SURESH BAPU KOLI @ TARAL v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Acquittal in Murder Case Due to Incomplete Chain of Circumstantial Evidence, Unreliable Recovery from Open Spaces, and Significant Time Gap in 'Last Seen' Theory.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:11666-DB
Decision Date: 10-03-2026
List of Laws
The Indian Penal Code, 1860; The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; The Indian Evidence Act, 1872; Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; Circumstantial Evidence and the 'Last Seen' Theory
- Facts: The appellant, a driver, was hired on September 2, 2016, by a fish vendor (PW 5) to transport fish to Jalgaon along with the deceased, Sushant Wadekar. During the journey, the vehicle broke down near Sillod, and the deceased received Rs. 52,000 from a business associate, Krishna Bhoi. On September 4, 2016, the deceased's body was found in a pool of blood near Bholobawadi with a head injury. The prosecution alleged that the appellant killed the deceased out of greed to steal the cash. The case rested on circumstantial evidence, including the "last seen together" theory, the recovery of a bloodstained axle rod and clothes from a cow-dung heap near the appellant's house, and the recovery of Rs. 41,000 from the appellant's brother-in-law.
- Procedural Posture: The Additional Sessions Judge, Baramati, convicted the appellant under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, sentencing him to life imprisonment. The appellant challenged this conviction before the Bombay High Court.
- Issue: Whether the prosecution established a complete chain of circumstantial evidence, specifically regarding the "last seen" theory and the recovery of incriminating material, to sustain a conviction for murder beyond reasonable doubt?
- Holding: No, the conviction cannot be sustained. The High Court quashed the Sessions Court's order and acquitted the appellant.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the "last seen" theory failed because there was a significant time gap between the deceased being seen with the appellant (September 2) and the recovery of the body (September 4), allowing for the possibility of third-party intervention. The recovery of the weapon and clothes was deemed unreliable as they were found in an open, accessible place (a cow-dung heap), and a key witness (PW 11) admitted being shown the weapon at the police station prior to the formal recovery. Furthermore, the motive of greed was not proved as the panch witness for the money recovery turned hostile, and the brother-in-law (PW 7) alleged police coercion. The Court held that suspicion, no matter how strong, cannot replace legal proof in a case of circumstantial evidence.
🔒 For Members Only