Shreya Gupta
On 13th February 2025, the Supreme Court acquitted Vinod Kumar, a murder accused in a 1995 case, after identifying significant omissions and contradictions in key witness testimonies. The Court emphasized that in cases relying on circumstantial evidence, a complete chain of events must be established to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. A Division Bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan reiterated that circumstances forming the basis of guilt should be fully established, leaving no room for any conclusion inconsistent with the innocence of the accused.
In this case, the prosecution primarily relied on the last-seen-together theory, the accused’s evasive responses, his alleged absconding, recovery of blood-stained clothes, and unexplained injuries. However, the Court found omissions and contradictions in the statements of the victim’s mother and the victim himself, which rendered their testimonies unreliable. As a result, the Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove Kumar’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to his acquittal.
Vinod Kumar had been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of ₹2,000 for the murder of his neighbour, Dharminder. The incident dates back to July 12, 1995, when Kumar took Dharminder along, assuring his mother that they would return soon. When Dharminder did not return, his parents repeatedly questioned Kumar, who gave conflicting statements. The next day, Dharminder’s father filed a missing person report, and on July 14, the boy’s body was discovered in a terrace bathroom with his hands tied and a rope around his neck. The police subsequently registered an FIR under Section 302 of the IPC and built their case on circumstantial evidence.
The Additional Sessions Judge at Shahdara, Delhi, convicted Kumar of murder, and the Delhi High Court upheld the conviction, prompting him to appeal before the Supreme Court. During the appeal, Kumar’s counsel argued that the victim’s mother’s testimony was inconsistent and unreliable due to contradictions and key omissions. He pointed out that she was declared hostile and that claims of her repeatedly visiting the accused’s house were absent from earlier statements. He also contended that the prosecution failed to prove the crucial last-seen-together theory beyond a reasonable doubt and that the accused’s alleged evasive responses were not sufficiently established.
On the other hand, the respondent’s counsel stressed the emotional state of the victim’s mother due to her loss and argued that her claim of last seeing the victim with the accused remained unshaken in cross-examination. Additionally, she highlighted that the accused absconded after the FIR was filed and that bloodstained clothes were recovered at his instance, reinforcing the case against him and justifying his conviction.
After evaluating the arguments and the evidence, the Supreme Court found that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of events proving the accused’s guilt. The Court specifically noted significant inconsistencies in the testimony of PW-3 (the victim’s mother), making it difficult to consider her a reliable witness. Furthermore, the victim’s father (PW-1) was not a witness to the last-seen-together theory, weakening the prosecution’s case. The Court also rejected the High Court’s finding that the accused provided evasive replies to mislead the victim’s parents.
As a result, the Supreme Court set aside Kumar’s conviction and acquitted him after 30 years. The Court held that the conviction and sentence were unsustainable and quashed the impugned judgments. It allowed the appeal, cancelled the appellant’s bail bonds, and acquitted him of all charges.
Advocates Mukesh K Giri and Mandaar Mukesh Giri represented the accused, while Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, Senior Advocates Swarupama Chaturvedi and Ruchi Kohli, and Advocates Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Chitrangda Rashtravara, Priyanka Terdal, Poornima Singh, and Koney Rama Mohan Rao appeared for the State and other respondents.
Case Title: Vinod Kumar v. State of NCT of Delhi
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 2482 Of 2014
Bench: Justices Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan