In Brief
In 2000, five family members in Uttar Pradesh were murdered after the accused demanded money. The trial court convicted the respondent Sunil of murder based on circumstantial evidence and sentenced him to death. The High Court acquitted him, finding the prosecution failed to establish a direct connection between him and the crime. The State appealed to the Supreme Court. The Court upheld the acquittal, holding that while adverse inferences can be drawn from an accused's refusal to provide fingerprints or footprints, such refusal alone cannot sustain conviction. The prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence; mere recovery of weapons without proving connection to the accused is insufficient for conviction.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.