Supreme Court: Acquittal in Rajasthan Advocate’s Murder Upheld, Motive, Last-Seen Evidence and Recoveries Found Weak and Inadmissible

Case Name: State of Rajasthan v. Bhanwar Singh & Ors.
Date of Judgment: September 26, 2025
Citation: 2025 INSC 1166, Criminal Appeal Nos. 1954–1956 of 2013
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Mehta and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Joymalya Bagchi

Held: The Supreme Court dismissed the State’s appeals and affirmed the Rajasthan High Court’s acquittal of the accused persons in the 2006 murder of advocate Suresh Sharma. It held that the prosecution failed to prove incriminating circumstances such as motive, last-seen theory, recoveries, and call records beyond reasonable doubt. The Court emphasized that in appeals against acquittal, interference is permissible only when the judgment is perverse or ignores vital evidence, but here the High Court’s appreciation of evidence was proper and free from perversity.

Summary: The deceased, advocate Suresh Sharma, was found murdered near Jodhpur in January 2006 with multiple injuries and signs of strangulation. The prosecution alleged that Hemlata, Narpat Choudhary, and Bhanwar Singh conspired to eliminate him, hiring professional killers from Uttar Pradesh. The trial court convicted them under Sections 302, 201, 143, and 120-B IPC, but the High Court acquitted them, citing unreliable witnesses and insufficient evidence. On appeal, the Supreme Court found several flaws: PW-8 and PW-20’s last-seen testimony was delayed, improbable, and suspicious; recovery of a blood-stained chunni from Hemlata’s house was inconsequential as blood grouping was never matched; alleged call detail records were inadmissible without Section 65-B certification and based only on a handwritten note; hotel registers allegedly proving the killers’ stay had no link with the accused; and the Maruti van allegedly used to transport the body yielded no conclusive forensic results. Even the alleged motive based on land disputes and personal grudge was exaggerated and uncorroborated. The Court concluded that none of the three main pillars of circumstantial evidence—motive, last-seen, and recoveries—were legally proved.

Decision: The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal of all accused, dismissed the State’s appeals, and reiterated that suspicion cannot substitute legal proof. It reaffirmed the principle that appellate courts should not disturb acquittals unless the findings are manifestly perverse.