Supreme Court Acquits Two Accused In Friend's Drowning Death, Cites Lack Of Homicide Evidence

A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran acquitted two individuals who were convicted for the murder of their friend, who died by drowning in a river. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to prove homicide, and the accused's conduct of fleeing the scene, though reprehensible, could not be the basis for a murder conviction.

The case dates back to July 17, 2006, when the deceased was taken from his home by the two accused on the pretext of playing volleyball in Ankleshwar. He did not return, and his clothes were found on a riverbank. His body was recovered the next day, and the post-mortem attributed death to asphyxia due to drowning. The accused initially told the family they had dropped him at Sahra Darwaja but later confessed that they had gone swimming and the deceased accidentally drowned. They fled in panic and went to a movie.

The trial court convicted them under Sections 302, 34, and 201 read with 120B IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment. The Gujarat High Court confirmed the conviction. However, the Supreme Court found the circumstantial evidence weak.

A Weak Chain of Circumstances

The court examined the key circumstances: motive, last seen theory, homicidal death, and post-incident conduct. It noted that the motive – a purported relationship with the deceased and A-1's sister – was an afterthought, as the family had willingly sent the deceased with the accused. The last seen theory was admitted by the accused and consistent with their defense of accidental drowning.

Crucially, the medical evidence did not support homicide. The post-mortem report showed three minor injuries, which the doctor testified could be caused while bathing in the river or by the body being dragged in the current. The prosecution's theory that the deceased was hit with a broken soda bottle was unsupported, as no such bottle was seized or sent for forensic examination.

Reprehensible Conduct, Not Proof of Murder

The Supreme Court addressed the prosecution's emphasis on the accused's post-incident conduct – fleeing the scene, going to a movie, and failing to inform the family. The court observed, "The silence of the accused and their having not informed the family members of the deceased, cannot be an incriminating circumstance since that was a probable conduct, even if there was an accident of drowning."

It further stated, "Their conduct of having gone for a movie after witnessing their friend drowning, though reprehensible, cannot be found to be an incriminating circumstance, to establish murder rather than drowning. The hypothesis of innocence is crystal clear, and circumstances indicate an accident and not a premeditated murder ."

Verdict: Acquittal

The court allowed the appeal, reversed the conviction, and acquitted the accused. It ordered their immediate release unless required in other cases. The judgment reinforces the principle that circumstantial evidence must be consistent with guilt and inconsistent with innocence; here, the evidence pointed more plausibly to an accident.

This decision serves as a reminder that panic and poor judgment after a tragic accident cannot substitute for proof of murder.