Headnote: Acquittal for Murder Sustained While Upholding Conviction Under Section 201 IPC for Destruction of Evidence. Case Summary: * Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay * Bench: Justice Manish Pitale & Justice Shreeram V. Shirsat * Decided on: July 9, 2026 Facts: The Appellant, Prabhakar Kutty Shetty, was convicted by the Sessions Court for the murder (Section 302 IPC) and disappearance of evidence (Section 201 IPC) of Kanti Karunakar Shetty. The prosecution’s case rested on circumstantial evidence: the discovery of a female torso in a lake, identified via DNA; witnesses claiming they saw the Appellant disposing of the bag; and various recoveries (head, knife, and bloodstained articles). The Appellant challenged the conviction, arguing a failure to establish a complete chain of circumstances. Key Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution established an unbroken chain of circumstances to prove the charge of murder beyond reasonable doubt. 2. Whether conviction under Section 201 IPC (destruction of evidence) can be sustained in the event of an acquittal under Section 302 IPC. Court's Analysis and Ruling: * Section 302 IPC (Murder): The Court found the chain of circumstances for murder to be "snapped." It discredited the "last seen together" theory due to unreliable witness testimony (P.W. 5) and Call Detail Records (CDR) that indicated the presence of an unidentified third party at the scene. Furthermore, the recovery of the weapon (knife) was deemed weak as it was found in a public canal. Applying the principle of *Sharad Birdhichand Sarda*, the Court held that suspicion, however grave, cannot replace legal proof. The Appellant was acquitted of murder. * Section 201 IPC (Destruction of Evidence): The Court upheld the conviction for this charge. Reliable testimonies from P.W. 2 and P.W. 6 (who saw the Appellant dumping the torso) and the recovery of the head at the Appellant's instance established he had knowledge of the crime and intentionally caused evidence to disappear. Following the precedent in *V.L. Tresa v. State of Kerala*, the Court ruled that acquittal for the main offence (murder) does not automatically result in acquittal for screening the offender. Conclusion: The appeal was partly allowed. The conviction under Section 302 IPC was set aside, while the conviction and two-year sentence under Section 201 IPC were confirmed. As the Appellant had already served approximately 13 years, the Court ordered his immediate release.

On October 29, 2013, a woman’s torso was found in a plastic bag at Charai Lake, Chembur.

Subsequent investigations identified the deceased as Kanti Karunakar Shetty via DNA profiling.

Witnesses (P.W. 2, 3, and 6) observed the Appellant disposing of the bag at the lake.

Pursuant to the Appellant's disclosure, the deceased's head was recovered from a nala.

The Trial Court convicted the Appellant under Sections 302 (murder) and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) of the IPC.

The Appellant challenged this, citing gaps in the circumstantial chain, specifically regarding "last seen together" and lack of exclusive knowledge of the crime scene.

The Court applied Section 302 (Murder) and Section 201 (Causing disappearance of evidence) of the Indian Penal Code.

It relied on the "Five Golden Principles" (Panchsheel) of circumstantial evidence established in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra.

Regarding the "last seen theory," it followed Anand Jakkappa Pujari v. State of Karnataka, requiring a small time gap and corroboration.

For Section 201, it applied the doctrine from Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab and V.L. Tresa v. State of Kerala, which holds that an accused may be convicted of screening an offender even if not proved to be the primary murderer.

The Court found the chain for murder broken. First, the "last seen" testimony of P.W. 5 was deemed unreliable due to an unexplained 1.5-month delay in recording his statement.

Second, Call Detail Records (CDR) showed an unidentified third person at the deceased's location during the material time, creating a plausible hypothesis of third-party intervention.

Third, the recovery of blood-stained articles from Room No. 224 was not conclusive as the room was shared with three others.

However, the charge under Section 201 was fully established. The Court relied on the consistent testimonies of P.W. 2, 6 (witnesses at the lake), and P.W. 3 (rickshaw driver) who identified the Appellant disposing of the torso.

This, coupled with the recovery of the head at his instance, proved he had knowledge of the murder and intentionally sought to screen the offender.

The Court sustained the conviction under Section 201 IPC, holding that acquittal for murder does not ipso facto result in acquittal for destroying evidence if knowledge of the crime and disposal of the body are proved.

Since the Appellant had already served approximately 13 years (exceeding the 2-year sentence for Section 201), the Court ordered his immediate release.