A chance witness’s sighting near the crime scene alone cannot sustain conviction on circumstantial evidence.

The appellant and co-accused Joshim were convicted by the Trial Court under Sections 452 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for trespass and the murder of Bhim Prasad Shap Kota at his home on the night of 8–9 July 2002.

The prosecution case rested on circumstantial evidence, principally PW-4 Raj Kumar’s account that the two accused struck against him near the deceased’s house and appeared distressed; he later identified them in a test identification parade.

The Trial Court sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment for murder and three years’ rigorous imprisonment for house trespass, with the sentences to run concurrently.

Joshim died while the appeal was pending, and the appeal against him abated.

The appellant challenged the convictions, arguing that the evidence did not establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Whether the circumstantial evidence, particularly PW-4’s testimony and identification of the appellant, established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant committed the murder and house trespass.

Whether the evidence established that the articles recovered at the scene were used to cause the deceased’s death or otherwise connected the appellant to the offences.

Sections 302 and 452 of the IPC respectively address murder and house trespass after preparation for causing hurt.

Where guilt is sought to be proved by circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish each circumstance fully; the circumstances must be conclusive, consistent only with guilt, exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, and form a complete chain pointing to the accused.

The Court applied the principles in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116, and noted their reiteration in Laxman Prasad v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2023) 6 SCC 399.

The appellant’s bail bonds were directed to remain valid for six weeks under Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The Court found that PW-4 was not an eyewitness and did not unequivocally testify that he saw the appellant leave the deceased’s house; his evidence established, at most, that the appellant and co-accused struck against him nearby and appeared distressed.

That circumstance, even coupled with the later identification, did not establish that they committed the offences.

The prosecution also failed to prove that the recovered pillow, quilt cover, or belt caused the death, or to connect those articles to the appellant; the post-mortem evidence established asphyxia from ligature strangulation and smothering but did not identify those particular objects as the instruments used.

Nor was there evidence of stolen property or recovery from the appellant.

The circumstances therefore did not form a complete chain excluding reasonable hypotheses consistent with innocence.

It allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence orders dated 19 July 2004 and 24 July 2004, and acquitted the appellant of all charges.

His bail bonds were to remain valid for six weeks under Section 481 of the BNSS.