Suspicion Cannot Take the Place of Proof — Telangana High Court Acquits Accused in Alleged Murder of Private Financier

Circumstantial Evidence Must Form a Complete Chain — Prosecution Failed to Prove Even Basic Links - Telangana High Court set aside the conviction of Vemula Srinivasa Rao (A1) for the alleged murder of his relative and employer, Nama Muralidhar Rao, a prominent private financier and second-hand car dealer. The Division Bench of Justice K. Sureshender and Justice E.V. Venugopal ruled that the conviction was unsustainable as the prosecution failed to establish a conclusive chain of circumstances and heavily relied on contradictory, improved, and suspicious testimonies. The Court held, “Suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot take the place of proof.”

The judgment turned the spotlight on the fundamental requirement of criminal law that circumstantial evidence must lead only to one hypothesis — that of the guilt of the accused — and no other. The Court firmly held, “There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between ‘may be proved’ and ‘must be or should be proved’. The mental distance between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’ is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.”

The prosecution's case was built around the theory that A1, who was assisting the deceased in his daily finance and second-hand car business, harbored a grudge due to financial disputes and thus conspired to murder him on 21st April 2011 by staging a road accident using a white Indica car. The prosecution alleged that after the deceased's death, A1 dishonestly took away the deceased’s business diary and collections, tampered with evidence, and misled the family.

The trial court convicted A1 relying heavily on alleged circumstantial links, including his proximity to the deceased, the seizure of the purported crime vehicle (MO1), A1's collection of Rs.3 lakh from a borrower after the deceased's death, and the alleged repair and repainting of the car used in the crime. However, the High Court dismantled each of these so-called circumstances one by one.

The Court found that the seizure of the Indica car (MO1), supposedly the crime vehicle, was highly doubtful. The panch witness (PW21) categorically denied that A1 led the police to the recovery of the car, contradicting the prosecution’s version. Another witness (PW25) claimed the car was seized from a different location altogether. The Court observed, “PW.25's testimony introduces a serious contradiction regarding the place of seizure, and this contradiction strikes at the root of the prosecution's case.”

It was also noted that the vehicle number was found freshly painted during trial, raising doubts about the authenticity of the evidence. The Court remarked, “MO1 appears to have been planted to connect A1 to the crime.”

The allegation that A1 collected Rs.3 lakh from PW8 after the deceased’s death also failed under scrutiny. The Court recorded multiple contradictions between PW8 and PW16 regarding the amounts paid, dates of payment, and how they discovered the deceased's death. “The testimonies of PW8 and PW16 show clear improvements over their earlier statements. Such contradictions cannot form the basis of a conviction,” the Court said.

A significant blow to the prosecution came when it failed to prove that A1 even had possession of the alleged crime vehicle. PW13, the person who earlier owned the Indica car, categorically deposed that he had sold the car to a third party nearly a year before the alleged incident. The Court observed, “The prosecution’s evidence is not clear as to how A1 got access to MO1, if according to PW.13, he had already sold it to another person.” Further, there was no effort by the investigating officer to trace the supposed purchaser.

The Court severely criticized the manner in which prosecution witnesses, particularly PW1 (the deceased’s wife), PW2, PW4, and PW5, gave improved versions of events during the trial. Justice Sureshender noted, “The entire evidence of PW.1 regarding disputes between A1 and the deceased appears to be an improvement.” The Investigating Officer (PW27) admitted that such facts were never disclosed during the investigation. The Court found that the motive attributed to A1 — namely financial disputes and personal grudge — remained merely speculative.

The Bench emphasized that the prosecution did not even establish the basic link between A1 and the alleged crime vehicle, or the so-called business diary, which was never recovered. The Court noted, “The confession is unreliable, the seizure is doubtful, the motive is unproven, and the evidence of witnesses is tainted with improvements and contradictions.”

The Court invoked the authoritative principle laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra and Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam, stating that unless every circumstance is proved beyond reasonable doubt and forms a complete chain pointing only towards the guilt of the accused, conviction cannot be sustained. The Court held, “Suspicion, no matter how strong, cannot substitute proof.”

While setting aside the conviction, the Court concluded, “Benefit of doubt is extended to the appellant. The conviction recorded by the III Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Ranga Reddy District is hereby set aside.”

The judgment is a textbook application of the principle that circumstantial evidence must pass through the strict filter of consistency, credibility, and conclusiveness. The Court’s careful dissection of contradictions, procedural lapses, and breakage in the chain of evidence makes it a significant precedent on the standard of proof required in cases based solely on circumstantial evidence.

Date of Decision: 27 March 2025