Judgment Intelligence
Acquittal UpheldState of Himachal Pradesh v. Sulender
2026 INSC 1077
Criminal Appeal No. 2400 of 2014
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Date of Decision
- 16 September 2026
- Bench
- Justice Augustine George Masih and Justice Sandeep Mehta
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 302
Final Outcome
Appeal dismissed. The High Court's judgment of 22.04.2014 acquitting the respondent of the charge under Section 302 IPC was upheld (paras 16-17).
Key holdings
- Non-examination of the witnesses cited to prove last seen together left that circumstance unproved (paras 7-8).
- An extra-judicial confession made while the accused is in physical police custody is inadmissible, even if formal arrest is shown later (para 11).
- A recovered weapon that the forensic report does not link to the crime does not incriminate the accused (para 12).
- Where two views are possible, an acquittal should not be disturbed unless it is perverse (para 15).
Brief Facts
The respondent and his wife worked as labourers on a school construction site. On 27.06.2006 he reported her missing at Police Station Chirgaon, saying she vanished while they had gone out to answer the call of nature; her body was later found 4 to 5 km from their camp (paras 3-4, 8). The prosecution alleged that he took her into the jungle and killed her with a knife (para 5). On 21.05.2008 the Fast Track Court, Shimla convicted him under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment on circumstantial evidence; on 22.04.2014 the High Court acquitted him (paras 2, 6).
Court's Findings
The Court agreed with the High Court on each circumstance. Last seen together was unproved because the two co-labourers cited to prove it were not examined, and the respondent's own report put their departure at about 6 a.m., not 4.30 a.m. (paras 7-8). The witness who saw a man walking briskly in a grey shawl never identified the respondent (para 9). Soil on his clothes was natural, as he was with the police when the body was found and may have helped lift it (para 10). The alleged extra-judicial confession was made while he was in physical police custody, though formal arrest was shown later, so it was inadmissible (para 11). The recovery evidence had lacunae, and the forensic report did not link the knife to the crime (para 12). No motive was proved (para 13). The circumstances were neither proved by convincing evidence nor formed a complete chain pointing only to guilt (para 14). Following Chandrappa, where two views are possible, the appellate court should adopt the one favouring the accused unless the acquittal is perverse (para 15).
Legal Principle
In a case resting on circumstantial evidence, each circumstance must be proved and together they must form a complete chain pointing only to the accused's guilt. In an appeal against acquittal, where two views are possible, the appellate court should adopt the one favouring the accused unless the acquittal is perverse (paras 14-15).
Precedents Relied Upon
- Chandrappa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415
Where two views are possible, the appellate court hearing an appeal against acquittal should adopt the view favourable to the accused and not interfere unless the acquittal suffers from patent perversity.
