Nagpur High Court Overturns Double Murder Conviction, Highlights Flaws in Prosecution Evidence
The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court has delivered a significant verdict, acquitting a 61-year-old man who was serving a life sentence for the 2018 murder of his estranged wife and her alleged boyfriend in Amravati district. In a detailed judgment, the court emphasized that "motive by itself cannot take the place of proof", particularly when both direct and circumstantial evidence appears shaky and unreliable.
Court Criticizes Weak Prosecution Case and Unreliable Testimony
A division bench comprising Justices Anil Pansare and Nivedita Mehta set aside the March 10, 2021 conviction of the Amravati resident under Sections 302 (murder) and 450 (house-trespass) of the Indian Penal Code. The court ruled that the prosecution had failed to establish an unbroken chain of circumstances proving that the accused alone committed the crime.
The case originated from the fatal stabbing of the wife and her boyfriend on July 18, 2018, at Wadgaon Zire. The sessions court had largely relied on:
- Testimony from the couple's minor children
- Alleged recovery of a knife and clothes
- Suggested motive of marital discord and an illicit relationship
Key Evidentiary Gaps Identified by High Court
Upon reassessing the evidence, the High Court found fundamental weaknesses in the prosecution's case. The son admitted during testimony that he "did not witness the assault" and based his account on information received later. The daughter, projected as the key witness, "categorically stated that she did not see the incident" and acknowledged that her earlier statement naming her father was made "under threat and pressure by 1 policeman and 1 female."
The bench observed: "The court deemed it unsafe to sustain a conviction solely on such uncorroborated child testimony that failed to inspire confidence, especially in a purely circumstantial murder case requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt."
Medical Evidence and Recovery Issues
While medical evidence confirmed homicidal deaths, the judges stressed it did not connect the accused to the crime. "Suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof," the court stated, adding that "medical opinion is corroborative in nature and cannot substitute substantive evidence."
Regarding the alleged recovery of the weapon, the bench noted the spot was an open, accessible place and did not meet the requirements of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The judges observed that "the possibility of planted recovery cannot be ruled out." Additionally, a shopkeeper's claim that he sold chilli powder to the accused shortly before the crime was rejected due to delays, lack of an identification parade, and omissions in his police statement.
Final Ruling and Legal Implications
The bench concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence. While quashing the Amravati sessions court verdict of March 10, 2021, the judges ordered the petitioner's acquittal. This judgment reinforces crucial legal principles in Indian jurisprudence, particularly regarding:
- The necessity of reliable evidence in circumstantial cases
- The limitations of child testimony without corroboration
- The distinction between suspicion and proof in criminal proceedings
- Proper evidentiary standards for recovery of weapons
The Nagpur High Court's decision serves as a reminder of the judiciary's role in ensuring that convictions are based on solid evidence rather than conjecture or weak testimony, upholding the fundamental principle that proof beyond reasonable doubt remains the cornerstone of criminal justice.
