Incomplete circumstantial evidence warrants acquittal when guilt is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Sharada, who had left her husband, was living with the appellant in a hut. She was found dead there on the morning of 4 December 2017; the prosecution alleged that the appellant had killed her during the preceding night.

The Sessions Court convicted him under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine.

The appellant maintained that he had gone hunting, as was customary, and returned the next morning; he also relied on evidence of the deceased’s alcohol use and her husband’s prior quarrels with her.

Whether the circumstantial evidence established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant committed Sharada’s murder.

Whether the alleged recovery of bloodstained clothes and a sickle, together with the other circumstances, sufficiently connected the appellant to the offence.

The appellant’s conviction was under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and the appeal was brought under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence; the prosecution therefore had to establish the circumstances relied upon beyond reasonable doubt before guilt could be sustained.

The appellant’s explanation was given in his statement under Section 313 CrPC. The judgment cites no precedent or additional statutory doctrine.

The Court found that the prosecution had not established a complete and reliable chain of circumstances.

Witnesses supported the appellant’s account that he routinely went hunting at night and returned the following morning; they also described the couple’s relationship as cordial and the deceased’s regular alcohol use.

The deceased’s husband had previously quarrelled with her and was said to have threatened the couple.

The recovery evidence was weakened because both panch witnesses turned hostile, while the Investigating Officer’s evidence did not show that the appellant’s voluntary statement had been recorded in the panchas’ presence.

Although the clothes and sickle bore ‘A’ group human blood, the forensic witness could not identify whose blood it was.

The post-mortem opinion attributed death to a head injury under the influence of alcohol, but this was not clarified by the prosecution.

It allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC, acquitted the appellant, and directed that he be released forthwith unless required in another case.