In a dramatic turn of events, the Supreme Court of India on Monday acquitted Nilesh Baburao Gitte, who had been serving a life sentence for allegedly killing his mother, Sunanda Gitte, fifteen years ago. The bench, comprising Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, ruled that the conviction rested on shaky ground - built entirely on circumstantial evidence, questionable witness statements, and an incomplete investigation.
“The chain of circumstances is neither complete nor consistent with the hypothesis of guilt,” the bench observed, delivering the judgment on October 7, 2025.
Background
The case dates back to July 22, 2010, when police at Bardapur, Maharashtra, received an anonymous call about a "doubtful death" in Talani village. Officers arrived to find villagers hurriedly preparing to cremate Sunanda, locally known as Nanda Gitte. Her son Nilesh, who lived nearby, was later accused of matricide - the killing of one's mother.
Investigators claimed they noticed strangulation marks on the deceased’s neck and injuries on her head. A postmortem confirmed death due to "asphyxia caused by strangulation." Based on this, Nilesh and his relative Balasaheb Gangadhar Gitte were charged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
While the trial court convicted both men, the Bombay High Court in 2013 acquitted Balasaheb but upheld Nilesh’s life sentence - a verdict that the Supreme Court has now overturned.
Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court noted that the entire case rested on circumstantial evidence, and each link in the chain appeared “fragile or fractured.” The judges said it was troubling that the initial police investigation ignored key questions, including who organized the attempted cremation that morning and why no one from the gathered crowd was ever examined.
“The mystery surrounding the genesis of the prosecution case remains unresolved,” Justice Viswanathan remarked.
Crucially, medical testimony weakened the prosecution’s theory. Dr. Salunke, who conducted the postmortem, had admitted during cross-examination that the absence of ligature marks on the back of the neck was "possible in hanging," not strangulation. The Court said this raised a real possibility that Sunanda might have taken her own life.
Adding to the uncertainty, a hospital certificate from 1989 showed that the deceased had been treated for relapsed schizophrenia, but investigators never produced it in court.
“The candid admission of the doctor that hanging cannot be ruled out creates serious doubt about the cause of death,” the bench observed.
“On this evidence, we cannot safely hold that the death was homicidal.”
Doubt on Witnesses and Recovery
The Court cast strong doubt on the recovery of alleged weapons and clothing. One of the panch witnesses, who was supposed to confirm the discovery of an iron pipe and nylon rope, gave contradictory statements and admitted that he couldn’t even read the language in which he signed.
More troubling, the same witness said he had been sent to the police station by Nilesh’s uncle, Sudhakar Nagargoje, who had ongoing property disputes with the deceased’s family. The judges said this raised a “real possibility of bias and manipulation.”
PW-3 Sudhakar, the uncle, was described by the bench as an interested and unreliable witness. His statement was recorded nearly 50 days after the incident, and he failed to produce any call records supporting his claim that Nilesh had urged him to sell family land before the death.
“Having come out with a case of motive, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove it,” the Court noted bluntly.
Court's Analysis
Justice Viswanathan highlighted that the investigating officer himself admitted that Nilesh was living separately at the time of his mother’s death. Hence, the usual presumption - that a person living with the deceased must explain her death - did not apply.
"Today, in the teeth of the investigating officer’s statement that the accused resided elsewhere, it cannot be concluded that he was with the deceased when she breathed her last," the bench said, rejecting the State’s reliance on the principle laid down in Trimukh Maroti Kirkan vs. State of Maharashtra (2006).
The Court also chastised the prosecution for not collecting DNA evidence and for failing to put the forensic reports to the accused during questioning. "The entire approach," it said, "was casual and incomplete."
Decision
Setting aside both the trial court and High Court findings, the Supreme Court acquitted Nilesh Baburao Gitte of all charges.
“For the reasons stated above, we allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court, and acquit the appellant of all charges,” the judgment concluded.
The bench ordered that Nilesh’s bail bonds be discharged, effectively bringing an end to a 15-year-long ordeal.
Before closing, Justice Viswanathan quoted from the 1838 English case Hodge, In re, cautioning courts against stretching circumstantial evidence:
"The mind is apt to take pleasure in adapting circumstances to one another… and to take for granted some fact consistent with its previous theories."
With that, the Court freed Nilesh - a man once branded a murderer - citing the timeless principle that "suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof."
Case Title: Nilesh Baburao Gitte v. State of Maharashtra
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 1471 of 201