Acquittal in Circumstantial Evidence Case for Failure to Prove Conspiracy and Complete Chain of Events

The prosecution alleged that Accused No. 7 (Sukanya) and Accused No. 1 (Bharathkumar) were in an illicit relationship and conspired to kill Sukanya’s husband, Ganesh.

Accused No. 1 allegedly hired Accused No. 6 (Maniraj) for a "supari" (contract killing) of Rs. 6,00,000/-, who then engaged Accused Nos. 2-5 to execute the murder.

On April 5, 2015, the deceased was lured to a railway track where Accused Nos. 2 and 3 allegedly slit his throat and stabbed him.

The Trial Court convicted Accused Nos. 1, 6, and 7 under Section 120B IPC (Conspiracy) and Accused Nos. 2 and 3 under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC (Murder), while acquitting Accused Nos. 4 and 5.

The appellants challenged this conviction before the High Court of Karnataka.

Whether the Trial Court committed an error in convicting Accused Nos. 1, 6, and 7 for the offence of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B of the IPC.

Whether the Trial Court committed an error in convicting Accused Nos. 2 and 3 for the offence of murder under Section 302 of the IPC based on circumstantial evidence.

The Court primarily applied Section 120B (Criminal Conspiracy) and Section 302 (Murder) of the IPC.

Regarding circumstantial evidence, the Court strictly applied the "Panchsheel" principles established in *Sharad Birdichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra*, requiring a complete chain of evidence that excludes every hypothesis of innocence.

It further relied on *Subramanya v. State of Karnataka*.

*Raja Naykar v. State of Chhattisgarh*, which establishes that mere recovery of a blood-stained weapon, even if matching the victim's blood group, is insufficient for a murder conviction without a proved chain of circumstances.

The Court found the prosecution's case for conspiracy unsustainable as it relied solely on the testimony of PW1 (the father), who had no personal knowledge of the alleged illicit relationship or the "supari" transaction.

The voluntary statements of the accused were deemed inadmissible as no discovery of facts resulted from the statements of Accused Nos. 1, 6, and 7.

Regarding the murder charge against Accused Nos. 2 and 3, the Court noted that while knives (MO13, MO14) were recovered, the panch witnesses (PW2, PW4) were close associates of the complainant rather than independent locals.

Critically, there was no "last seen" evidence, no proof of travel from Andhra Pradesh to the crime scene, and no established link between the alleged conspirators (A1, A6) and the executioners (A2, A3) through Call Detail Records (CDR), as the SIM cards used were in the name of a third party, Karthik, who was never examined.

The Court set aside the Trial Court's judgment, ruling that mere recovery of weapons cannot sustain a conviction when the "Panchsheel" of circumstantial evidence is not satisfied.

All appeals were allowed; Accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7 were acquitted of all charges and ordered to be set at liberty.