Mental Distance Between ‘May Be’ and ‘Must Be’ Is Long: Patna High Court Acquits Six in Murder Case Built on Broken Chain of Circumstances

“Suspicion, However Strong, Cannot Take the Place of Proof”, In a significant reaffirmation of the “panchsheel” principles governing circumstantial evidence, the Patna High Court set aside the conviction of six appellants in a case involving alleged abduction, murder, conspiracy and destruction of evidence, holding that the prosecution had failed to establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances.

The Division Bench of Justice Mohit Kumar Shah and Justice Smt. Soni Shrivastava allowed six connected criminal appeals arising out of Sessions Trial No. 76 of 2017/14 of 2017. The Court overturned the judgment of conviction dated 12.12.2019 and order of sentence dated 13.12.2019 passed by the 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Jehanabad.

The appellants had been convicted under Sections 302, 201, 120B read with Section 149 IPC and allied provisions. The High Court held that “material/incriminating circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt of the appellants is to be drawn have not stood proved,” and that the evidence was “scratchy and disjointed.” All appellants were acquitted.

Missing Person, Burnt Body and a Web of Suspicion

The case originated from a written report lodged by Vidhi Kumar (PW-6) on 23.06.2016 stating that his brother, Mantu Kumar, had left home on 22.06.2016 at about 8:00 p.m. after receiving a phone call from one Mithilesh Kumar, allegedly to collect money. When he did not return and his mobile phones were found switched off, a search was initiated.

On 24.06.2016, a burnt dead body was recovered under Dhanarua Police Station. The family identified the body as that of Mantu Kumar. During investigation, the police relied on call detail records (CDRs), alleged confessional statements under Section 164 CrPC, and recoveries of a mobile phone and motorcycle parts purportedly belonging to the deceased.

The Trial Court convicted the appellants primarily on circumstantial evidence, including alleged conspiracy and destruction of evidence. The High Court, however, subjected each circumstance to rigorous scrutiny.

Panchsheel of Circumstantial Evidence: Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Reaffirmed

At the outset, the Bench invoked the law laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra and Hanumant vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reiterating that in cases based solely on circumstantial evidence, “the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established” and must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt.

The Court quoted the caution that there is a legal distinction between “may be proved” and “must be proved,” observing that the mental distance between the two “divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.”

Applying these principles, the Bench examined each alleged incriminating circumstance independently.

Last Seen Theory and Place of Occurrence: Not Proved

The prosecution relied on the theory that the deceased had left home after receiving a call and was later found dead. However, the Court found that none of the key witnesses, including the father, wife and informant brother of the deceased, had seen him in the company of the appellants.

The informant admitted that he had not named any accused in his subsequent statements. Most witnesses stated they came to know of the accused persons from newspapers. The Court held that “the circumstance of last seen… has not stood proved” and that even the place of occurrence remained unestablished.

Identification of Dead Body: Serious Doubt

The deceased’s body had sustained 100% burn injuries. The Investigating Officer admitted discrepancies between articles mentioned in the inquest report and those allegedly recovered during cremation.

The Bench observed that “there is no conclusive proof of the fact that the dead body recovered by the police is that of Mantu Kumar.” Given the extent of burns and inconsistencies in seized articles, the identification itself was found doubtful, breaking a foundational link in the prosecution case.

CDRs Without Section 65B Certificate: Electronic Evidence Held Inconclusive

The prosecution heavily relied on call detail records and tower locations. However, the Court found that the CDR/SDR/CAF records were not accompanied by certification under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, as mandated by the Supreme Court in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar.

Even otherwise, the Court noted that tower locations of the deceased and certain appellants were never found together. The Investigating Officer admitted there was no communication between some appellants and the deceased. The suspect SIM used to call the deceased was registered in the name of one Kamlesh Kumar, who was never traced or examined.

The Court concluded that the electronic evidence was “inconclusive and of no worth to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt.”

Recovery Under Section 27: Strict Construction Applied

The prosecution claimed recovery of the deceased’s mobile phone and motorcycle parts pursuant to disclosure statements. The Bench, relying on Rajendra Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand and Jafarudheen vs. State of Kerala, reiterated that only that portion of information “which relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered” is admissible.

The Court found that the identity of the recovered mobile was not proved, as the IMEI matching was not recorded in the case diary and documents were returned without retention. Similarly, no test identification or forensic linkage connected the recovered motorcycle parts to the deceased’s vehicle.

Mere recovery, without credible linkage, was held insufficient.

Section 164 CrPC Confession: Not Substantive Evidence

Two appellants had made confessional statements before a Magistrate under Section 164 CrPC. The Bench observed that while such confessions are admissible, they are not substantive evidence by themselves and require corroboration.

Citing S. Arul Raja and Sahadevan vs. State of Tamil Nadu, the Court reiterated that extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and must inspire confidence, be voluntary, and be supported by a chain of cogent circumstances.

In the present case, the confessions were not corroborated by independent evidence. With the chain of circumstances incomplete, the Court held that the confessional statements did not inspire confidence to sustain conviction.

Section 201 IPC: Ingredients Not Established

The Court found that knowledge and intentional concealment, essential ingredients of Section 201 IPC, were not established against the appellants. With the prosecution failing to prove the foundational facts of murder and conspiracy, the charge of destruction of evidence also collapsed.

Benefit of Doubt and Complete Acquittal

Summarising the deficiencies, the Court held that “the test laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda is not satisfied.” The prosecution had failed to prove motive, last seen circumstance, identification of the body, electronic linkage, recovery connection and corroboration of confession.

Reaffirming that “suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof,” the Bench concluded that it would be “extremely unsafe to sustain a conviction” on such evidence.

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and sentence was set aside. The appellant in custody was directed to be released forthwith, and those on bail were discharged from their bail bonds.

The decision stands as a powerful reminder that in criminal jurisprudence, conjecture cannot substitute proof, and the constitutional mandate of proof beyond reasonable doubt must remain inviolable.

Date of Decision: 17/02/2026