Reversal of Acquittal Without Dislodging Trial Court’s Reasoning Is Impermissible: Supreme Court Restores Acquittal

“Acquittal Strengthens Presumption of Innocence and Cannot Be Lightly Disturbed” — In a significant reaffirmation of principles governing circumstantial evidence and appellate review in criminal trials, the Supreme Court on January 27, 2026, set aside the conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC, which had been entered by the Meghalaya High Court by reversing a well-reasoned acquittal recorded by the Trial Court. The apex court held that the High Court erred in upsetting the acquittal without first establishing that the Trial Court's view was either unreasonable or perverse, and that in a case based entirely on circumstantial evidence, the golden principles laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda must be fully satisfied.

“An acquittal by one Court reinforces the presumption of innocence and cannot be displaced merely on the basis of alternative inferences. The High Court substituted its own reasoning without dislodging the factual foundation of the Trial Court’s conclusions,” observed the Bench comprising Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Sanjay Kumar.

“Last Seen Theory Must Prove Proximity to Death, Mere Suspicion Is No Proof”: Apex Court Discredits Prosecution's Core Theory

At the heart of the prosecution’s case was the “last seen together” theory, alleging that the deceased was last seen in the company of the appellants on the evening of 18.02.2006, following which he went missing. However, the Court pointed out that no eyewitness had actually seen the deceased with the accused proximate to the time of death, nor was there any concrete evidence of such meeting on the critical evening.

The Court categorically held: “There is no proof of the deceased having been seen together with the accused immediately before the death occurred… The ‘last seen together’ theory projected by the prosecution fails miserably in the above circumstances.”

The bench went further to observe that even the identification of the accused by the autorickshaw driver (PW12) was flawed, as it was first done at the police station without a Test Identification Parade, thereby placing the dock identification under a cloud of suspicion.

“Medical Evidence Inconclusive, Homicide Not Established Beyond Doubt”: Court Cautions Against Drawing Guilt from Ambiguous Forensics

The post-mortem report, though suggesting asphyxia by strangulation, was later revealed in cross-examination to have inconsistencies that raised the possibility of death by hanging, including the absence of cyanosis or classical signs of strangulation, and the fact that the hyoid bone was intact.

“We find that the medical opinion is not conclusive as to a homicide,” held the Court. It stressed that without strong corroborative evidence, such ambiguous medical findings cannot form the basis of a conviction for murder.

“Recovery of Body or Alleged Weapon Not Attributable to Accused”: Section 27 Evidence Fails in Absence of Disclosure and Witness Support

While the High Court had relied on the discovery of the deceased’s body and recovery of a rope allegedly used for strangulation as critical evidence, the Supreme Court found both recoveries to be legally unsustainable under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.

With regard to the discovery of the body, the Court noted: “No disclosure statement under Section 27 was recorded, and independent witnesses did not support the claim that the accused led the police to the burial site.” In fact, even the photographers called to document the exhumation could not confirm the accused’s presence at the spot.

As for the rope, the Court observed: “There was no human tissue, no blood, no hair, and no forensic evidence linking it to the crime. The recovery itself was from an open place previously accessed, and not supported by any disclosure statement.”

“Possessions Allegedly Recovered Were Neither Proven to Belong to Deceased Nor Linked to Crime”: Seizures Lack Evidentiary Value

The High Court had also relied on the seizure of several items—including a laptop, spectacles, chain, bag, purse, mobile phone, and rakhi—allegedly belonging to the deceased and found in possession of the accused or third parties. The apex court found this line of reasoning deeply flawed.

“These articles were never properly identified by the deceased’s father or any prosecution witness. Some seizure witnesses turned hostile, and one laptop was in possession of a friend of the deceased, which had been entrusted prior to the death,” the Court observed.

Noting that the mobile phone allegedly linked to the deceased was never proven to belong to him, and the handing over was uncorroborated, the Court held: “The recoveries made do not form a link, in the conspicuously absent chain of circumstances.”

“Confessions Were Retracted, Exculpatory, and Made Without Legal Assistance”: Supreme Court Rejects Section 164 Statements as Basis for Conviction

One of the most striking parts of the judgment was the Court’s strong disapproval of reliance on confessional statements recorded under Section 164 CrPC, where the procedural safeguards were found grossly lacking.

The confession of Accused No. 1 (A1) was held to be exculpatory, claiming he found the deceased already being strangulated by A2 and tried to revive him. Accused No. 2’s (A2) confession merely admitted presence during the incident, saying the deceased died in his lap—without acknowledging any act of killing.

“These are not confessions in the legal sense. They neither directly acknowledge guilt nor are they voluntarily made with due procedural safeguards. No offer of legal assistance was made by the Magistrate recording the statement, violating Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution,” the Court firmly held.

The judgment cited Pyarelal Bhargava and Kanda Pandyachi, reiterating that a confession must be a plenary acknowledgment of guilt and, in any case, cannot be the sole basis for conviction without independent corroboration.

“Prosecution Failed to Establish a Complete Chain of Circumstances”: Supreme Court Restores Trial Court's Acquittal

After a comprehensive evaluation of all evidentiary elements—last seen theory, medical forensics, recoveries, confessions, and circumstantial links—the Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution’s case did not satisfy the test laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda for circumstantial evidence.

“The High Court proceeded on the premise that the Trial Court lost its way on minor details and failed to see the larger picture,” the Bench observed. “But that larger picture was painted solely with presumptions, not proof. There was no evidence strong enough to form a hypothesis of guilt excluding all other possibilities.”

Accused to Be Released, Acquittal Restored

Accordingly, the appeals were allowed, the High Court’s conviction under Sections 302 and 201 IPC set aside, and the Trial Court’s acquittal restored.

“We direct that if the accused are still in jail, they shall be released forthwith unless required in any other case. If already released on bail, the bail bonds stand cancelled,” concluded the Court.

Date of Decision: 27 January 2026