The Supreme Court has acquitted a man who had been serving a life sentence for the rape, murder, and robbery of an 85-year-old woman in Coimbatore, ruling that the prosecution failed to establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances linking him to the crime.
A Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih set aside the concurrent findings of the Madras High Court and the trial court, observing that the case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence marred by serious investigative lapses, missing forensic links, and non-examination of key witnesses. The Court ordered the appellant’s immediate release, holding that he was entitled to the benefit of doubt.
The case stemmed from the death of an elderly woman who lived alone in Coimbatore. On the morning of December 19, 2016, she was found dead in her home with a towel tied around her neck and two gold bangles missing. The post-mortem confirmed death by strangulation and signs of sexual assault, though no semen was detected. An FIR was registered the same day.
The Court underscored that no direct evidence connected the accused to the crime, and that the conviction was based solely on inference. Referring to the five “panchsheel principles” governing circumstantial evidence laid down in Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy v. State of A.P. [(2006) 10 SCC 172] and reaffirmed in Karakkattu Muhammed Basheer v. State of Kerala, (2024) 10 SCC 813, the Bench reiterated that every link in the evidentiary chain must be firmly proven, excluding any reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence.
Applying these principles, the Court identified several critical deficiencies in the prosecution’s case:
1. While the post-mortem confirmed homicide and sexual assault, no forensic evidence—such as hair, blood, or fingerprints—linked the appellant to the scene.
2. The alleged recovery of the victim’s gold bangles from the accused two days later appeared improbable, with the Court noting that planting could not be ruled out.
3. The informant who supposedly identified the accused was never examined, and no test identification parade was conducted.
4. The last-seen witness did not claim to have seen the accused exiting the victim’s house, rendering his testimony inconclusive.
5. The police failed to question “Marcus,” who was last seen with the accused before the incident—an omission the Court described as a serious investigative lapse.
The Bench emphasized that the prosecution’s case was “riddled with missing links,” observing that suspicion, however grave, cannot substitute for proof. Citing Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh,(1973) 2 SCC 808, the Court reiterated that when two views are possible, the one favouring the accused must prevail.
Concluding that the evidentiary chain was incomplete and the investigation flawed, the Supreme Court set aside the conviction and sentence under Sections 302, 376, 394, and 449 of the Indian Penal Code, and acquitted the appellant of all charges.
