The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that the evidence was too weak to sustain a conviction. (AI image)The Supreme Court has upheld the acquittal of a woman accused of conspiring with her lover to murder her husband, holding that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances pointing only to the guilt of the accused. The Court reiterated that where a case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence, every link in the chain must be firmly proved and suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute legal proof.The Supreme Court has refused to interfere with a Bombay High Court judgment acquitting three accused of charges of murder and criminal conspiracy in the death of a bank employee, while affirming the conviction of two of them for causing disappearance of evidence after they were caught transporting the deceased's body.A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prasanna B. Varale dismissed appeals filed by the State of Maharashtra and the deceased's family, holding that the prosecution had failed to establish an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence necessary to sustain convictions under Sections 302 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. At the same time, the Court upheld the conviction of two accused under Section 201 IPC after finding that they were apprehended while attempting to dispose of the victim's body.BackgroundThe case arose out of the death of Kiran Suryawanshi, an employee of ICICI Bank, who had married Monika Suryawanshi in 2001. The couple had a daughter and lived in Dhule, Maharashtra.According to the prosecution, Monika had developed an extra-marital relationship with her neighbour, Prakash Patil. It was alleged that Monika, Prakash and their friends Dnyaneshwar Mahale and Deepak Patil conspired to eliminate Kiran. The prosecution claimed that Monika administered sedatives to her husband before crushing his head with a grinding stone. Thereafter, the body was allegedly wrapped in a plastic sheet and bed cover for disposal.The prosecution case further stated that during the early hours of 15.02.2007, Prakash and Dnyaneshwar were intercepted by a police constable while transporting the wrapped body on a motorcycle. On inspection, the police found a human foot protruding from the bundle and discovered Kiran's body tied inside. The investigation subsequently led to the arrest of Monika and the recovery of several articles, including a murder weapon, blood-stained clothes, syringes and other materials.The Sessions Court convicted Monika, Prakash and Dnyaneshwar for murder, criminal conspiracy and destruction of evidence. Deepak was acquitted.On appeal, however, the Bombay High Court acquitted all three accused of the charges of murder and conspiracy after holding that the prosecution had failed to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence. The High Court nevertheless maintained the conviction of Prakash and Dnyaneshwar under Section 201 IPC for attempting to dispose of the dead body.The State of Maharashtra and the deceased's father challenged the acquittal before the Supreme Court.At the outset, the Supreme Court observed that there was no dispute regarding the homicidal nature of Kiran's death. The real question, according to the Bench, was whether the prosecution had succeeded in connecting the accused with the crime through legally admissible and reliable circumstantial evidence.Through the principles laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, the Court observed that where a prosecution case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence, every incriminating circumstance must be firmly established and all the circumstances must together form a complete chain leading only to the guilt of the accused."The 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."The Court stressed that proving homicidal death alone is not sufficient."It is not sufficient enough for the prosecution to submit before the Court that the death of the deceased is homicidal but it is a duty of the prosecution to establish its case against the accused persons with justifiable and legal evidence so as to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt," the Bench observed.The prosecution sought to establish motive by claiming that Monika and Prakash were engaged in an extra-marital affair which led them to conspire against the deceased. To prove the relationship, it relied principally upon two witnesses who claimed that Prakash had described Monika as his lover and had once asked one of them to deliver a gift to her.The Supreme Court found this evidence inadequate.The Bench observed that, at its highest, the evidence merely indicated a one-sided attraction on the part of Prakash. There was no convincing material to establish that Monika reciprocated those feelings or that the relationship had progressed to the point of motivating a murder.The Court also rejected the argument that mobile phone records independently established the alleged affair."Mere production of telephone records does not substitute substantive proof of an illicit affair leading to murder," the Bench observed.Accordingly, it held that the motive remained weak and could not form a reliable foundation for sustaining convictions in a case based entirely on circumstantial evidence.Court Rejects 'Last Seen' Theory And Finds Serious Gaps In Prosecution EvidenceThe prosecution also relied on the "last seen" theory to connect Monika with the crime. It examined the deceased's colleague, Rajendra Goswami, who claimed that he had dropped Kiran home between 8:30 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. on the night of the incident and waited until he entered the house.The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that this evidence was too weak to sustain a conviction. The Bench observed that the witness's conduct appeared unnatural, as there was no apparent reason for him to remain outside the house merely to ensure that Kiran had gone inside.The Court also noted that in her statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Monika had consistently maintained that her husband had left the house later that night to attend a gathering with his friends despite her objections.More importantly, the prosecution had failed to establish either the exact time of death or the precise time when the offence was committed. In these circumstances, the Court held that the "last seen" theory could not safely be relied upon.The Supreme Court also found that the digital evidence weakened rather than strengthened the prosecution's case.According to the FIR, Monika had telephoned Prakash after ensuring that her husband was asleep, calling him to the house to execute the conspiracy. However, the call detail records told a different story.The Bench noted that the deceased's Airtel phone was recovered from inside the house during the search. This lent support to the defence case that Kiran had inadvertently left his mobile phone behind when he went out that night.The Court further found that while there were incoming calls from Prakash's phone to Monika's number, there was no outgoing call from Monika's phone summoning Prakash, as claimed in the prosecution case."The FIR's claim that accused No.1 summoned accused No.2 is a false contention unsupported by the digital trail," the Court observed.The Bench then turned to the recoveries made during the investigation.The prosecution relied heavily on the recovery of a grinding stone, syringes, blood-stained clothes and other articles discovered at Monika's instance.The Supreme Court, however, found serious procedural deficiencies in the manner these recoveries were conducted. Monika had denied making any disclosure and claimed that her signatures had been obtained on blank papers. The Court noted that the house search panchnama itself did not bear her signature.More importantly, the grinding stone and other articles were recovered from an open public place near her residence, making them accessible to anyone. The Court also found merit in the High Court's observation that none of the seized articles had been sealed immediately after recovery.Referring to earlier precedents, the Bench reiterated that unless seized articles are properly sealed and the prosecution establishes an unbroken chain of custody until they reach the forensic laboratory, the possibility of tampering cannot be ruled out.Therefore, the Chemical Analyser's reports linking blood stains on the recovered articles to the deceased lost much of their evidentiary value. The Court also found a significant inconsistency in the prosecution story. Although the medical evidence suggested that Kiran had suffered extensive head injuries from a heavy blunt object such as a grinding stone, investigators found no blood on the mattress, bedsheet or pillow inside the bedroom where the murder was allegedly committed.According to the Bench, this serious omission substantially undermined the prosecution's version of events.The Supreme Court further held that the prosecution had failed to establish the offence of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC. The Court observed that proving conspiracy requires evidence of a prior agreement or meeting of minds to commit an illegal act. While such an agreement may often be inferred from surrounding circumstances, those circumstances must themselves be firmly established.Referring to State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu and Maghavendra Pratap Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh, the Bench reiterated that suspicion cannot substitute proof even in conspiracy cases.Since the motive remained unproved, the "last seen" evidence was unreliable, the digital evidence contradicted the prosecution's own case and the forensic recoveries suffered from serious procedural lapses, the Court held that the alleged conspiracy itself remained unestablished.The Bench therefore agreed with the High Court that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges under Sections 302 and 120B IPC beyond reasonable doubt.The Court, however, took a different view regarding the offence under Section 201 IPC.It noted that Police Constable Rajendra Mohite had intercepted Prakash and Dnyaneshwar during the early hours of 15.02.2007 while they were riding a motorcycle carrying a suspicious bundle. On inspection, the police found Kiran's body wrapped in a plastic sheet and bedsheet with his hands tied.The motorcycle also bore blood stains on its silencer plate, which forensic examination matched with the deceased's blood group. The Supreme Court observed that these facts unmistakably established that both accused were attempting to dispose of the dead body with the intention of screening the offenders from legal punishment.Accordingly, the Court upheld their conviction under Section 201 read with Section 34 IPC.Finding no infirmity in the High Court's reasoning, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by the State of Maharashtra and affirmed the acquittal of Monika, Prakash and Dnyaneshwar of the charges under Sections 302 and 120B IPC. It also confirmed the conviction of Prakash and Dnyaneshwar under Section 201 IPC, noting that both had already undergone the sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment imposed by the Trial Court.CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). 2282-2284 OF 2011STATE OF MAHARASHTRA vs MONIKA KIRAN SURYAWANSHI & ORSDate of Decision: 13.07.2026Appearance:For Appellant(s): Ms. Punam Kumari, AOR Mr. Sanjay Kharde, Sr. Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv.For Respondent(s): Mr. Vinay Navare, Sr. Adv. Ms. Manshi Jain, Adv. Ms. Abha R. Sharma, AOR Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR(The author of this article, Vatsal Chandra is a Delhi-based Advocate practicing before the courts of Delhi NCR.)