+91 964 334 1948
30 Oct 2025, 09:12 AM
The Supreme Court set aside the conviction of a man accused of rapine, robbing and murdering an 85-year-old woman, observing that the prosecution's case, based solely on circumstantial evidence, failed to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court noted that the non-examination of a crucial witness, who was last seen with the accused, left significant gaps in the investigation and created a strong possibility of false implication.
The Appellant, Mohamed Sameer Khan (“Appellant”), had been convicted by the Second Additional Sessions Judge (Special Court for Bomb Blast Case, Coimbatore) on 17 November 2017 under Sections 302, 449, 376 and 394 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to life imprisonment for murder of an 85-year-old woman, robbery of two gold bangles, and sexual assault(no semen found).
On 19 December 2016, early morning, the deceased was found strangulated with a towel around her neck, two gold bangles missing from her hands, and evidence of sexual assault.
The case against the Appellant was built on circumstantial evidence: that he was seen leaving a compound near the deceased's house at about 2:45 a.m.; that he was seen the prior night at a party with others, left at about 3 a.m.; the informant identified him and he was arrested 22 December 2016 at about 4:00 a.m. near a bridge; at hospital he allegedly confessed and produced the two bangles from his pocket. The Appellant denied the case against him, claimed he was falsely implicated, alleged torture in custody, and disputed the recovery of the bangles.
The Appellant was not a Tamil native, and spoke only Hindi and Manipuri languages.
The judgment was upheld by the High Court of Judicature at Madras on 28 October 2021.
In the appeal in the Supreme Court, a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and AG Masih set aside the Madras High Court's decision. An individual named Marcus, who was last seen with the accused was not examined as a witness, who can well inform about the whereabouts of the accused. When asked about why this person was not arrayed as witness, the Prosecution gave reply that he was not a material witness to the case.
Noting that the prosecution's non-involvement of Marcus as a witness created a doubt on its case, the judgment authored by Justice Masih observed:
“In this light, an aspect, which marks itself as a contradiction and may cast doubt on the efficiency, sincerity and fairness of the investigation is the nonrecording of the statement of Marcus, who is the person, who had been with the Appellant and had last seen him. Both of them came out of the house to smoke after the party was over at 2:00 a.m. His statement was not recorded nor was he associated with the inquiry or the investigation. Strangely, explanation of the prosecution in this regard is that he was not a material witness. This creates a doubt as he could be a suspect and in any case the person who would have indicated as to how long he and the Appellant were together, throwing some light as to whether the Appellant had the opportunity or time to go to the site of incident and/or commit such an offence…The benefit of doubt with regard to this has to be given to the accused.”
“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 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.”, the court added.
Also, the evidence of the time of death indicated it occurred between about 9:00 p.m. on 18 Dec and 2:00 a.m. on 19 Dec; the Appellant's presence in the vicinity at about 2:45 a.m. (seen leaving the compound) did not necessarily link him to the house of the deceased. The witness who saw him leave the compound (PW-5) did not assert that he came out of the house of the deceased; only of the compound.
Further, the complainant's identity was not ascertained as no Test Identification Parade was conducted to identify the complainant.
“Nothing has come on record, either in the form of any document or in the statement of any of the witnesses including the investigating officer with regard to the identity of the informant. The said informant's statement has also not been recorded by the investigating officer nor has he been produced as a witness. Moreover, the evidence does not indicate that a sketch of the Criminal Appeal No.2069/2024 Page 22 of 30 suspect was prepared or any photograph was seized which could be taken as a reference for trying to search for the said suspect. The Complainant (PW-1) and her son (PW-2) did not know the Appellant nor have they met him ever so the question of them identifying the Appellant does not arise. As a matter of fact, no Test Identification Parade had been carried out of the Appellant after his arrest.”, the Court said.
Also, the forensic evidence doesn't establish the accused's linkage with the deceased 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.”
Although the prosecution relied on recovery of two gold bangles from the Appellant's pocket, the informant's identity was not disclosed, no test identification parade was held, no fingerprints or forensic material connected the Appellant with the scene. The sniffer dog and fingerprint expert visited the scene but found nothing linking the Appellant. The Court found that the recovery could well have been “planted” given the inconsistencies in how it was made (Appellant carrying the bangles at 4:00 a.m. two days later, etc).
Given these significant gaps, the Court held that the chain of events was not complete and unbroken as required in circumstantial cases. There remained other possible hypotheses (including false implication) and hence the benefit of doubt must be given to the Appellant.
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the conviction was set aside.
“The prosecution has failed to bring forth reliable evidence forming a complete string of events, leading to the guilt of the Appellant. The chain of events being sought to be projected is laden with deficiencies creating significant gaps, leading to other possible hypotheses as aforementioned. 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.”, the Court observed.
Cause Title: MOHAMED SAMEER KHAN VERSUS STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1045