Acquittal of Accused in Abduction and Murder Case

In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India has delivered a verdict in the case of acquitting the accused in the abduction and murder case. The appeal, involving Accused No. 1 and Accused No. 2, has been allowed, overturning the convictions by the lower courts. The decision brings closure to a long legal battle and emphasizes the importance of due process and evidence in determining guilt and innocence.


  • Accused No. 1 led to the recovery of personal documents of the deceased and other items.
  • The appeal is against the judgment of the High Court of Bombay confirming the conviction of Accused Nos. 1 and 2.
  • The body of the deceased was recovered on 14.7.2002 from Goraksha Gad at the instance of Accused No 1.
  • The first information was lodged on 13.07.2002 as the deceased was untraceable.
  • Accused No. 1 demanded money to arrange a job for the deceased, and payments were made to him.
  • Accused No 1 was accompanied by Accused No 2 at a rendezvous with PW-1.
  • The police filed a charge-sheet against four persons, including the appellants, alleging murder by strangulation.
  • Accused No 1 was convicted for cheating the deceased and the informant out of Rs. 45,000.
  • Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were convicted for abducting and murdering the deceased under Sections 364 and 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
  • The case of the prosecution involved the accused deceiving the deceased and the informant, followed by the abduction and murder of the deceased.
  • Accused Nos. 1 and 2, now Appellant Nos. 1 and 2, were found guilty of acting in concert to commit the abduction and murder.

Also Read: Tower Infotech Ltd. Bail Order Appeal


  • The evidence related to cheating is deemed unreliable, leading to the negation of the motive for the crimes alleged.
  • Entries in the seized hotel register linking the accused with the deceased were not supported by the owner of the hotel.
  • No effort was made by the prosecution to verify the handwriting of Accused No.1 in the seized diary entries.
  • Timings of events leading to the recovery of the body were not clearly established, raising doubts on the credibility of the recovery.
  • The prosecution’s case attempted to improve by introducing additional material at different stages.
  • Recoveries made at the instance of Accused Nos. 1 and 2 are considered tainted and unreliable.
  • The voluntary disclosure statement of Accused No.1, leading to the recovery of the body, lacked substantial evidence.
  • The circumstances of ‘last seen’ and recovery of the body were not conclusively proven by the prosecution.
  • Inconsistencies in witness testimonies, especially regarding timelines and locations, undermined the prosecution’s case.
  • Motive for the offenses could not be conclusively proved, and the reliance on cheating as a motive was questioned.
  • The prosecution failed to establish the probable cause of death of the deceased.
  • Witness testimonies and evidence, including the inquest report, raised doubts on the prosecution’s narrative.
  • Panchas and witnesses did not consistently support the prosecution’s case, further weakening the evidence.
  • Lack of concrete evidence and inconsistencies in witness statements cast serious doubts on the case against Accused Nos. 1 and 2.
  • The circumstances relied upon by the prosecution must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
  • The proved circumstances should form a complete chain to eliminate any doubt about the accused’s involvement.
  • In the current case, none of the prosecution’s relied-upon circumstances were proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
  • The benefit of doubt should be given to the accused as a result.
  • The Courts below erred in convicting Accused Nos. 1 and 2 for abduction and murder due to lack of conclusive evidence.

Also Read: Priority of Employees’ Dues in Asset Sale: SARFAESI Act vs. Land Revenue Code


  • The impugned judgment of the High Court and the Trial Court have been set aside.
  • The appeal has been allowed.
  • Accused No. 1 has been acquitted of the offence under Section 420, IPC.
  • The bail bonds of the accused stand discharged.
  • Accused No. 1 and Accused No. 2 have been acquitted of the offences under Sections 364 and 302 read with 34, IPC.
  • On 08.08.2014, bail was granted to the appellants.

Also Read: Landmark Judgement on Consumer Rights in Healthcare Sector


Case Number: Crl.A. No.-001029-001029 / 2014

Click here to read/download original judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *