On June 4, 2025, the Supreme Court, in the case of Vaibhav vs. The State of Maharashtra, acquitted the appellant on the basis of a lack of evidence, stating that it is upon the prosecution to make a case and not the accused to prove his innocence.
Facts:
Vaibhav (Appellant) and Mangesh (Deceased) were college friends.
One day, Magnesh accompanied Vaibhav to their usual chai stall. Afterwards, they went to Vaibhav’s house. Later that day, Magnesh was found dead.
For More Updates & Regular Notes Join Our Whats App Group (https://chat.whatsapp.com/DkucckgAEJbCtXwXr2yIt0) and Telegram Group ( https://t.me/legalmaestroeducators ) contact@legalmaestros.com.
His dead body was recovered from an abandoned apartment behind Vaibhav’s house.
It was found that Magnesh died from being shot. The pistol belonged to Vaibhav’s dad.
Initially, Vaibhav denied knowing anything about the case. He even visited Magnesh’s house when his father was worried about his (Magnesh’s) disappearance. He acted to help the deceased’s father search for his son.
But upon the gun being recovered from his house, Vaibhav changed his stance.
He told the court that Magnesh and he were in his house. Magnesh went to change his clothes. While changing clothes, he heard a gunshot. Upon inquiry, he found Magnesh dead.
Panicked, he kept the gun back under the mattress. He called his friends to help dispose of the body behind the house (in the abandoned quarter) and then cleaned the floor.
The appellant argued that it was not homicide but a case of suicide. The way the bullet was shot proved that it was not homicide.
The trajectory of the bullet:
The bullet entered the right socket of the eye.
The bullet exited from the lower part of the occipital region (back of the skull near the base).
The bullet then hit the ventilator above the door.
The ventilator was way above Magnesh’s height. Even if he were shot, the bullet would not hit something above him.
If he were shot by somebody else, the bullet would hit directly behind him and above him. This suggests that Magnesh was bending forward or sitting down.
High Court’s Views:
The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay stated that the accused’s manners after the death of his friends should be taken into account.
He concealed his body. He cleaned the floor. Instead of telling the deceased’s father, he went there and pretended to find him.
The gunshot wound is determined to be from the accused’s father’s gun.
The accused admitted to the concealment, removal, and subsequent discovery of various articles.
If the gun was present in the bedroom and Magnesh was in the living room, how did he conjure the gun so fast while the accused was changing clothes? This seems impossible.
The medical expert says that they cannot determine if it was a homicide or suicide.
The accused cannot explain the situation and present a suicide case.
Therefore, the accused is convicted of homicide.
Court’s Judgement:
The Hon’ble Court stated that
It is blatantly clear that the pistol from which the bullet was fired belonged to the appellant’s father.
The Court said that 2 important factors for the accidental firing of an arm
- Close range of the bullet being shot
- Singular injury on the body
were present in this case; therefore, based on the medical jurisprudence, they gave the accused the benefit of the doubt.
There was no motive for the appellant to cause the death of the deceased, as they were on friendly terms. In this case, since all the evidence is circumstantial, the weight of the lack of motive is considerable.
So it is possible that when Vaibhav came back to the room, he found Magnesh’s body in a pool of blood and his father’s gun with him. He got scared of his dad, and he shifted the body to clean up the blood with phenyl.
Also, it must be noted that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, if there are two views. The court must lean in favour of the accused.
The lower judiciary seems to put too much emphasis on the appellant proving things rather than the defendants making up a case.
It is upon the prosecution that they make up a case beyond a reasonable doubt. Then only will the defendants have to present a defence. But in the present case, there seem to be inconsistencies in the case made up by the prosecution.
To merely convict the accused based on his inconsistencies and his lack of explanation would be wrong. The prosecution must first establish a case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Therefore, keeping all of the above in mind, the court acquits the accused.
Corram:
JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA
JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
