The Supreme Court held that in cases where a court has relied on circumstantial evidence, it must compare the prosecution’s evidence with that of the defence. Where two views exist, the one favouring the accused should be taken.
Vaibhav, the accused, claimed that he found Mangesh, the deceased, in a pool of blood along with his father’s pistol. He then disposed of the body and concealed the death. The prosecution claimed that this was an act of homicidal death. Vaibhav claimed it was a case of accidental death. The Bombay High Court upheld Vaibhav’s conviction.
The Court overturned the decision of the High Court as it did not test Vaibhav’s version of events against the surrounding facts and circumstances. The Court set aside Vaibhav’s conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 5 read with Section 29 of the Arms Act, 1959. It sustained the conviction on Section 201 of the IPC for causing the disappearance of evidence.
Vaibhav v State of Maharashtra
4 June 2025
Citations: 2025 INSC 800 | 2024 SCO.LR 6(1)[1]
Bench: Justices B.V. Nagarathna and S.C. Sharma
Read the Judgement here.
Case comment :
In usual course of things, such trajectory of the bullet could have been possible only if the deceased was sitting and looking downwards towards the barrel of the pistol from a close distance. It was only then that the bullet could have hit the ventilator despite exiting from the lower part of the skull. In fact, this is precisely the defence of the appellant – that the deceased, on finding the service pistol of PW-12, got curious, picked it up, started looking into it with one eye from a close distance and accidentally pressed the trigger. The probability of the version put across by the appellant is on the higher side as compared to the version put across by the prosecution, which simply does not give any explanation for the trajectory of the bullet. In gunshot cases wherein the nature of death – suicidal, accidental or homicidal – is not ascertainable from direct evidence, multiple factors are taken into account for arriving at a conclusion. Such factors include, but are not limited to, the point of entrance, the size of wound, direction of wound, position of wound, possible distance of gunshot, number of wounds, position of weapon, trajectory of bullet after entering into the human body, position of exit wound (if bullet has exited), direction of exit wound, direction of the bullet after exit, distance travelled by the bullet after exit, nature of final impact on surface (if any) etc.
even if it is believed that the view taken by the Courts below is a possible view, it ought to have been examined whether a reasonable counter view was possible in the case. It is a time-tested proposition of law that when a Court is faced with a situation wherein two different views appear to be reasonably possible, the matter is to be decided in favour of the accused. The benefit of a counter possibility goes to the accused in such cases.
Subscribe to our updates now and be the first to know about the latest news and developments. Subscribe here: https://relegal.in/subscribe/
#legalcousel #legalawareness #legaladvice #setaside #BHC # CircumstantialEvidence #IftwoViewsExist #Section302 #Sections5and29ArmsAct
Key word/phrases: Bombay High Court—Judgment Partially Set Aside—Circumstantial Evidence—Compare Version of Events— If two Views Exist—Favour Accused—Section 302 Indian Penal Code— Sections 5 and 29 Arms Act —Conviction Set Aside