The Supreme Court observed that in cases relying solely on circumstantial evidence, the absence of motive can cast significant doubt on the evidence presented
Case ticks box of accidental gunshot injury, SC sets aside conviction of BHMS student of killing friend-classmate
The Supreme Court has acquitted an undergraduate student in a homeopathy course by overturning his conviction in the 2010 murder case of his friend, citing a lack of motive. It observed that in cases relying solely on circumstantial evidence, the absence of motive can cast significant doubt on the evidence presented.
Justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma concluded that the high court had erred in finding the student guilty and upholding the trial court’s verdict. They acquitted Vaibhav of charges of murder and illegal firearm use, noting that the circumstantial evidence was inconsistent and allowed for a reasonable possibility that he was innocent.
“The present case ticks the boxes of an accidental gunshot injury, both in theory and in fact. The possibility of a homicidal death is very weak and no direct nexus exists to conclude that the trigger was pulled by the appellant,” the court said.
The SC found the counter probabilities and inconsistencies in the chain of circumstances have not been explained and its benefits should go to the accused. It, however, upheld conviction on charges of destruction of evidence and sentenced him to the period undergone by him, as he tried to dispose of the body of the deceased Mangesh, who was studying in his class at Bagla Homoeopathic Medical College in Maharashtra.
The court noted that the version of the prosecution suffers from inconsistencies and doubts and, in such a scenario, the inability of the appellant to explain certain circumstances could not be made the basis to relieve the prosecution from discharging its primary burden.
On September 16, 2010, both friends left college together on Mangesh’s scooter, but Mangesh did not return home. His father reported him missing, and his body was found the next day.
The trial court determined that Vaibhav had killed Mangesh using his father’s service gun and that his friend Vishal was guilty of destroying evidence. The Bombay High Court upheld Vaibhav’s conviction and acquitted Vishal.
Vaibhav’s defence before the HC included the impossibility of a homicidal death based on the bullet trajectory and evidence suggesting an accidental death. He claimed Mangesh was accidentally shot with his father’s pistol at his home and, in fear, he tried to clean up the scene and disposing of his body.
The bench examined the matter and noted that while Mangesh was shot with the pistol belonging to Vaibhav’s father, the crucial question was: who pulled the trigger, and it remained unanswered despite two rounds of litigation.
It found that the bullet trajectory suggested the possibility of an accidental shooting, as the prosecution’s version did not explain the same. It criticised the high court for dismissing Vaibhav’s defence based on his subsequent conduct.
“In gunshot cases wherein the nature of death – suicidal, accidental or homicidal – is not ascertainable from direct evidence, multiple factors are taken into account for arriving at a conclusion,” the bench said.
It further said these factors include point of entrance, wound size and direction, gunshot distance, weapon position, bullet trajectory, and other relevant aspects. It found no such analysis in the impugned judgment.
“Undoubtedly, in a case based on circumstantial evidence, facts indicating subsequent conduct are relevant facts under Section 8 of the Evidence Act. Equally, the inconsistencies in the version of the appellant are also relevant. However, the occasion to examine the version/defence of the appellant could have arisen only if the prosecution had succeeded in discharging its primary burden beyond reasonable doubt,” it said.
The bench explained that the burden on the prosecution is to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, while the accused only needs to prove a defence by the preponderance of probabilities. The trial court and HC failed to test Vaibhav’s defence, leading to a miscarriage of justice.
The court stressed that while motive is relevant in circumstantial evidence cases, its absence does not automatically discredit the evidence. Other evidence may still suffice to prove guilt. However, the absence of motive can favour the accused.
“There is no rule of law that the absence of motive would ipso facto dismember the chain of evidence and would lead to automatic acquittal of the accused. It is so because the weight of other evidence needs to be seen and if the remaining evidence is sufficient to prove guilt, motive may not hold relevance. But a complete absence of motive is certainly a circumstance which may weigh in favour of the accused,” it said.
