When Motive is Fabricated, 'Last Seen' is Belated, and Recovery is Irrelevant — Criminal Conviction Cannot Stand: Supreme Court

“Suspicion, However Grave, Cannot Replace Proof” - In a stinging reaffirmation of the principles of criminal jurisprudence, Today,  Supreme Court of India, on 26 September 2025, upheld the acquittal of all accused in the alleged murder conspiracy of one Shri Suresh Sharma, declaring that “no person can be convicted on surmise, suspicion, or speculation”.

Apex Court dismissed the appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan and confirmed the High Court’s verdict which had acquitted the accused earlier convicted by the Trial Court. The Court decisively ruled that the entire case rested on “concocted motive, delayed and doubtful witnesses, and inadmissible electronic records”, which fell far short of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

“Prosecution Story a Web of Infirmities: Motive Unproved, Witnesses Unreliable, Recoveries Inconsequential”

Delivering the judgment, Justice Sandeep Mehta, speaking for the Bench, declared that “the theory of motive and last seen was nothing but a conjectural story”, and added that “none of the three alleged incriminating circumstances — motive, last seen theory and recoveries — were proved by admissible or reliable evidence.”

The Court noted that while the deceased’s body was found with signs of brutal strangulation and attempts to obliterate identity, the legal case against the accused — Hemlata, Narpat Choudhary, and Bhanwar Singh — was riddled with evidentiary lacunae, procedural lapses, and unreliable testimony.

“Motive Is Not a Substitute for Proof — Prosecution Cannot Manufacture Motive From Innuendo”

The prosecution had constructed a motive suggesting that the deceased Suresh Sharma was frequently visiting the residence of Hemlata, which allegedly caused unrest between her and her husband Narpat. Further, Bhanwar Singh was said to bear a grudge over a land dispute in which Suresh Sharma had supported the opposite party.

But the Court noted emphatically that “both the complainant and the deceased’s wife stated there were no disputes or tension between Suresh and Hemlata”. Even the star witness Sayri Devi, who claimed Bhanwar Singh had issued threats to the deceased, admitted in cross-examination that the land had actually been sold to a different Bhanwar Singh altogether.

“The statements are improvements and exaggerations made at the stage of trial. The theory of motive is entirely unsubstantiated,” the Court concluded.

“Witnesses Who Wake Up After a Month Cannot Inspire Judicial Confidence”

The prosecution's reliance on “last seen” testimony by Hukum Singh and Dharmender Singh was dismantled for its belated timing and unnatural conduct.

“If a man is seen near the location of his murder and those who saw him say nothing for over a month, their silence is louder than their testimony,” remarked the Bench.

Both witnesses claimed to have seen the deceased parking his scooter near Hemlata’s house on the evening of 22 January 2006, but neither spoke up until 28 February — 36 days after the incident — despite being present during inquest proceedings on the very next day. The Court found this delay “fatal and suspicious”, terming their silence “unnatural and untrustworthy”.

“Recovered Chunni With Blood Stains is Meaningless Without Forensic Link to the Deceased”

A chunni allegedly recovered from Hemlata’s house — said to be blood-stained — was touted as the physical link connecting the accused to the crime. But the Court rejected this outright, holding that no blood grouping was conducted, and the house remained open and accessible for days, making the recovery “highly doubtful”.

“The chunni, even if bloodstained, cannot connect the accused to the crime unless the blood group is matched and proved to belong to the deceased. This was never done,” observed the Bench.

“Call Records Without 65B Certificate Are Not Evidence — They Are Hearsay on Paper”

The prosecution also attempted to bolster its theory of conspiracy by submitting call detail records, allegedly showing communication between the accused. The Supreme Court rejected the evidence outright: “No certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act was produced, nor was the origin of the handwritten customer data ever proved in court. Electronic evidence must comply with the law — otherwise, it’s no evidence at all.”

This procedural flaw rendered a major plank of the conspiracy case inadmissible and legally worthless.

“Murder Requires More Than Motive — It Requires Proof”

Summing up, the Supreme Court declared that “the view taken by the High Court in acquitting the accused is based on correct appreciation of the evidence”, and found “no perversity, misreading, or omission” that could justify appellate interference.

Quoting its own precedent in Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka, the Court reiterated that “appellate interference with acquittals is warranted only in cases of glaring perversity. That threshold is not met here.”

 “There Is No Legal Evidence Worth the Name Linking the Accused to the Crime”

In its concluding words, the Supreme Court shut the door on the State’s appeal:

“Taken together, the prosecution’s theory of motive, last seen evidence, and recoveries, all crumble under scrutiny. Acquittal was not just appropriate — it was inevitable.”

Date of Decision: 26 September 2025