Bombay High Court: Circumstantial Evidence Alone Can't Seal a Guilty Verdict in Murder Case

In a powerful reiteration of justice principles, the Bombay High Court has overturned the conviction of a man accused of his wife's murder, emphatically stating that circumstantial evidence, no matter how compelling, must form an unbroken chain to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This significant ruling shines a spotlight on the meticulous scrutiny required in cases built on indirect proofs, preventing miscarriages of justice.

Prakash Gaikwad, who had been sentenced to life imprisonment by a sessions court for the murder of his wife, Sunita, found his freedom after years, as a division bench of Justices AS Gadkari and Sharmila Deshmukh meticulously dissected the evidence presented.

The original conviction hinged on several pieces of circumstantial evidence: the 'last seen' theory, alleged marital disputes, Gaikwad's absence when his wife's body was discovered, and minor injuries on the deceased's person.

Sunita was found dead in her home on March 27, 2018, hanging from a ceiling fan.

The prosecution's case was built on the premise that Gaikwad had murdered her. However, the High Court identified critical gaps in this narrative, highlighting that mere suspicion, even strong suspicion, cannot replace concrete proof. The court noted that while the couple was indeed seen together prior to Sunita's death, this alone wasn't conclusive of murder, especially since her father had also seen them together earlier.

The High Court scrutinized each piece of evidence: while there were claims of marital discord, the court stressed that an argument, even a heated one, does not automatically translate into murder.

Furthermore, Gaikwad's explanation for his absence – that he had gone to call a doctor after finding his wife unconscious – was deemed plausible, given the circumstances. The court found no convincing evidence to directly link him to the act of hanging or to suggest he possessed the knowledge to tie such a knot.

Crucially, the medical evidence regarding injuries on Sunita's body was also re-evaluated.

The High Court determined that these minor abrasions could have occurred from a fall, a struggle, or even during the act of hanging itself, rather than necessarily indicating a pre-mortem assault by Gaikwad. The court also pointed out inconsistencies in the timing of death, as per the post-mortem report, versus the statements of witnesses, further weakening the prosecution's timeline.

The judgment serves as a vital reminder that in cases of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution's burden is to exclude every hypothesis except that of guilt.

If there is any reasonable possibility consistent with innocence, the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused. This landmark acquittal underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding the highest standards of proof, ensuring that justice is not just served, but seen to be served with unwavering integrity.