Medical Evidence Proving Loss Of Life Not Enough To Convict A Person In Vicinity: Supreme Court Acquits Man In 85-Yr-Old Lady’s Rape & Murder Case

The Supreme Court has acquitted a man who was accused of raping and killing an 85-year-old elderly woman in the year 2016 at Coimbatore.

The Court was hearing a Criminal Appeal challenging the Judgment of the Madras High Court, which upheld the conviction under Sections 302, 449, 376, and 394 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

The two-Judge Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih held, “No hair or skin sample has been collected from the site which would connect the Appellant in any manner with the place of the incident or the offence. Merely because the medical evidence proves the unfortunate loss of life would not be enough to convict a person since he happened to be in the vicinity. In the absence of any forensic evidence when there is no eyewitness and the case is of circumstantial evidence, benefit would go to the accused.”

The Bench remarked that the medical evidence would only point to the offence having been committed but unfortunately prosecution has not been able to connect the accused to the offence on the basis of medical evidence except to the extent that he was found to be potent and thus capable of committing the said offence.

AOR Madhu Moolchandani represented the Appellant/Accused, while AOR Sabarish Subramanian represented the Respondent/State.

Facts of the Case

The deceased elderly victim who lived alone in a house opposite to the house of her daughter (Complainant) who lived in the same area, was found dead. In the morning, when the Complainant’s son went to the house where his grandmother resided, he saw the door open and the deceased lying on the ground. He panicked and called his mother i.e., the Complainant, and they allegedly found the deceased strangulated with a towel around her neck with two gold bangles missing from her hands. Resultantly, an FIR was registered and the investigation commenced. As per the post-mortem report, it came to light that the cause of death was asphyxiation, as the deceased had been killed due to compression on the neck by a towel. Prior thereto, she had been put to sexual assault, as per the opinion of the doctor.

The viscera report as well as the vaginal and uterus sample analysis were received, which did not really reflect much as no semen was found. An informant identified the Appellant-accused near the over-bridge of North Coimbatore and seeing the police, he allegedly jumped from the over-bridge and hurt himself. Thereafter, he was taken into custody and at the hospital, he allegedly gave voluntary confession and produced the gold bangles from his pocket taken by him from the deceased. The bangles were seized and the mahazar report was prepared in front of him. The Trial Court held the Appellant-accused guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment, which was upheld by the High Court. Being aggrieved, he was before the Apex Court.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court in the above regard, observed, “It appears to be unreasonable that the Appellant would be carrying the bangles with him at these odd hours i.e. 4:00 a.m., and that too, two days after the incident. Therefore, planting of the gold bangles upon the Appellant cannot be ruled out, casting serious doubt upon the alleged recovery.”

The Court said that the unfortunate incident had taken place where an old lady of 85 years was not only robbed but was raped and murdered brutally, but the question would be as to whether the Appellant is the person who has committed the offence.

“In the judgement of this Court in Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, it has been held that in cases wherein the guilt of the accused is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence, if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted”, it reiterated.

The Court was of the view that the prosecution failed to connect the Appellant to the offence through medical or forensic evidence as no blood, hair or skin sample, or fingerprint belonging to him has been found on the body of the deceased, the recovered articles, or at the place of occurrence.

“… the subsequent recovery of the two gold bangles from the pocket of the Appellant also becomes doubtful. … Another aspect which casts a serious doubt upon the investigation is the non-association and non-examination of Marcus, who had accompanied the Appellant for a smoke at 2:00 a.m. from the house of Akash Saksena and therefore, was the only person with whom the Appellant had last gone out of the house. The Appellant returned alone to the house and therefore left from there”, it noted.

The Court further remarked that it is rather strange for the prosecution to claim that Marcus was not a material witness, when it is the case of the prosecution that the offence had been committed between 2:00 a.m. and 3:00 a.m.; this creates a strong possibility of false implication.

“All the above aspects when seen in the context of the case being dealt with by us, a case of circumstantial evidence, it would be difficult to bring it within the parameters set out in various judgments of this Court as mentioned in Karakkattu Muhammed Basheer case (supra)”, it also observed.

Conclusion

Moreover, the Court said that the prosecution has failed to bring forth reliable evidence forming a complete string of events, leading to the guilt of the Appellant and the chain of events being sought to be projected is laden with deficiencies creating significant gaps, leading to other possible hypotheses.

“Due to such missing links, a finding of guilt cannot be recorded. The benefit of the doubt with regard to this must flow to the accused. In this light, the guilt of the accused has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt and the impugned judgments are, thus, liable to be set aside”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Appeal, set aside the impugned Judgment, and acquitted the accused.

Cause Title- Mohamed Sameer Khan v. State represented by Inspector of Police (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1269)

Click here to read/download the Judgment