P&H HC Acquits Man in Teen’s Murder Case, Citing Delayed FIR and Conflicting Father-Uncle “Last-Seen” Accounts

The prosecution alleged that Parveen and a juvenile co-accused abducted and murdered Jaimal, aged about 17, and staged the death to resemble a road accident.

The case rested on circumstantial evidence, principally the complainant’s alleged “last seen” account, disclosures and recoveries, and an asserted motive arising from an earlier Elephant Nikasi dispute.

The trial court convicted Parveen under Sections 302 and 364 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC & ST Act and imposed concurrent life sentences for the offences under Sections 302 IPC and 3(2)(v) of the Act.

Parveen appealed, contending that the circumstances did not establish a complete chain connecting him to the crime.

Sections 302 and 364 IPC require proof of the respective offences beyond reasonable doubt; Section 364 also requires proof of kidnapping or abduction in order that the victim may be murdered or placed in danger of being murdered.

Under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC & ST Act, the prosecution must establish the requisite IPC offence and the accused’s knowledge of the victim’s Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe status.

In a case based wholly on circumstantial evidence, Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116, requires the circumstances to be fully established and to form a complete chain consistent only with guilt.

Absence of motive is not by itself fatal, but may weigh in the accused’s favour in a circumstantial case (Nandu Singh v. State of M.P., (2022) 19 SCC 301).

Unexplained FIR delay must be assessed with the surrounding circumstances and may undermine the prosecution where it suggests an opportunity to fabricate a version (Sekaran v. State of T.N., (2024) 2 SCC 176).

The prosecution must stand on its own evidence and cannot rely on weaknesses in the defence (Sunil Kundu v. State of Jharkhand, (2013) 4 SCC 422).

Under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a pointing-out memo is inadmissible where it leads to no discovery of a new fact.

The Court found that the alleged motive was unproved and inconsistent: the complaint referred to the Elephant Nikasi dispute, while an earlier disclosure introduced a different alleged motive, and neither was supported by the witnesses.

The complainant and his brother gave materially different accounts of discovering Jaimal, and their failure to inform the police after allegedly finding him dead was considered unnatural.

The evidence, including the defence witness’s account and police testimony, indicated that the body was discovered earlier than the prosecution’s version suggested; the FIR was registered only later, after investigative activity had begun.

The alleged disclosures and recoveries were also unreliable: the articles were ordinary, the recovery was from an accessible public place, the disclosures did not specify the accused’s respective roles, and the pointing-out memo identified a location already known to investigators.

The evidence that Parveen had taken the car on rent was not supported by reliable records, while the allegation of abduction rested on hearsay and the person said to have supplied the information was not examined.

Taken together, the circumstances did not exclude reasonable hypotheses consistent with Parveen’s innocence.

It set aside the trial court’s judgment, acquitted Parveen of all charges, and ordered that any bail bonds be released.