The appellant was convicted of murder (Section 302, IPC) and destruction of evidence (Section 201, IPC) based on circumstantial evidence. The conviction was initially upheld by the High Court. The key elements of the case were that the appellant was last seen with the deceased, and a knife was recovered, purportedly at the appellant's instance. However, the Supreme Court found that the prosecution failed to conclusively prove the recovery of the weapon and the circumstances of the case, particularly since no motive was established. Additionally, evidence suggesting the possibility of the deceased's death being caused by a motorcycle accident was not ruled out. Given these doubts, the Court acquitted the appellant, stating that the circumstantial evidence did not meet the standard required for conviction.

1. Conviction and Sentence:

   • The appellant/accused was convicted by the Sessions Court on 13th March 1995 for offences punishable under Sections 302 (Murder) and 201 (Causing disappearance of evidence) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
   • He was sentenced to life imprisonment.
   • The High Court confirmed the conviction on 5th December 2017.

2. Incident Details:

   • The deceased, Sushildhar Dubey, and the appellant were related and used to consume liquor together.
   • On 29th September 1993, they drank together at the house of PW-2 (Ramdas) in Kohaka village.
   • The deceased's body was found the next day, 30th September 1993, on a road leading to Bijholidhar Amgoan.
   • The prosecution's case was built on circumstantial evidence.

Circumstantial Evidence Presented:

a) Recovery of Knife: Alleged murder weapon recovered at the appellant's instance. b) Last Seen Together: Appellant and deceased were last seen together. c) Medical Evidence: Injuries on the deceased and their consistency with the cause of death. d) Drinking Habit: The deceased had a habit of drinking with the appellant.

Defense's Submissions:

• Weakness of Last Seen Together Theory: It was a regular occurrence for the appellant and the deceased to drink together as they were closely related.
• Doubt over Weapon Recovery: The recovery of the knife was not properly established.
• No Motive Proven: The prosecution failed to establish any motive for the murder.
• Possibility of Accident: Evidence from PW-7 and the medical expert suggested the possibility that the death could have resulted from a motorcycle accident.

Prosecution's Stand:

• The prosecution emphasized that the body was found within hours of the appellant and deceased being last seen together and that the recovery of the knife at the appellant's instance had been proven.

Legal Principles Applied:

• The case was based on circumstantial evidence, and the Court referred to the landmark ruling in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116, which laid down five conditions for the establishment of guilt in circumstantial evidence cases:
  1. The circumstances must be fully established.
  2. The facts must be consistent only with the accused's guilt.
  3. The circumstances must be conclusive.
  4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except guilt.
  5. The chain of evidence must be complete without any reasonable doubt.

Court’s Findings:

• Weak Circumstantial Evidence: The "last seen together" theory was weak due to the routine nature of the relationship between the appellant and the deceased.
• Doubt Over Recovery of Knife: The prosecution failed to prove the discovery of the knife at the appellant's instance.
• Accident Theory: Evidence regarding broken glass at the scene and medical testimony raised the possibility that the death could have been caused by an accident, not murder.
• Chain of Circumstances Incomplete: The prosecution failed to provide a conclusive chain of evidence that pointed solely to the appellant’s guilt.

Conclusion:

• The Court ruled that the prosecution's case was not conclusive and left room for doubt.
• The appellant's conviction was set aside, and he was acquitted of all charges.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Section 302, IPC – Punishment for murder.
• Section 201, IPC – Causing disappearance of evidence of an offence.
• Section 27, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Confession of facts leading to discovery of material objects.