The Supreme Court has acquitted Kusumlal Sao in a murder case after finding that the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution was insufficient to sustain his conviction. The Court held that WhatsApp messages, disputed recoveries of blood-stained articles and unexplained injuries on the accused did not establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
A Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Vijay Bishnoi allowed the criminal appeal, set aside the judgments of the trial court and the Chhattisgarh High Court, and ordered Sao’s release unless required in another case.
Background
The case arose after Saurabh Panda’s body was discovered in an open field on February 9, 2019, with a motorcycle and a yellow rope nearby. What was initially reported as an accidental death was subsequently investigated as a suspected homicide.
During the investigation, police relied on WhatsApp messages allegedly exchanged between two witnesses, the recovery of an iron rod and a screwdriver, blood-stained soil and a shirt. The trial court convicted Sao under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), relating to murder and causing the disappearance of evidence. The Chhattisgarh High Court upheld the conviction.
Sao challenged the findings before the Supreme Court, arguing that the prosecution had failed to establish a reliable chain of circumstances connecting him to the death.
The Supreme Court noted that the witnesses allegedly connected with the WhatsApp conversation did not support the prosecution’s account during their testimony. One denied sending the messages, while both denied witnessing the incident.
The Bench observed that the messages could not establish that Panda had been present at Sao’s house or that Sao had assaulted him. The Court explained:
“Thus, the exchange of message between PW-5 and PW-6 does not prove that on the fateful night the deceased was present in the house of the accused and that the accused had assaulted the deceased, it, at best, creates a suspicion against the accused-appellant which by itself is not sufficient to sustain conviction.”
The Court emphasised that suspicion, even when arising from electronic communications, cannot substitute for proof in a criminal trial.
The Bench also examined the recovery of blood-stained soil, the iron rod, the screwdriver and the accused’s shirt. Although forensic examination detected blood on certain articles, the blood could not be reliably connected to the deceased. No DNA profiling had been conducted to establish such a link.
The Court further noted inconsistencies in the seizure witnesses’ accounts. One witness stated that blood-stained soil had been collected only from the place where the body was found, while another supported the claim that it was recovered from Sao’s house.
The judgment explained the legal standard governing circumstantial evidence:
“the circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so far complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused.”
The Bench also considered the possibility of an accidental death. The autopsy doctor had described the death as homicidal but acknowledged that the injuries could also have resulted from a fall from a moving motorcycle. The body had been found beside a motorcycle, and the Court held that the alternative explanation could not be excluded on the evidence presented.
The Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish a sufficiently reliable chain of circumstances to sustain the conviction. It also held that the unexplained injuries found on Sao could not independently establish his guilt when the alleged fight between him and the deceased had not been proved.
The Court concluded:
“In conclusion, we are of the view that there is hardly any evidence basis which the conviction of the accused could be sustained.”
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, the judgments of the trial court and the Chhattisgarh High Court were set aside, and Kusumlal Sao was acquitted of all charges.
The Court directed that he be released forthwith unless required in another case.
