Suspicion Cannot Sustain Conviction When Circumstantial Evidence Fails to Complete the Chain

The accused was tried for the rape and murder of his minor fiancée, whose body was found in a farm on 9 July 2022. The prosecution relied principally on call-detail records, forensic evidence, the accused’s alleged pointing out of the place of occurrence, and a history he allegedly gave to a doctor while in police custody.

The Sessions Court acquitted the accused, finding that the circumstantial evidence did not establish a complete chain pointing to his guilt. The State appealed under Section 419 of the BNSS, corresponding to Section 378 of the CrPC.

Whether the prosecution evidence established a complete chain of circumstances proving that the accused committed the rape and murder.

Whether the Trial Court’s acquittal was perverse or otherwise warranted appellate interference.

Section 419 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 378 of the CrPC) permits an appeal against acquittal, but an appellate court should respect the reinforced presumption of innocence and interfere where compelling circumstances show that the acquittal is perverse; it should not interfere merely because another view is possible.

Under Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, the circumstances relied upon must be fully established, consistent only with guilt, conclusive, exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, and form a complete chain showing that the accused committed the act.

Suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute for proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Section 27 of the Evidence Act makes admissible only the portion of information that distinctly relates to a fact discovered, while Sections 25 and 26 bar proof of a confession made to police or while in police custody, subject to the statutory discovery exception.

The Court found no reliable evidence of the alleged motive: the deceased’s relatives described the relationship as cordial and expressed no suspicion of the accused.

The call records established contact between the accused and deceased but did not show that he summoned her to the scene or establish a motive.

The forensic material, without DNA analysis, did not reliably establish that the accused had intercourse with the deceased.

The alleged discovery was also unreliable: the panch and investigating officer did not establish a qualifying disclosure, and police had already visited the scene, so no relevant fact was discovered as a consequence of the statement.

Finally, the alleged admission to the doctor was recorded in police presence, after the police yadi had attributed a role to the accused, and was therefore not admissible as a voluntary confession. These deficiencies left gaps in the circumstantial chain; the Trial Court’s view was consequently plausible and not perverse.

Finding no perversity warranting interference, the High Court dismissed the State’s appeal at the admission stage.