Click the Play button to listen to article

In the first week of September, the Supreme Court overturned the acquittals in three murder cases arising from markedly different crimes: a six-year-old child's murder, a broad-daylight killing, and a kidnapping-for-ransom case that culminated in murder, but shared a common thread i.e., the prosecution's failure to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

In Dhrub Singh Etc. v. The State of Bihar 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 883, the Court on September 1 set aside the murder conviction of six accused persons, in connection with an alleged broad-daylight murder case in Bihar during the 2017 election day, after questioning the very foundation of the prosecution's case and the faulty investigation by the police.

Since the prosecution's case was built on the fact that the accused persons have opened up an indiscriminate firing, resulting in a death of a deceased, the failure of the police to recover the cartridges from the crime scene, coupled with the non-recovery of the alleged weapons and a failure to send the blood-stained earth collected from the scene for chemical analysis, proved fatal to the prosecution's case.

Another striking aspect of the case was the prosecution's attempt to cover up the investigating officer's shortcomings in investigation by referring to a complaint against the Investigating Officer alleging collusion.

Rejecting this approach, holding that a document not produced or proved during trial could not be relied upon to strengthen the prosecution's case.

“A faulty investigation cannot inure to the benefit of the accused, but when there is no reliable evidence, merely because the I.O was recalcitrant or a complaint of collusion was raised against him, the Court cannot presume the guilt of the accused.”, the Court observed.

In another matter concerning the murder of a six-year-old child, the Court, on September 2 in Sahab Singh v. State of Haryana 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 887, overturned the murder conviction of an accused who was in jail for the past 16 years, after finding that the prosecution's case, built entirely based on a circumstantial evidence lacked several missing links to connect the accused to the crime.

The prosecution had sought to construct a circumstantial case around several pieces of evidence, including the alleged “last seen” circumstance, an extra-judicial confession, a disclosure statement and the recovery of biological material.

But when each link was examined, the chain failed to hold.

The prosecution relied, among other things, on a packet of namkeen allegedly connecting the accused to the child. The Court found this circumstance wholly inadequate. The packet was of a generic variety, readily available and sold in thousands throughout the village, and there was no evidence connecting the particular packet recovered from the scene with the accused.

Treating an extra-judicial confession as 'weak evidence', the Court disputed the alleged confession made by the accused to a village sarpanch, with whom neither he or the victim had any relation. Further, the disclosure statements under Section 27 of the Evidence Act proved insignificant as it doesn't lead to any new incriminating material against the accused, as the dead body was recovered from the place already known to the police.

Moreover, the recovery of the DNA evidence also remained incomplete, as though semen was detected on the accused's underwear and on the rectal swab of the deceased, but no DNA examination was conducted to establish whether the two samples were connected.

The Court said that in the absence of such a link, the prosecution could not shift the burden onto the accused to explain the alleged connection.

“…there are several missing links in the chain of the prosecution case which, in our view, do not establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was the person who committed the offence. Since, in our view, the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the benefit of the same has to be given to the accused.”, the Court said, while giving a benefit of doubt to the Appellant.

On September 3, the Supreme Court in Kondapaka Sridhar v. State of Telangana 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 899, set aside the conviction of the remaining accused in a kidnapping-for-ransom and murder case.

The prosecution sought to establish the accused's involvement primarily through the confessions of the co-accused, one of whom allegedly disclosed the involvement of A1. The prosecution also relied on the circumstance that A1 had failed to explain the presence of the deceased's body inside the apartment which he was alleged to have taken on lease, invoking Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

The Court, however, held that the confessions of the co-accused could not be relied upon to inculpate the appellant in the manner sought by the prosecution. It noted that the entire narrative regarding the appellant's involvement in the crime emerged from the confessional statements of the accused, which could not, by themselves, be used as substantive evidence to implicate a co-accused.

The Court further found that the prosecution had failed to establish that the apartment had in fact been leased to A1. Consequently, the prosecution could not rely on the alleged presence of the deceased's body in the flat to draw an adverse inference against him under Section 106 of the Evidence Act.

The Court also held that the “last seen” theory was not established against A1, as the prosecution had failed to prove the foundational circumstances necessary to place him with the deceased at the relevant time.

“The absence of proof of ownership of the flat from which the corpus delicti was recovered and the employment of PW3 as a watchman in the flat, debunk the theory of lease to A1 and consequently reliance placed on Section 106 of the Evidence Act; ie: no proper explanation for the dead body's presence in the apartment occupied by A1, on lease. It also casts a long shadow of doubt insofar as the last seen theory of A1 having taken the deceased to the apartment from where his body was recovered.”, the Court said.

“…there was no substantive evidence led before the Trial Court by the prosecution. The investigation was shoddy and merely relied on the confessions and the lewd story coming out of the confessions connecting A1…to the deceased.”, the court added.

Tags: