The Supreme Court has held that mere production of telephone records does not constitute substantive proof of an alleged illicit affair or a motive for murder, while upholding the Bombay High Court's acquittal of three accused for murder in the 2007 murder of ICICI Bank employee Kiran Suryawanshi.

The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence necessary to sustain convictions for murder and criminal conspiracy.

The prosecution had alleged that Monika Suryawanshi, the deceased's wife, conspired with her neighbour Prakash Patil (her alleged lover) and his friend Dnyaneshwar Mahale to murder Kiran after allegedly administering sedatives and fatally assaulting him with a grinding stone. According to the prosecution, the body was being transported on a motorcycle for disposal when Prakash and Dnyaneshwar were intercepted by a police constable.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prasanna B. Varale observed, “…The defence correctly argued that there is absolutely no positive legal evidence on record to prove a reciprocal love affair. At its highest, the evidence of P.W.13 and P.W.18 depicts a one-sided infatuation harboured by accused no. 2 towards accused no. 1. There is no cogent evidence proving that accused no. 1 reciprocated these feelings or harboured any animosity toward her husband. Mere production of telephone records does not substitute substantive proof of an illicit affair leading to murder. Thus, the motive is inherently weak and insufficient to anchor a conviction for murder”.

Senior Advocate Sanjay Kharde appeared for the appellant and Abha R. Sharma, AOR appeared for the respondent.

The Bench, accordingly dismissed the appeals filed by the State of Maharashtra and the victim's family, affirming that the prosecution had failed to prove charges under Sections 302, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) beyond reasonable doubt.

However, the Court upheld the conviction of Prakash Patil and Dnyaneshwar Mahale under Section 201 read with Section 34 IPC for causing disappearance of evidence.

The Bench noted that they were caught red-handed transporting the deceased's body on a motorcycle and that this evidence conclusively established their role in attempting to screen the offenders from legal punishment. Since both had already undergone the one-year sentence imposed for the offence, the Court found no reason to interfere.

The Court observed that while the homicidal nature of Kiran's death was undisputed, the prosecution was required to establish a complete chain of circumstances pointing exclusively to the guilt of the accused. Reiterating the settled principles, the Bench held that each incriminating circumstance must be conclusively proved and must exclude every reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence.

“…shockingly, no blood was found on the mattresses, chaddar, or pillow in the house of accused no. 1. This physical impossibility speaks volumes and entirely contradicts the prosecution’s fundamental narrative that deceased Kiran Suryawanshi was brutally bludgeoned to death in his bed”, it noted.

Examining the evidence, the Court found that the alleged motive of an extramarital relationship between Monika and Prakash remained unproved. It held that witness testimonies and call records did not establish a reciprocal relationship or a conspiracy to commit murder.

The Bench also found the prosecution's "last seen" theory unreliable, noting that the prosecution had failed to conclusively establish the time of death. It further observed that the digital evidence contradicted the prosecution's own case, as there was no outgoing call from Monika's phone to Prakash's phone on the night of the incident.

The Court attached considerable significance to defects in the investigation. It noted that the alleged murder weapon and other recovered articles were not sealed at the time of seizure, rendering the forensic evidence unreliable. Referring to earlier precedents, the Bench held that failure to seal seized articles raises serious doubts about the genuineness of the recovery and the integrity of the forensic examination.

The Court also observed that despite the prosecution's theory that the deceased was bludgeoned to death inside the bedroom, no blood was found on the mattress, bedsheet or pillow, which substantially weakened the prosecution's version.

“…we find no error in the well-reasoned judgment of the High Court. The prosecution’s case against the accused for murder and conspiracy, resting entirely on circumstantial evidence, suffers from vital lacunae, specifically the failure to establish a motive, the unreliability of the ‘last seen’ witness, contradictory telephonic records, the devastating failure to seal recovered articles at the spot, and the complete absence of blood in the bedroom where the brutal murder supposedly occurred. The chain of circumstances is broken, and the hypothesis of guilt is not exclusively established.” the Bench noted.

Cause Title: State Of Maharashtra v. Monika Kiran Suryawanshi & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 Insc 685)

Appellants: Punam Kumari, AOR, Shantwanu Singh, Pragya Singh, Sanjay Kharde, Sr. Adv., Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR, Shrirang B. Varma, Advocates.

Respondents: Abha R. Sharma, AOR, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR.

Click here to read/download the Judgment


Tags: