Motive Cannot Substitute Proof: HC Acquits Sr Citizen Accused Of Killing Wife & Paramour

Nagpur: Holding that "motive by itself cannot take the place of proof, particularly when the direct and circumstantial evidence is shaky and unreliable," the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court recently acquitted a 61-year-old man who was serving a life sentence for the 2018 murder of his estranged wife and her alleged boyfriend in Amravati district.A division bench of Justices Anil Pansare and Nivedita Mehta set aside the March 10, 2021 conviction of an Amravati man under Sections 302 and 450 of the IPC, ruling that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of circumstances proving he alone committed the crime.The case arose from the fatal stabbing of the wife and her boyfriend on July 18, 2018, at Wadgaon Zire. The sessions court relied largely on testimony from the couple's minor children, the alleged recovery of a knife and clothes, and a suggested motive of marital discord and an illicit relationship.Reassessing the evidence, the High Court found the prosecution's case fundamentally weak. The son admitted he "did not witness the assault" and based his account on what he was told later. The daughter, projected as the key witness, "categorically stated that she did not see the incident" and acknowledged that her earlier statement naming her father was made "under threat and pressure by 1 policeman and 1 female.""The court deemed it unsafe to sustain a conviction solely on such uncorroborated child testimony that failed to inspire confidence, especially in a purely circumstantial murder case requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt," the bench observed.While medical evidence confirmed homicidal deaths, the judges stressed it did not connect the accused to the crime. "Suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof," the court said. "Medical opinion is corroborative in nature and cannot substitute substantive evidence."On the alleged recovery of the weapon, the bench noted the spot was an open, accessible place and did not meet the requirements of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, observing that "the possibility of planted recovery cannot be ruled out." A shopkeeper's claim that he sold chilli powder to the accused shortly before the crime was rejected due to delays, lack of an identification parade, and omissions in his police statement.The bench concluded that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence. While quashing the Amravati sessions court verdict of March 10, 2021, the judges ordered the petitioner's acquittal.