. Neela Gokhale ruled that while the woman’s death was undeniably homicidal, there was no conclusive chain of evidence to prove that the appellant caused it.

“The prosecution cannot shift the burden onto the accused without first discharging its own burden — and here, the circumstances relied upon were far from complete.”

“He Was Last Seen With Her — But No One Knows When They Returned From the Market”

The key piece of evidence was the testimony of PW1 – Balkrushna Chaudhary, who had given shelter to the couple and their children. He testified that the appellant had left with his partner and the children to the Ozar market the previous day. But he admitted in court that he did not know when they returned.

“The ‘last seen’ theory is shaky and doubtful. The witness never confirmed their return, making the timeline vague and inconclusive,” the Court noted.

The woman's body was discovered the next morning under a blanket, and while blood stains were found, the connection to the accused was based solely on presumption, not confirmed movement or confrontation.

“The Kids Were Present — But the Prosecution Didn’t Bring Them to the Stand”

Perhaps the most glaring lapse in the case was the failure to examine the eyewitnesses who were most likely present — the couple’s young children.

Though police had recorded their statements, only one child, PW3 Lalita (aged 6), was brought to court. She broke down during questioning and could not depose anything substantial.

“No evidence came from the children, and the prosecution made no effort to properly use them as witnesses. This left a huge hole in the prosecution’s theory.”

Even PW4 Sindhubai, mother of the deceased, could not provide any insight into motive or conflict.

“Blood on the Clothes Isn’t Enough — There’s No Proof When It Was Collected or How”

The only forensic evidence was that blood matching the deceased’s blood group was found on the accused’s clothes. But the Court found this evidence highly unreliable.

“No witness testified about when or how the samples were collected. Without chain of custody or reliable seizure testimony, the C.A. report cannot be relied upon to convict.”

The blood group mismatch (accused: ‘O’, deceased: ‘B’) raised further doubts.

“Section 106 Isn’t a Magic Wand — It Only Adds Weight to a Strong Case, Not a Weak One”

The trial court had heavily relied on Section 106 of the Evidence Act, arguing that the accused failed to explain how the woman died in his presence.

But the High Court cited Sharad Birdhichand Sarda and Nagendra Sah v. State of Bihar, ruling that Section 106 only applies when the prosecution first proves a complete chain of circumstances.

“When the chain is not complete, the silence or denial of the accused cannot be the reason to convict.”

“The Burden Is on the State — You Don’t Hang a Man Because His Story Is Weak. You Acquit Him Because Yours Is Weaker.”

Finding all three pillars of the prosecution case — last seen, forensic, and silence under Section 106 — to be inadequate, the High Court acquitted the appellant.

“The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The chain of circumstances is incomplete and cannot point solely to the guilt of the accused.”

The Court ordered that the life sentence awarded by the Niphad Sessions Court on September 25, 2014 be quashed, and the appellant be released immediately if not required in any other case.

“Suspicion cannot take the place of proof. Criminal conviction requires more than doubt — it requires certainty, and that is absent here.”

Date of decision: April 7, 2025