The 53 kg stone said to have killed the man was never recovered and never shown to the doctor

Justices M.M. Sundresh and Prasanna B. Varale set aside murder convictions from 2004, holding the chain of circumstances had substantial gaps and two views were possible.

The prosecution's case was that the deceased was killed by a laterite stone weighing 53 kg dropped on his head while he lay on the ground. The stone was never recovered. There was no material to show how a stone of that weight came to be at the spot, or who brought it. And the medical officer who conducted the post-mortem told the court that no weapon of offence, including such a stone, had ever been sent to him for his opinion. On 18 September 2026 the Supreme Court set aside the convictions and acquitted both appellants.

Twenty-two years of litigation

The appellants were tried in Sessions Trial No. 158/14/26 of 2002 before the Ad hoc Additional District and Sessions Judge at Jajpur, and convicted on 28 January 2004 under Sections 148 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 302 read with Section 149. A Division Bench of the Orissa High Court at Cuttack dismissed their appeals on 6 May 2009 and upheld the convictions. The matter reached the Supreme Court on criminal appeals filed in 2010.

What the record did not contain

The case was built on circumstances rather than direct evidence, and the Court examined the central circumstance first. There was no material to show how a laterite stone weighing 53 kg was brought to the place, or by whom, and the prosecution was unable to recover the stone said to have been used.

The medical evidence pulled in two directions, and the Court set both out. The medical officer deposed that there is every likelihood of a fracture as well as brain haemorrhage if a laterite stone of that kind is thrown from a height of two feet onto the head of a person lying on the ground. The same witness also deposed that no weapon of offence, including a laterite stone of the kind marked in the case, had been sent to him by the Investigating Officer for his opinion. The possibility was therefore established in the abstract and never connected to the object actually alleged.

Each link, proved on its own

For the standard to be applied the Court turned to Abdul Nassar v. State of Kerala, which sets out how evidence in a circumstantial case must be appreciated. Each link of the incriminating circumstantial evidence has to be meticulously examined, to find whether each circumstance is proved individually, and whether taken collectively they forge an unbroken chain consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and wholly inconsistent with innocence.

Applying that, the Court held that the prosecution had failed to establish a complete and consistent chain of circumstances excluding every hypothesis other than guilt. The evidence on record leaves substantial gaps which create a reasonable doubt about the appellants' involvement. Where two views are reasonably possible on the evidence, the one favourable to the accused must prevail, and the High Court was not justified in affirming the conviction.

Order

The appeals were allowed. The judgment and order of the High Court dated 6 May 2009 in the two criminal appeals, and the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 28 January 2004 passed by the trial court in the sessions trial, were quashed and set aside. Pending applications were disposed of.