This Supreme Court judgment underscores the stringent standards for convicting based on circumstantial evidence, as established in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda. The Supreme Court found the prosecution failed to conclusively prove homicide, motive, or the appellant’s exclusive residence with the deceased. The recovery evidence was discredited, and the medical testimony created reasonable doubt, leading to acquittal.
Facts Of The Case:
The case involves the death of Sunanda (also known as Nanda Gitte) in Talani village. On July 22, 2010, police received information about a doubtful death and found Sunanda’s body about to be cremated in an open field. The police intervention halted the rites, and upon inspection, they found a strangulation mark on her neck and an injury on the back of her skull. The subsequent postmortem report concluded the cause of death was asphyxia due to strangulation. The prosecution’s case was built entirely on circumstantial evidence against the appellant, Nilesh Baburao Gitte, Sunanda’s son, and another accused who was later acquitted. Key circumstances cited included Nilesh’s alleged proximity to the deceased, his conduct in arranging a hasty cremation, the discovery of a blood-stained nylon rope and iron pipe at his instance, and a purported motive to acquire his mother’s property. The Trial Court and the High Court convicted Nilesh, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court of India.
Procedural History:
The appellant, Nilesh Baburao Gitte, was convicted for the murder of his mother under Section 302 of the IPC by the Additional Sessions Judge-2, Ambajogai, in Sessions Case No. 42 of 2011. His criminal appeal (No. 447 of 2012) was subsequently dismissed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, which confirmed his conviction and life sentence. The present Criminal Appeal No. 1471 of 2013 was then filed before the Supreme Court of India, challenging the High Court’s judgment. The Supreme Court, after hearing the appeal, allowed it, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court, and acquitted the appellant of all charges.
READ ALSO:Supreme Court on Oral Gifts: Why Possession is Key in Muslim Law (Hiba)
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court observed that the prosecution failed to meet the stringent standards for a conviction based on circumstantial evidence. It held that the medical evidence was ambiguous and did not conclusively rule out suicide, creating reasonable doubt on whether the death was homicidal. The Court further found that the prosecution failed to prove the appellant resided with the deceased, thus negating the application of Section 106 of the Evidence Act. The recovery of evidence was discredited due to major contradictions in witness testimonies, and the alleged motive of property acquisition was unsubstantiated. The acquittal of the co-accused on the same evidence reinforced the Court’s view that the chain of circumstances was not complete and left room for a hypothesis inconsistent with the appellant’s guilt.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court, and acquitted the appellant, Nilesh Baburao Gitte, of all charges. The Court held that the prosecution had failed to establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances that unequivocally pointed to the guilt of the appellant. Consequently, the appellant, who was on bail, was set free and his bail bonds were discharged.
Case Details:
Case Title: Nilesh Baburao Gitte vs. State of Maharashtra Citation: 2025 INSC 1191 Criminal Appeal No.: Criminal Appeal No. 1471 of 2013 Date of Judgement: 7th October 2025 Judges/Justice Name: Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
Download The Judgement Here