No Evidence That the Deceased Was Last Seen With the Accused: Supreme Court Overturns Murder Conviction Based on Circumstantial Evidence and Hostile Witnesses

“Suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof — especially when the entire prosecution case rests on broken links of circumstantial evidence.” - Supreme Court of India emphatically acquitted a man previously convicted of murder and kidnapping, ruling that both the Trial Court and the High Court committed grave error in relying on hostile witnesses and conjecture to find guilt. The Court stressed that in cases based purely on circumstantial evidence, each link in the chain must be unbreakable, and in this case, “there is no evidence to either prove the kidnapping of the deceased or that he was last seen in the company of A-1.”

The Court held that the last seen theory, which could form the linchpin of a conviction in a case based on circumstantial evidence, was completely absent, and the testimony of key witnesses had collapsed under scrutiny. The judgment reaffirmed the constitutional principles of criminal jurisprudence, cautioning courts against conviction on mere inferences drawn from hostility-fuelled suspicion.

“Hostile Witnesses and Incomplete Circumstantial Chain Cannot Lead to Conviction”: Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case

The appeal arose out of a 2016 incident in Nellore, Andhra Pradesh, where one Bhoominadhan, an auto driver, was found murdered a day after allegedly being abducted by the appellant, Thammineni Bhaskar (A-1), and others. The prosecution claimed that prior animosity stemming from an earlier complaint by the deceased’s mother led A-1 to kidnap and murder Bhoominadhan. The body was found with multiple injuries near Sarvepalli Reservoir the next morning.

Despite the gravity of the allegations, the case stood solely on the slender thread of circumstantial evidence, primarily the statements of two purported eyewitnesses—PW-5 and PW-6—who initially alleged to have seen the deceased being assaulted and dragged into an auto by A-1 and his accomplices.

But when these witnesses appeared before the Trial Court, they turned hostile, disowning their prior statements and denying knowledge of the accused or the incident. Their revised deposition merely stated that they had seen a “galata” (commotion) near the banyan tree in Talpagiri Colony on the day in question, and critically, they failed to identify anyone involved or affirm witnessing a kidnapping.

“Suspicion Cannot Replace Legal Proof, Nor Can Hostile Witnesses Construct a Conviction”: The Court Reiterates the Panchsheel of Circumstantial Evidence

The Supreme Court, per Justice Pankaj Mithal, stated emphatically: “There is no evidence to either prove the kidnapping of the deceased Bhoominadhan or that he was last seen in the company of A-1.”

The Court referred to the five golden principles (the panchsheel) of circumstantial evidence laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, reiterating that each circumstance must be fully established and form an unbroken chain pointing only to the guilt of the accused. In the present case, it found that this essential threshold was not met:

“In the absence of such evidence and the fact that both PW-5 and PW-6 have turned hostile, it cannot be held that A-1 was involved in the incident and that he was responsible for the killing of the deceased, on the basis of the last seen theory.”

Further dismantling the prosecution case, the Court held: “We are of the clear view that [PW-5 and PW-6] have not uttered a single word so as to prove the kidnapping as alleged or even that the deceased was with them at any point of time in the evening of 26.03.2016.”

Trial and High Court Rulings Set Aside for "Complete Misreading of Evidence"

The appellant had been convicted under Sections 302, 364, and 201 of the IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. The High Court confirmed the conviction in its judgment dated 19.06.2024. However, the Supreme Court found that both courts had relied on speculative interpretation rather than admissible evidence:

“Accordingly, both the Trial Court and the High Court erred in convicting the appellant-A-1 on complete misreading of the evidence.”

It went on to clarify that even a motive, however strongly suggested, is not enough to sustain a conviction when the prosecution fails to prove the commission of the offence either directly or through a solid chain of circumstances:

“Animosity between the parties may be the motive behind the crime but it is not sufficient to prove the commission of the crime unless the evidence proves kidnapping/abduction and killing of the deceased.”

“The Prosecution Has Miserably Failed”: Supreme Court Orders Acquittal and Immediate Release

Finding the case lacking in direct proof, last seen evidence, reliable eyewitnesses, and an unbroken circumstantial chain, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments of the lower courts, and ordered that the accused be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.

The verdict concluded: “The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the commission of the offence at the hands of A-1.”

And with that, the case that began with shocking allegations ended in complete exoneration due to elementary failures in the prosecution’s evidentiary structure.

Date of Decision: 17 September 2025