Suspicion Cannot Replace Proof in Criminal Cases: Kerala High Court Acquits Man Accused of Killing Woman During Exorcism

Circumstantial Evidence Must Form an Unbroken Chain Leading to Guilt - In a significant ruling Kerala High Court acquitted a man accused of murdering a woman under the guise of performing an exorcism, setting aside his conviction for life imprisonment. The Court, in Muhammed Siraj v. State of Kerala, ruled that "the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and in such cases, suspicion, however strong, cannot replace legal proof."

The judgment overturned the verdict of the Additional District & Sessions Court - VI, Kollam, which had convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for allegedly causing the death of Haseena, a woman suffering from psychiatric disorders, during an exorcism.

"Last Seen Theory Cannot Be the Sole Basis of Conviction" – High Court Finds Gaps in Prosecution Case
The prosecution had alleged that Haseena’s father, distressed over his daughter’s psychiatric condition and the difficulty in arranging her younger sister’s marriage, sought the help of an exorcist, the first accused, to "drive out evil spirits." The accused allegedly performed exorcisms at their house from January 25, 2014, onwards, and on July 12, 2014, around midnight, the accused and his associates forcibly restrained Haseena, sat on her back, and pulled her head backward, causing fatal spinal injuries.

The defense argued that the case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, with no direct witnesses to the alleged murder. The Sessions Court convicted the appellant based primarily on the "Last Seen Theory," concluding that he was the only person present with the deceased before her death.

Rejecting this reasoning, the High Court ruled that "for the Last Seen Theory to be applied, the prosecution must prove that no other hypothesis except guilt is possible. In this case, multiple people were present in the house, including the victim's own father, making it unsafe to infer that the appellant alone was responsible."

"Suspicious Circumstances Cannot Substitute Proof" – Court Highlights Contradictions in Witness Statements
The Court examined the testimonies of PW2 (the victim’s mother), PW3 (the victim’s younger sister), and PW4 (another relative), who initially claimed that the appellant was the sole person in the room with the deceased at the time of the incident. However, their earlier police statements suggested that the victim was last seen on her father’s lap.

Finding this contradiction crucial, the Court held that "when key witnesses themselves have changed their version, the prosecution case becomes unreliable. A criminal conviction cannot be based on inconsistent testimony that raises doubt rather than confirming guilt."

The Court also noted that while the prosecution failed to establish a clear motive against the accused, it had initially framed the victim’s father as the main conspirator. However, he was later acquitted due to lack of evidence.

"Circumstantial Evidence Must Be Conclusive" – High Court Finds Chain of Events Incomplete
Referring to settled legal principles in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the Court observed that "a conviction can only be sustained when each piece of evidence forms a complete chain, leading to the only conclusion that the accused is guilty. If any link in the chain is broken or can support another hypothesis, the accused must be given the benefit of the doubt."

Quoting the Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, the Court emphasized that "the graver the crime, the greater the standard of proof required. Suspicion, however strong, cannot replace conclusive proof, and the benefit of doubt must always favor the accused."

Applying these principles, the Court ruled that "the prosecution’s case had multiple missing links—there was no direct evidence, contradictory witness statements weakened the Last Seen Theory, and the alleged motive remained unclear. In such circumstances, the conviction could not be sustained."

Setting aside the conviction, the Kerala High Court ruled that "the finding of guilt, conviction, and sentence passed against the appellant under Section 302 IPC is set aside, and he is acquitted of all charges." The Court ordered that the appellant be released immediately unless required in any other case.

The Kerala High Court has reaffirmed the fundamental principle that "circumstantial evidence must lead to only one possible conclusion—the guilt of the accused. If any alternative explanation exists, the benefit of the doubt must be given to the accused."

By overturning a conviction based on weak circumstantial evidence and an unreliable Last Seen Theory, the Court has reinforced that "suspicion cannot replace proof, and every accused person is entitled to a fair trial based on conclusive and unambiguous evidence."
 

Date of Decision: 05 March 2025