Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(SC) 1782
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Prasanna B. Varale, J
State of Maharashtra – Appellant
Versus
Monika Kiran Suryawanshi – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). 2282-2284 OF 2011|CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). 2286-2288 OF 2011
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sanjay Kharde
For the Respondents: Vinay Navare, M.A. Tandale
In cases of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish an unbroken chain of events excluding all other hypotheses of innocence. The improper sealing of recovered items, failure to prove motive, and lack of direct evidence regarding conspiracy necessitate an acquittal for grave charges.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 201, 120-B, 34 - Homicidal death - Circumstantial evidence - Requirement of proof - Prosecution must establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances that unerringly points to the guilt of the accused, excluding every other reasonable hypothesis of innocence - Suspicion cannot take the place of legal proof. (Paras 17, 19, 31)
(B) Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 27 - Recovery of incriminating articles - Requirement of sealing - Failure to seal articles at the time of seizure and maintain chain of custody renders recovery unreliable and makes forensic analysis of such evidence highly doubtful. (Paras 28, 29)
(C) Criminal Conspiracy - Section 120-B IPC - Proof required - Requires direct or circumstantial evidence of a meeting of minds and agreement to perform an unlawful act; in the absence of evidence establishing this, conviction cannot be sustained. (Paras 30, 32)
Facts of the case:
The prosecution alleged that the victim was murdered by his spouse and others pursuant to a conspiracy driven by an alleged illicit relationship. Following the discovery of the victim’s body being transported by two individuals on a vehicle, investigators seized various items from the residence of the spouse. The trial court convicted the accused persons for murder, conspiracy, and destruction of evidence. The appellate court subsequently acquitted the accused of the murder and conspiracy charges, finding the circumstantial evidence insufficient, but sustained the conviction for destruction of evidence against the two individuals caught transporting the body.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the motive of an illicit affair, the 'last seen' theory was based on weak evidence, and digital trails contradicted the prosecution's claims regarding the conspiracy. Crucially, the lack of proper sealing of seized items from the residence and the public accessibility of recovery sites undermined the physical evidence. The court concluded the chain of circumstances was broken.
Issues: The primary issues were whether the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to convict the accused of murder and conspiracy, and whether the procedural lapses in the collection and storage of physical evidence vitiated the prosecution’s case.
Ratio Decidendi: Criminal conviction based on circumstantial evidence hinges on a complete, unbroken chain of events that leaves no reasonable room for innocence. When material evidence is not sealed at the point of recovery, it fails the test of reliability for forensic analysis, and absent independent proof of conspiracy, suspicious circumstances alone are insufficient to sustain a conviction for capital offences.
Result: Appeals dismissed. Conviction and sentence for destruction of evidence confirmed; acquittal for murder and conspiracy confirmed.
NON-REPORTABLE
J U D G M E N T
Digitally signed by ASWA S... Date: ... Reason: ...
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 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 two men on a motorcycle (MH18P8077). Upon intervention, P.S.I. Kulkarni noted that the men, later identified as accused nos. 2 and 3, gave evasive replies. His suspicions were confirmed when he noticed a human leg protruding from a bundle on the vehicle. He immediately secured the scene, took the suspects into custody, and summoned government photographer Bapu Wadekar (P.W.7) to document the opening of the bundle, which contained the body of the victim, Kiran Suryawanshi. A formal seizure panchanama of the motorcycle was conducted in the presence of witness Santosh Jadhav.
5. The investigation escalated when accused no. 2, Prakash, allegedly used his mobile phone to alert accused no. 1, Monika, about their detention. Following this admission, P.S.I. Kulkarni di
