The Supreme Court has acquitted two persons convicted of murdering their friend, holding that the prosecution failed to establish that the deceased died a homicidal death and that the evidence on record instead made the theory of accidental drowning more plausible.
The bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran reversed the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the High Court, which had convicted the appellants under Sections 302, 34 and 201 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and directed that the accused be released forthwith if they were not required in any other case.
The prosecution case arose from an incident of July 17, 2006. The deceased had allegedly been taken from his house by the two accused in the early morning on the pretext of going to Ankleshwar to play volleyball. He did not return home by evening, prompting his family to begin searching for him.
Buy Now: 50+ Supreme Court Judgments – July 2026
During the search, the deceased’s clothes and belongings were found on the riverbank. His body was subsequently recovered the next morning. The post-mortem examination attributed the death to asphyxia due to drowning.
The accused had admittedly accompanied the deceased to the river. Their defence, however, was that they had gone there to bathe and that the deceased accidentally drowned. They claimed that they fled from the spot in panic rather than having intentionally caused his death.
The prosecution relied upon a chain of circumstances, including motive, the last-seen theory, the presence of the accused near the place of occurrence, the alleged homicidal nature of the death, the conduct and silence of the accused, an alleged false statement concerning where they had dropped the deceased, and alleged admissions made in a bail application.
The Trial Court convicted both accused under Sections 302, 34 and 201 read with Section 120B IPC. They were sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302, along with additional sentences for criminal conspiracy and causing disappearance of evidence. The High Court subsequently confirmed the convictions.
The Supreme Court, however, found that the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution did not form a complete chain pointing towards murder.
A central issue before the Supreme Court was whether the deceased had been murdered before being thrown into the river.
The Court closely examined the post-mortem report and the testimony of the doctor who conducted the examination. The medical evidence recorded three injuries—a contused lacerated wound above the left eyebrow and two abrasions. However, the doctor had opined that the injuries could have been caused while bathing in the river or while the body was dragged by the flow of water and came into contact with a hard object such as a stone.
The prosecution had suggested that the deceased might have been struck with a broken glass soda bottle before being drowned. The doctor accepted that such an injury was theoretically possible from a broken soda bottle. However, the Supreme Court noted that no broken soda bottle or glass fragments were seized from the scene and no such blood-stained fragments were sent for forensic examination.
The Court therefore held that the post-mortem report, read with the doctor’s testimony, could not support a finding that the death was homicidal.
Instead, the medical evidence leaned in favour of the defence version of accidental drowning.
The Supreme Court also attached significance to the substantial delay in raising allegations of murder against the accused.
According to the record, the deceased went missing on July 17, 2006 and his body was recovered shortly thereafter. Despite the accused having admittedly accompanied the deceased to the river, and despite their alleged explanation that the deceased had accidentally drowned, allegations of murder were not immediately made against them.
The First Information Statement was recorded only on November 3, 2006, around four months after the incident. The Court noted that the accusation was subsequently built around an alleged motive.
The Court found this delay significant while assessing the prosecution’s theory that the accused had deliberately murdered their friend.
The prosecution had attributed separate motives to the two accused. One alleged motive was that the deceased had maintained a relationship with the sister of one accused even after her marriage, which was said to have angered him. The other alleged motive concerned a quarrel between the deceased and the second accused over a cricket match.
The Supreme Court found the alleged motive doubtful.
The Court observed that the conduct of the deceased’s family did not appear consistent with the existence of serious hostility between the deceased and the accused. Despite the alleged motive, the family had allowed the deceased to accompany the accused from home in the early hours of July 17.
The evidence of the deceased’s brother and sister, according to the Court, instead indicated a friendly relationship between the deceased and the accused.
The Court consequently treated the alleged motive as an afterthought, particularly because it emerged in the context of the delayed allegations.
The Supreme Court accepted that the accused had taken the deceased from his house and that all three had subsequently been together near the river. However, that fact alone could not establish that the accused had murdered the deceased.
The accused themselves admitted being with the deceased and consistently maintained that they had gone to the river to bathe, where the deceased accidentally drowned. The Court found that this part of the prosecution’s case did not necessarily contradict the defence.
The Court also examined evidence suggesting that the accused and deceased had been drinking near the river before entering the water. One witness testified that he had seen three persons at the river, that they had consumed alcohol and that the three entered the water to bathe.
The Court held that this evidence established the presence of the accused and deceased together, but did not establish murder.
The prosecution sought to rely upon evidence concerning four soda bottles allegedly purchased by the accused. According to the shop owner, three bottles were returned while one was not.
The accused were also said to have been wet and inebriated when they returned the bottles. The prosecution argued that the circumstances suggested that the missing bottle had been used as a weapon and that the return of the remaining bottles demonstrated premeditation.
The Supreme Court rejected this inference.
It noted that the shopkeepers who identified the accused in court were strangers to them and that no test identification parade had been conducted after their arrest. More importantly, the evidence concerning the soda bottles did not establish that a bottle had been used to murder the deceased.
The Court held that, at its highest, the evidence showed that the accused had consumed alcohol and failed to return one soda bottle. It did not incriminate them in the alleged murder.
The prosecution also relied upon the conduct of the accused after the deceased disappeared in the river. They had allegedly fled from the spot, failed to raise an alarm and later went to watch a movie.
The Supreme Court acknowledged that such conduct was reprehensible. However, it held that reprehensible conduct did not automatically establish that the accused had committed murder.
The Court specifically rejected the reasoning that a person who witnessed a friend drowning would necessarily behave in a particular manner. It observed that human conduct, especially under stressful or adverse circumstances, cannot be predicted through rigid assumptions.
The Court therefore held that the subsequent conduct relied upon by the High Court could not establish the prosecution’s murder theory.
The Supreme Court also considered the accused’s failure to immediately inform the deceased’s family about the drowning.
The Court held that such silence could not, in the circumstances of the case, be treated as an incriminating circumstance because fleeing in panic could also be a possible response even where the death was accidental.
Similarly, the alleged false statement that the deceased had been dropped at a particular location did not conclusively incriminate the accused when viewed against their defence that the deceased had drowned accidentally.
The Supreme Court ultimately found that none of the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution had been established in a manner sufficient to prove murder.
The last-seen circumstance and the presence of the accused near the river were admitted. But the medical evidence did not establish homicide. The alleged motive appeared to be an afterthought. The soda bottle evidence did not connect the accused with a murderous assault. The conduct of the accused after the drowning was capable of an alternative explanation.
Most importantly, the Court found the defence version of accidental drowning to be more probable and consistent with the evidence than the prosecution’s theory of premeditated murder.
Concluding that the prosecution had failed to establish the circumstances necessary to sustain a murder conviction, the Supreme Court reversed both the Trial Court’s judgment and the High Court’s confirmation order.
The Court held that the hypothesis of innocence was clear and that the evidence indicated an accident rather than a premeditated murder. It accordingly acquitted both accused and directed their release forthwith if they were not required in any other case. Any bail bonds were ordered to stand cancelled.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
