![Acquittal in Wife's Murder Upheld as Circumstantial Chain Not Proved: Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Sulender [2026 INSC 1077]](/assets/images/article-criminal.svg)
Quick Answer: The Supreme Court dismissed the State of Himachal Pradesh's appeal and upheld the High Court's acquittal of a man accused of murdering his wife. None of the circumstances relied on by the prosecution – last seen together, suspicious conduct, soil-stained clothes, an extra-judicial confession and the recovery of a knife – was proved, and they did not form a complete chain pointing only to his guilt.
In State of Himachal Pradesh v. Sulender (2026 INSC 1077), the Supreme Court held that the prosecution had "fallen woefully short" of proving, by conclusive evidence, that the respondent murdered his wife, and upheld the Himachal Pradesh High Court's judgment acquitting him (paras 14, 16). A Bench of Justice Augustine George Masih and Justice Sandeep Mehta reiterated that where two views are possible, the appellate court in an appeal against acquittal should adopt the view favourable to the accused unless the acquittal suffers from patent perversity (para 15).
Status: High Court's judgment dated 22.04.2014 acquitting the respondent affirmed; State's appeal dismissed (paras 16–17).
Headnote: Appeal Against Acquittal in Circumstantial Evidence Case
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Murder of wife – Circumstantial evidence – Last seen together – Non-examination of material witnesses – Extra-judicial confession made in police custody – Recovery of weapon – FSL report – Motive – Appeal against acquittal – Two possible views.
Held: (i) The circumstance of last seen together was not proved, as the two co-labourers cited to prove it were not examined, and the place where the body was found was 4 to 5 km from the camp (paras 7–8).
(ii) A witness who saw a person walking briskly covered with a grey shawl, but did not identify the accused, does not furnish an incriminating circumstance (para 9).
(iii) Soil stains on the accused's clothes were inconsequential, as he was present with the police when the body was found and would naturally have helped lift it (para 10).
(iv) An extra-judicial confession made while the accused was in the physical custody of the police, though formal arrest was shown later, could not be admitted in evidence (para 11).
(v) The recovery of the knife suffered from lacunae, and the FSL report gave no matching blood group to connect it with the crime; no motive was proved (paras 12–13).
(vi) Where two views are possible, the appellate court should adopt the view favourable to the accused and not interfere with an acquittal unless it suffers from patent perversity (para 15).
(paras 7–16)
Case Details: State of Himachal Pradesh v. Sulender (2026 INSC 1077)
Final Outcome: State's appeal dismissed; High Court's judgment of acquittal affirmed.
Case: State of Himachal Pradesh v. Sulender
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1077
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 2400 of 2014
Court: Supreme Court of India (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) – Non-Reportable
Date of Decision: 16 September 2026
Bench: Justice Augustine George Masih and Justice Sandeep Mehta (the judgment does not name the author)
Relevant Acts & Sections: Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302; law on circumstantial evidence and appeals against acquittal
Impugned Order: Himachal Pradesh High Court (Division Bench) – judgment dated 22.04.2014, setting aside the conviction recorded on 21.05.2008 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Shimla in Sessions Trial No. 17-R of 2008/07 (para 2)
Source: Supreme Court of India (official website)
Key Holdings of the Supreme Court
- The Supreme Court fully agreed with the High Court's reasons for acquitting the respondent (para 14).
- The prosecution's circumstances were neither proved by convincing evidence nor capable of forming a complete chain pointing exclusively to the respondent's guilt (para 14).
- The soil-stain circumstance was rightly discarded as not proved against the respondent (para 10).
- Where two views are possible, the view favourable to the accused must be adopted in an appeal against acquittal, absent patent perversity (para 15).
- The High Court's judgment dated 22.04.2014 suffers from no infirmity warranting interference (para 16).
Brief Facts of the Case
The respondent and his wife worked as labourers on the construction of a school building. On 27.06.2006 he went to Police Station Chirgaon and reported that his wife had gone missing while they had gone out to answer the call of nature; he suspected she had left with a co-labourer. A missing person report (Exhibit PW15/A) was registered (paras 3–4).
The prosecution's case was different: it alleged that the respondent took his wife to the jungle in the early morning and killed her with a knife, covered the body with a shawl and returned to the camp, being seen on the way by Brahma Nand (PW-13) (para 5).
The trial Court convicted him under Section 302 IPC on 21.05.2008 and sentenced him to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.20,000, relying on last seen together, recovery of the weapon on his disclosure and an extra-judicial confession before PW-1 and PW-4 (paras 2, 6).
On 22.04.2014, the Division Bench of the High Court allowed his appeal and acquitted him. The State appealed to the Supreme Court (para 2).
Issues Before the Supreme Court
- Whether the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution were proved and formed a complete chain pointing to the respondent's guilt (para 14).
- Whether the High Court's judgment of acquittal called for interference in an appeal against acquittal (paras 15–16).
Court's Findings and Reasoning
Last seen together (paras 7–8): The co-labourers Vikas and Pyari Devi, cited to prove that the couple left the camp together at 4.30 a.m., were not examined. The respondent's own report put the time at about 6.00 a.m., and there was no reason for the couple to go 4 to 5 km away from the camp to answer the call of nature. The circumstance was doubtful and not proved.
Suspicious conduct (para 9): Brahma Nand (PW-13) only said he saw a person walking briskly, covered with a grey shawl. He did not identify the respondent, and brisk walking by itself was not incriminating.
Soil-stained clothes (para 10): The respondent was present with the police when the body was discovered and would naturally have helped lift his wife's body. The Supreme Court held this circumstance was rightly discarded.
Extra-judicial confession (para 11): The alleged confession to Pyare Lal (PW-4) was made when PW-4 questioned the respondent at the instance of the police, while he was in their physical custody, though his formal arrest was shown later. It could not be admitted in evidence.
Recovery of knife and motive (paras 12–13): The evidence on recovery had various lacunae, the FSL report gave no matching blood group to connect the knife with the crime, and no motive was proved.
No ground to interfere (paras 14–16): Relying on Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, the Court held that where two views are possible, the acquittal should not be disturbed unless patently perverse, and found no infirmity in the High Court's judgment.
Final Outcome and Directions
- The High Court's judgment dated 22.04.2014 acquitting the respondent is affirmed (para 16).
- The State's appeal is dismissed for lack of merit (para 17).
- Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of (para 18).
Legal Principle Laid Down
In a case resting on circumstantial evidence, each circumstance must be proved by convincing evidence and together they must form a complete chain pointing exclusively to the guilt of the accused. An extra-judicial confession made while the accused is in the physical custody of the police is inadmissible, even if formal arrest is shown later. In an appeal against acquittal, where two views are possible, the appellate court should adopt the view favourable to the accused and interfere only if the acquittal suffers from patent perversity.
Precedents Relied Upon
- Chandrappa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 – Relied upon – where two views are possible, the appellate court should not disturb an acquittal unless it is patently perverse. Discussed at para 15.
Important Paragraphs of the Judgment
Verbatim extracts from the judgment. For the full text, refer to the judgment PDF below.
Para 9: "However, the fact remains that Brahma Nand (PW-13) did not identify the accused to be the said suspicious person."
Para 11: "The High Court also found that when the extra judicial confession was allegedly made, the respondent was in physical custody of the police, though his formal arrest was shown later and hence, the extra judicial confession could not be admitted in evidence."
Para 12: "Further, the High Court found that the FSL report did not connect the recovered knife with the commission of the crime as no opinion of matching blood group was given by the FSL."
Para 14: "The circumstances sought to be relied upon by the prosecution as being incriminating against the respondent were neither proved by convincing evidence nor were the said circumstances of such a nature which could form a complete incriminating chain pointing exclusively to the guilt of the respondent."
Para 15: "... where two views are possible, one favouring the prosecution and the other favouring the accused, the appellate Court, while exercising jurisdiction in an appeal against acquittal, should adopt the view favourable to the accused and refrain from interfering with the judgment of acquittal unless such judgment suffers from patent perversity."
Para 16: "... we are of the view that the prosecution has fallen woefully short of bringing home the guilt of the respondent by evidence which is conclusive and points exclusively to the guilt of the respondent."
Practical Impact of the Ruling
- For prosecutors: Failing to examine the witnesses cited to prove last seen together can sink that circumstance entirely (paras 7–8).
- For investigating agencies: A confession obtained through a witness while the accused is in police custody is inadmissible, even if formal arrest is recorded later (para 11).
- For forensic evidence: A recovered weapon carries little weight without an FSL opinion linking it to the crime, such as a matching blood group (para 12).
- For appellate courts: An acquittal based on a plausible view should not be reversed unless it is patently perverse (para 15).
- For defence lawyers: Each link in a circumstantial chain can be attacked separately; a break in the chain is enough for acquittal (para 14).
FAQs on Appeal Against Acquittal in a Circumstantial Evidence Case
1. What did the Supreme Court decide in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Sulender?
It dismissed the State's appeal and upheld the High Court's acquittal of the respondent in the murder of his wife, finding the prosecution's evidence insufficient (paras 14, 16–17).
2. Why was the last seen together circumstance rejected?
The co-labourers cited to prove it were not examined, the time stated by the prosecution differed from the missing report, and the body was found 4 to 5 km from the camp (paras 7–8).
3. Why was the extra-judicial confession not admissible?
Because it was allegedly made when the respondent was in the physical custody of the police and was questioned at their instance, though his formal arrest was shown later (para 11).
4. Was the recovery of the knife enough to convict?
No. The recovery evidence had lacunae, and the FSL report did not connect the knife with the crime as no matching blood group was found (para 12).
5. When will the Supreme Court interfere with an acquittal?
Only when the acquittal suffers from patent perversity; where two views are possible, the view favourable to the accused must prevail (para 15).
Keywords: 2026 INSC 1077, State of Himachal Pradesh v. Sulender, appeal against acquittal, Section 302 IPC, circumstantial evidence, last seen together, extra-judicial confession in police custody, recovery of weapon, FSL report, two views possible, Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, Justice Augustine George Masih, Justice Sandeep Mehta, Supreme Court non-reportable judgment
Related on LegalTaxGuru
Download Judgment PDF – State of Himachal Pradesh v. Sulender
Judgment PDF: 2026 INSC 1077 – State of Himachal Pradesh v. Sulender (Criminal Appeal No. 2400 of 2014) – Download Judgment PDF
Source: Supreme Court of India (official website).