Can a man be sent to the gallows when the “last seen” theory is doubtful, motive is unproved and crucial electronic evidence is incomplete? The Rajasthan High Court acquitted Premlal in his wife’s murder case after finding serious investigation lapses and an incomplete chain of circumstantial evidence.

JODHPUR: The Rajasthan High Court has acquitted a man who had been convicted of murdering his wife and sentenced to the death penalty, after finding that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

A Division Bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur and Justice Chandra Shekhar Sharma allowed Premlal’s criminal appeal and rejected the Trial Court’s reference seeking confirmation of his death sentence. The Trial Court had convicted him under Section 302 IPC on December 8, 2025.

The case arose from the death of Premlal’s wife, Nima. According to the prosecution, the couple had matrimonial differences after Premlal allegedly entered into a second Nata marriage. Nima had moved to her parental home with their two children. It was alleged that Premlal called her on January 12, 2023, after which she left home. Her body was later found in a field with injuries on her face and head.

The prosecution case was based mainly on circumstantial evidence, including the alleged “last seen together” theory, motive arising from matrimonial discord, recoveries, medical evidence, and call detail records.

However, the High Court found serious problems in the investigation. The deceased’s father admitted that the FIR was written by a police official and its contents were not read over or explained to him. He also admitted that, without the police telling him that Premlal had committed the murder, he himself would not have known that Premlal was responsible. The Court found that his allegation regarding Premlal’s involvement was therefore based on information supplied by police rather than personal knowledge.

The Court also found the “last seen together” evidence unreliable. Statements of important witnesses were recorded after a delay of around 15 to 20 days without any explanation, and their statements were not recorded before a Magistrate under Section 164 CrPC. The Court observed that this left open the possibility of later improvement or embellishment.

The alleged matrimonial motive also remained unproved. Evidence showed that there had been reconciliation after earlier disputes, while neither the woman with whom Premlal was allegedly involved nor any independent witness was examined to establish that such relationship continued. The Court therefore found the alleged motive speculative.

Serious doubts were also raised over the alleged recoveries. Disclosure statements under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act were recorded by the Investigating Officer without any independent witness. The alleged recoveries were also not supported by independent witnesses, creating doubt over their reliability.

The electronic evidence also failed to provide the required link. Neither the mobile handsets allegedly used by Premlal and Nima nor their SIM cards were recovered. The prosecution could not establish that they used the relevant mobile numbers exclusively at the relevant time.

The Court further noted that the nodal officers who supplied the Call Detail Records and Section 65-B Evidence Act certificate were neither included as prosecution witnesses nor examined during investigation, leaving the foundation of the electronic evidence inadequately proved.

Even the medical evidence could establish the cause of Nima’s death but could not establish the identity of the person responsible. The Court noted that medical evidence was corroborative and could not fill the missing links in an otherwise incomplete chain of circumstantial evidence.

After examining the entire evidence, the High Court found that the last-seen circumstance was doubtful, motive remained unproved, recoveries were suspicious, investigation suffered from procedural lapses and electronic evidence lacked foundational proof. The prosecution therefore failed to establish a complete chain pointing only towards Premlal’s guilt.

The Bench stressed the fundamental rule of criminal law:

“However strong the suspicion may be, it cannot take the place of legal proof”

It further held that where two views are reasonably possible, the view favourable to the accused must prevail. The Court found that the Trial Court had relied on circumstances that were neither fully established nor did they form a complete chain pointing exclusively to guilt.

Accordingly, the Court set aside the death sentence and conviction under Section 302 IPC. The murder reference was answered in the negative, and Premlal was acquitted by giving him the benefit of doubt, with directions for his release if he was not required in any other case.

EXPLANATORY TABLE OF LAWS AND SECTIONS

CASE DETAILS

KEY TAKEAWAYS

1. A man was sentenced to death for his wife’s murder even though the prosecution case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence.
2. The Rajasthan High Court found the crucial “last seen” theory doubtful and the alleged matrimonial motive unproved.
3. Delayed witness statements, questionable recoveries and inadequately proved electronic evidence created serious holes in the prosecution story.
4. The Court reaffirmed a basic criminal-law safeguard: however strong the suspicion, it cannot replace legal proof.
5. A flawed investigation nearly ended with a man on the gallows. When the punishment is death, even one missing link matters — here, the entire chain failed.