Back
2026 Supreme(SC) 759
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KAROL, PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ.
State of Maharashtra - Appellant
Versus
Monika Kiran Suryawanshi & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No(s). 2282-2284 of 2011 With Criminal Appeal No(s). 2286-2288 of 2011
Decided On : 13-07-2026
For the Appellant(s) : Ms. Punam Kumari, AOR Mr. Shantwanu Singh, Adv. Mrs. Pragya Singh, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kharde, Sr. Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Abha R. Sharma, AOR Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR
IMPORTANT POINT
Murder – Prosecution must establish complete and unbroken chain of circumstances that unerringly points to guilt of accused.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 120B and 201 read with Section 34 – Murder, conspiracy and disappearance of evidence – Common intention – Acquittal by High Court – Circumstantial evidence – It is duty of prosecution to establish its case against accused persons with justifiable and legal evidence so as to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Prosecution must establish complete and unbroken chain of circumstances that unerringly points to guilt of accused – Given prosecution’s failure to conclusively establish exact time of offence, High Court rightly dismissed “last seen” evidence as a weak type of evidence – Most fatal blows to prosecution’s case lie in deeply flawed investigation – Prosecution’s case against accused for murder and conspiracy, resting entirely on circumstantial evidence, suffers from vital lacunae, specifically failure to establish a motive, unreliability of ‘last seen’ witness, contradictory telephonic records, devastating failure to seal recovered articles at the spot, and complete absence of blood in bedroom where brutal murder supposedly occurred – Acquittal from offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 120B IPC upheld – However, conviction and sentence inflicted upon accused for offence under Section 201 read with Section 34 IPC confirmed. (Paras 17, 19, 23, 26, 34, 38, 39 and 40)
Facts of the case:
Present criminal appeals are being preferred before this Court against judgment and order dated 10.3.2010 in Criminal Appeal No. 61/2008 with Criminal Appeal Nos. 72/2008 and 332/2008, passed by the Hon'ble High Court of judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, by which High Court had set aside order of conviction under section 302, 201 read with section 34 and under section 120(B) of Indian Penal Code passed by Trial Court and acquitted respondent numbers 1 to 3.
Findings of Court:
While prosecution failed to prove charges of murder and conspiracy, circumstances surrounding disposal of body present a distinctly different legal position for accused nos. 2 and 3.
Result : Appeals dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. case history, factual background and procedural developments. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 2. summary of rival contentions regarding circumstantial evidence and conspiracy. (Para 13 , 14) |
| 3. standard for circumstantial evidence and necessity of proving motive. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 4. evaluation of 'last seen' theory and discrepancies in digital evidence. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 5. evidentiary impact of failing to seal recovered articles/lack of link evidence. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 6. requirement of proven meeting of minds for conviction under section 120b. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 7. evidence of disposing of dead body sustains section 201 ipc charge. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37) |
| 8. final acquittal on murder/conspiracy and confirmation of evidence disposal conviction. (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41) |
JUDGMENT :
PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.
1. The present criminal appeals are being preferred before this Court against the judgment and order dated 10.3.2010 in Criminal Appeal No. 61/2008 with Criminal Appeal Nos. 72/2008 and 332/2008, passed by the Hon'ble High Court of judicature at Bombay, bench at Aurangabad, by which the Hon'ble High Court had set aside the order of conviction under section 302, 201 read with section 34 and under section 120(B) of Indian Penal Code (herein after referred to as ‘IPC’) passed by the learned Trial Court and acquitted the respondent numbers 1 to 3.
BRIEF FACTS
The factual matrix of the case can be unfolded as under:
2. The accused No. 1 Monika was married to the deceased Kiran Suryawanshi, who was serving in I.C.I.C.I. Bank in the year 2001 and it was a love marriage and they were residing at plot no. 103, Shramsafalya Colony, at Deopur and they were also blessed with one daughter namely Hemal out of the said wedlock. It is alleged that, the accused no. 2 Prakash is neighbour of accused no. 1 and was staying in plot no. 104, Shramsafalya Colony, Deopur and he had love affair with accused no. 1 Monika whereas accused no.3 Dnyaneshwar and accused no. 4 Deepak are friends of accused no. 2.
3. It is also alleged that the conspiracy was hatched by accused nos. 1 and 2 along with accused nos. 3 and 4 to eliminate Kiran Suryawanshi and then to bury his dead body and accused nos. 2 and 3 went near Nakane Dam with intention to bury the body. It is further alleged that accused no. 1 administered some sedative tablets and injections to victim Kiran Suryawanshi and thereafter his head was smashed with the help of grinding stone and thereafter his body was wrapped in a plastic bag and bed sheet. Pursuant to the conspiracy, accused Nos. 2 and 3 had hired a motorcycle of their friend namely Rahul Jagdale and after accused no. 1 Monika killed the victim Kiran, the dead body of Kiran was being carried on the said motorcycle in the morning of 15.02.2007. While they were carrying the said dead body on the motorcycle, P.W.19 Police Constable Rajendra Mohite saw them and noticed that something was kept in between them and, therefore, he stopped them immediately and questioned them, but the accused nos. 2 and 3 gave evasive replies. Since the said place came under the jurisdiction of Deopur Police Station, P.W.19 Rajendra Mohite called his friend Prabhakar Bramhane, attached to Deopur Police Station by telephone, who arrived on the said spot along with Constable Mukhtar Shaikh and on seeing them, the accused nos. 2 and 3 were frightened. P.W.19 Rajendra Mohite noticed a human foot protruding out of the bundle when he saw it carefully and, therefore, questioned both the accused nos. 2 and 3 and they disclosed their names as Prakash Nagraj Patil and Dnyaneshwar Gangaram Mahale, respectively. On further questioning, they disclosed that it was a dead body of Kiran Suryawanshi.
4. On the night between February 14 and 15, 2007, P.S.I. Sharad Kulkarni of the Deopur Police Station was on patrolling duty when he encountered Constables Bramhane, Mukhtar Shaikh, and Rajendra Mohite questioning
