Suspicion alone cannot sustain conviction where circumstantial evidence fails to complete the chain.

Sahil, the six-year-old son of the informant, went missing on 21 June 2011.

His father reported the matter to the police that evening; shortly after returning from the police station, he learned that Sahil’s body had been found behind the village mosque

The FIR was registered against unknown persons, but after investigation the appellants were charge-sheeted and tried for offences under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 IPC

The prosecution relied principally on evidence that appellant Mobin was seen throwing something near the mosque and washing something in a pond, alleged blood near his house, and prior hostility between the families

The trial court convicted both appellants and sentenced them to life imprisonment for the Section 302 IPC offence and three years’ rigorous imprisonment for the Section 201 IPC offence, with fines

They appealed against the conviction and sentence

1. Whether the circumstantial evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants committed Sahil’s murder and were liable under Sections 302/34 IPC

2. Whether the evidence sufficiently established the appellants’ involvement in causing the disappearance of evidence to sustain conviction under Section 201/34 IPC

The Court considered the charges under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

It applied the principle that, where a prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence, guilt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt; suspicion, even if raised by the circumstances, cannot by itself sustain a conviction

The judgment cites no separate precedent.

No witness saw the appellants commit the murder.

The evidence that Mobin was seen throwing something near the mosque was uncertain as to what had been thrown, and the alleged blood near his house was not collected for comparison with the deceased’s blood

The Court also considered the evidence about Mobin washing something, the alleged prior quarrel, and other surrounding circumstances, but found these insufficient to establish the appellants’ guilt.

The alleged dog-tracking and white soil evidence likewise did not, on their own, prove that the appellants committed the offence

The circumstances therefore raised suspicion but did not establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt

It allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions and sentences under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 IPC, and directed the appellants’ release forthwith unless required in another case