A conviction cannot rest on circumstantial evidence where the relied-upon circumstances remain unproved.

The appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC for the murder of a man with whom he had allegedly quarrelled over kerosene, and sentenced to life imprisonment.

The prosecution case rested on circumstantial evidence: testimony that the appellant and deceased were together earlier that day, fingerprint evidence allegedly linking the appellant to a bottle found near the body, and the appellant’s arrest and the recovery of a knife and bloodstained clothing.

The appellant challenged the conviction under Section 374 CrPC.

The High Court assessed the circumstantial evidence and found deficiencies in its proof.

Whether the prosecution had established the alleged “last seen” circumstance so as to support the appellant’s guilt.

Whether the fingerprint evidence and the alleged arrest and recovery were sufficiently proved and reliable to form circumstances pointing to the appellant’s guilt.

Whether the circumstantial evidence, taken together, proved the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The appeal was brought under Section 374 CrPC, and the conviction under challenge was for murder under Section 302 IPC.

The Court applied the circumstantial-evidence principle that the prosecution must prove each relied-upon circumstance and that the circumstances, taken together, must point unerringly to the accused’s guilt and admit no other hypothesis.

The “last seen” evidence was weak: PW4 was the only witness said to have seen the appellant and deceased together, the interval between that sighting and discovery of the body was substantial, and the person from whose house the bottle was allegedly obtained was not examined.

The fingerprint evidence was also doubtful because the witnesses to the scene mahazar did not speak to PW14’s presence or to the lifting of prints, the prosecution did not establish that the developed prints were sent to court, and PW14 described a two-litre bottle whereas the seizure record referred to a 1.25-litre bottle.

The alleged recovery was likewise undermined by doubts concerning the seizure of bloodstained clothing, inconsistencies about the timing of the seizure, and delay in sending material objects to court.

The Court therefore held that the prosecution had not established the circumstances necessary to sustain the conviction.

It ordered that any fine paid be refunded and that the appellant’s bail bond stand discharged.