The Supreme Court has held that fleeing from the spot after witnessing a friend drown and failing to inform the deceased's family, though “reprehensible” conduct, cannot by itself be treated as an incriminating circumstance to establish murder.

A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran acquitted two individuals who were convicted over the death of a deceased who accidentally died by drowning in a river. Except for the appellants, there was no eyewitness to the incident; no one saw the Appellants last time with the deceased.

However, the prosecution emphasized the post-incident conduct of the Appellants, as they fled away from the place of the incident to watch a movie and didn't report the incident to the deceased's family promptly. The prosecution attributed such conduct of the appellants to be incriminating material against them.

The case arose from the death of the victim, who was taken from his home in the early hours of July 17, 2006, purportedly to go to Ankleshwar to play volleyball. He did not return home that evening. His clothes and belongings were later found on the bank of a river, and his body was recovered the following morning. The post-mortem examination attributed the death to cardio-respiratory arrest caused by drowning.

The prosecution alleged that the two accused had murdered their friend and attempted to conceal the crime. The trial court convicted them under Sections 302, 34 and 201 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to life imprisonment for murder, besides additional prison terms for conspiracy and causing disappearance of evidence. The High Court later confirmed the convictions

Setting aside the contention, the judgment authored by Justice Chandran found the appellants' conduct to be a probable human conduct; moreover, the post-mortem report did not suggest a homicidal death, rather showed a death caused by 'Asphyxia' due to drowning.

“The silence of the accused and their having not informed the family members of the deceased, cannot be an incriminating circumstance since that was a probable conduct, even if there was an accident of drowning…As for homicidal death, there was nothing coming out from the post-mortem report and the testimony of the Doctor, PW-1, in proof of homicide.”, the Court observed.

The Supreme Court found that the medical evidence did not establish that the death was homicidal. The victim had suffered three injuries, but the doctor had stated that they could have been caused while bathing in the river or when the body was dragged by the flow of water and struck a hard object. The Court noted that there was no reliable evidence showing that the victim had been struck on the head, rendered unconscious and deliberately drowned.

The Court also rejected the prosecution's claim that a broken soda bottle supported the murder theory. Although the prosecution argued that the victim may have been struck with a glass bottle, no broken bottle or blood-stained fragments were seized from the scene or sent for forensic examination.

“None of the circumstances having been proved, we are inclined to find the probable and more possible version of the accused, that the deceased drowned accidentally. The accused are guilty of having fled from the spot and not having attempted to rescue the drowning person, by crying out for help. Their conduct of having gone for a movie after witnessing their friend drowning, though reprehensible, cannot be found to be an incriminating circumstance, to establish murder rather than drowning. The hypothesis of innocence is crystal clear, and circumstances indicate an accident and not a premeditated murder.”, the Court added.

In terms of the aforesaid, the appeal was allowed, acquitting the Appellants, and directing their release unless required in other cases.

Cause Title: Taher Vajiyuddin Rangwala & Anr. Versus The State of Gujarat

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 810

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Iqbal Syed, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mohammad Aslam, AOR Mr. Amaan Syed, Adv. Mr. Syed Kashan Ali, Adv. Ms. Sara Shambhavi, Adv. Mr. Waseem Akhtar Khan, Adv. Mr. Ashraf Yusuf Khan, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, AOR Ms. Aditi Agarwal, Adv.