In Brief
Vaibhav, a first-year medical student, was convicted of murdering his friend Mangesh with his father's service pistol at his home. The High Court upheld the conviction relying on Vaibhav's post-incident conduct—removing the body, cleaning the scene, and making false inquiries. The Supreme Court reversed the murder conviction but upheld the conviction for obstructing justice. The Court found that while the pistol belonged to Vaibhav's father and the death occurred at his house, no direct evidence proved Vaibhav fired the weapon. Medical evidence on bullet trajectory suggested accidental rather than homicidal death. Absent motive, clear proof of who fired the gun, and a complete chain of circumstantial evidence, suspicion alone could not support a murder conviction. The bench reaffirmed that in circumstantial evidence cases, burden lies on the prosecution; post-incident conduct cannot substitute for proof; and absent motive weighs in favour of the accused.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.