The Supreme Court partially set aside the appellant’s conviction under Section 302 IPC and Section 5 read with 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act, acquitting him of these charges. The Court found the circumstantial evidence inconsistent with a murder conviction, noting a reasonable possibility of accidental death supported by medical evidence and bullet trajectory. His conviction under Section 201 IPC (disappearance of evidence) was sustained, and he was sentenced to the period already undergone. The judgment emphasized that mere suspicion, or an accused’s inability to explain circumstances, cannot substitute for the prosecution proving its case beyond reasonable doubt, especially when a probable counter-view exists.
Facts Of The Case:
Vaibhav and Mangesh, first-year homeopathy medical college students in Maharashtra, were friends who often commuted together. On September 16, 2010, they left college on Mangesh’s scooter, had tea, and went to Vaibhav’s house in the afternoon. When Mangesh’s father (PW-1) discovered his son hadn’t returned, he filed a missing person report. The next day, Mangesh’s dead body was found, leading to a criminal case against unknown persons.During the investigation, PW-1 suspected Vaibhav, Mangesh’s friend and classmate. The police subsequently charged Vaibhav with causing Mangesh’s death by shooting him with his father’s gun. The Trial Court found Vaibhav guilty of murder (Section 302 IPC), destruction of evidence (Section 201 read with Section 34 IPC), and an offense under the Arms Act (Section 5 read with 25(1)(a)). Vaibhav’s friend, Vishal, was also found guilty of destruction of evidence. Both appealed to the Bombay High Court, which upheld Vaibhav’s conviction but acquitted Vishal. This present appeal challenges the High Court’s judgment dated June 13, 2012. The case relies on circumstantial evidence, as there was no direct evidence of the alleged act.
Procedural History:
The appellant, Vaibhav, was found guilty by the Trial Court for the offenses under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and Section 5 read with 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959. His friend, Vishal, was also found guilty for the offense under Section 201 read with Section 34 of IPC. Both convicts preferred separate appeals before the Bombay High Court. The High Court disposed of both appeals through an impugned judgment dated June 13, 2012, upholding the conviction of Vaibhav while acquitting Vishal due to lack of evidence. The current appeal is filed before the Supreme Court of India, challenging the said impugned judgment of the High Court.
READ ALSO :Supreme Court Upholds Right to Shut Business, Orders ₹15 Crore Compensation for Workers
Court Observation:
The High Court significantly relied on Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, to draw inferences from the appellant’s subsequent conduct, including removing the deceased’s body, concealing clothes, and feigning concern to the father of the deceased. It determined that the 9mm pistol belonging to the appellant’s father caused Mangesh’s death, establishing a link between the crime and the appellant, and noting the appellant’s admission of the weapon being his father’s service pistol found in the deceased’s hand. The High Court rejected the appellant’s defense regarding the bullet’s trajectory and accidental death, attributing it to a “guilty mind” and false explanations. It also stated that PW-9, the doctor, was not obligated to provide an opinion on the cause of death as it was “admitted by the accused on oath”.However, the Supreme Court observed that the High Court failed to adequately examine the appellant’s defense concerning the bullet’s trajectory, noting that its upward path after exiting the skull, hitting a high ventilator, was inconsistent with the prosecution’s theory and more probable with accidental firing. The Supreme Court clarified that the appellant consistently maintained the death was accidental, not homicidal, contrary to the High Court’s assertion of an admission. It further criticized the High Court for placing an undue burden on the appellant to explain circumstances without the prosecution first discharging its burden beyond reasonable doubt. The absence of motive, although not conclusive, was highlighted as a relevant factor favoring the accused in a circumstantial evidence case.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court erred in finding the appellant guilty and upholding the Trial Court’s verdict. The circumstantial evidence on record was deemed inconsistent with a finding of guilt and suggested a reasonable possibility of an alternate outcome, specifically the appellant’s innocence regarding the murder and illegal firearm usage charges. Consequently, the impugned order and judgment were partially set aside to the extent of the appellant’s conviction for offenses under Sections 302 IPC and Section 5 read with 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act. The appellant was acquitted of these charges. However, his conviction under Section 201 IPC (for causing the disappearance of evidence) was sustained, and he was sentenced for the period he had already undergone. The appeal was disposed of in these terms.
Case Details:
Case Title: VAIBHAV VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Citation: 2025 INSC 800 Criminal Appeal No.: 1643 OF 2012 Date of Judgment: June 04, 2025 Judges/Justice Name: B.V. NAGARATHNA, & SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
Download The Judgement Here