A 72-hour gap in last-seen evidence leaves the circumstantial chain insufficient to overturn acquittal.

The appellant’s husband, Lakshman Das, was allegedly taken from his home on 12 February 2020 by Jageshwar Das and Narayan Das on the pretext of withdrawing money; the appellant alleged that others later joined them and that the group conspired to kill him.

The appellant lodged a case on 16 February 2020, and the deceased’s body was found in a well the following day.

The post-mortem attributed death to asphyxia due to throttling and estimated the time since death as 24–36 hours.

The accused were charged under Sections 363/34, 364/34, 302/34, 201/34 and 120B IPC; the trial court acquitted them, and the appellant challenged that acquittal.

1. Whether the prosecution established a complete and reliable chain of circumstantial evidence sufficient to prove the respondents’ guilt for the charged offences

2. Whether the evidence of motive, last-seen circumstances and alleged conspiracy warranted interference with the trial court’s acquittal

The respondents faced charges under Sections 363, 364, 302, 201 and 120B IPC, read with Section 34 IPC.

In a case resting on circumstantial evidence, where the evidence reasonably permits two views—one consistent with guilt and the other with innocence—the view favourable to the accused must be adopted.

The Court relied on Shivaji Chintappa Patil v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 5 SCC 626, which restated this principle with reference to Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116, and Kali Ram v. State of H.P., (1973) 2 SCC 808.

It also relied on Devi Lal v. State of Rajasthan, (2019) 19 SCC 447, on the benefit of the view favourable to the accused in cases based on circumstantial evidence.

The Court found no eyewitness to the murder.

Although witnesses placed the deceased in the company of some accused on 12 February, the post-mortem evidence indicated death around 15 or 16 February, leaving an interval of approximately 72 hours that the prosecution had not satisfactorily explained.

The alleged motive was stated by the appellant but did not, by itself, establish the accused’s guilt.

The alleged presence of the son-in-law of Jageshwar Das at the chowmin stall was not corroborated: PW-4’s account was based on what she had heard from villagers, while the stall owner, PW-2, did not identify him as one of the customers.

The doctor also found no finger marks on the deceased’s body.

Taken together, these circumstances were insufficient to exclude the reasonable possibility consistent with the respondents’ innocence.

The acquittal appeal was dismissed, and any pending interlocutory applications were disposed of.