Upholding the judgment of acquittal of two accused in a murder case based on circumstantial evidence, the Supreme Court reiterated that suspicion howsoever strong cannot take place of proof.

The Apex Court was considering two appeals filed by the State of Chhattisgarh challenging the impugned common judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court whereby the respondent–accused Ashok Bhoi was acquitted and the State’s appeal challenging the acquittal of another respondent – accused Vikash Khubwani was dismissed.

The Division Bench of Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Prasanna B. Varale opined, “Letting guilty escape on fanciful doubts is not doing justice according to law. However, it is also well settled that suspicion howsoever strong cannot take place of proof.”

Referring to section 106 of the Evidence Act, the Bench explained, “ It is also true that if the prosecution proves by leading reliable evidence that the accused was last seen with the deceased, the burden would be shifted on the accused to explain the said incriminating evidence either in his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. or by leading evidence in his defence or even by bringing out the facts during the course of cross examination of the prosecution witnesses. The accused’s failure to present evidence on his behalf may be treated by the court as confirming the presumptions that may arise therefrom, nonetheless, that presumption alone, taking recourse to Section 106, would not be sufficient to convict an accused.”

DAG Ravi Sharma represented the Appellant while AOR Rajeev Kumar Bansal represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The incident dates back to the year 2006. The first witness was unable to find his son, Suhash (deceased), as he had gone out and did not return. The father (first witness) sent his second son, Swapnil, to find him out. Swapnil received a telephone call demanding a ransom of Rs.2 lakh for getting Suhash back. An F.I.R. was lodged by the father. Thereafter, at the instance of a juvenile offender, Jivrakhan, the dead body of the deceased was found in an abandoned house.

On further investigation, the respondent accused was taken into custody, and the blood-stained blade, nails & T-shirt were recovered at his instance from the room of the house from where the dead body was found. Based on the disclosure statement made by the co-accused, the other respondent–accused was also arrested. The Sessions Court convicted the accused – Ashok Bhoi for the offences under Sections 364-A and 302 of IPC, and acquitted the accused – Vikash Khubwan.

Reasoning

The Bench found that the entire case of the prosecution hinged on circumstantial evidence because there was no eye-witness to the alleged incident. In so far as the accused – Ashok Bhoi is concerned, the Bench noted that except for the theory of “last seen together”, there was hardly any reliable evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove the charges levelled against the accused. “Though, it is true that the PW-18 had stated that he had seen the accused Ashok Bhoi with the deceased in the evening on the day of incident, the said evidence alone would not be sufficient to hold him guilty of the alleged offence”, the Bench said.

As per the Bench, it was rightly held by the High Court that even the concerned person from the STD-PCO was not examined to substantiate the allegation that the phone call was made by the respondent–accused – Ashok Bhoi. The recovery of the blade, nails and T-shirt with blood stains two days after the incident also did not inspire any confidence.

“Undoubtedly, as per Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the burden of proof lies on the person who has special knowledge of a specific fact. The entire theory of “last seen together” is based on Section 106 of the Evidence Act”, it further held.

“The prosecution has to discharge its burden to prove the other circumstances in the case based on circumstantial evidence, to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt by leading cogent and clinching evidence”, the Bench explained while also adding, “In the case based on circumstantial evidence, the entire chain of circumstances must be clearly established by the prosecution by leading clinching and reliable evidence, and the circumstances so proved must form a chain of events from which only irresistible conclusion that could be drawn, should be the guilt of the accused and no other hypothesis against the guilt.”

Thus, finding no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment, the Bench dismissed both the appeals.

Cause Title: State of Chhattisgarh v. Ashok Bhoi Etc. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 256)

Appearance:

Appellant: DAG Ravi Sharma, AOR Prashant Singh

Respondent: AOR Rajeev Kumar Bansal, Advocate Arun Kumar Arunachal, AOR Vikas Singh Jangra

Click here to read/download Judgement


Justice Bela M TrivediJustice Prasanna B. Varale

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.