In a significant judgment reflecting the Supreme Court’s cautious approach in cases based solely on circumstantial evidence, the Bench comprising Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, on October 7, 2025, in Nilesh Baburao Gitte v. State of Maharashtra (Criminal Appeal No. 1471 of 2013), acquitted Nilesh Baburao Gitte, who had been convicted for allegedly killing his mother, Sunanda (also known as Nanda Gitte). The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a conclusive chain of evidence and that the possibility of suicide could not be ruled out.
This ruling not only reaffirms the five golden principles of circumstantial evidence laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) but also underscores the judiciary’s insistence on the prosecution’s burden to eliminate every reasonable doubt before convicting an accused.
Background of the Case
The appellant, Nilesh Baburao Gitte, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai, in Sessions Case No. 42 of 2011 for the offence of matricide under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The conviction and life sentence were affirmed by the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, in Criminal Appeal No. 447 of 2012 dated July 23, 2013.
Another accused, Balasaheb Gangadhar Gitte, had also been tried alongside the appellant but was acquitted by the High Court due to a lack of incriminating evidence. However, Nilesh’s conviction was upheld until he challenged it before the Supreme Court.
Prosecution Narrative
According to the prosecution, on July 22, 2010, Deputy Superintendent of Police Swati Bhore (PW-8) received a phone call from an unknown person about a “doubtful death” of a woman in Talani village. When police officials reached the spot, they allegedly found the deceased, Sunanda, on a pyre, and observed injuries on her neck and skull, suggesting strangulation and blunt force trauma.
The police intervened, removed the body from the pyre, and conducted a postmortem, which led them to suspect homicidal strangulation. The prosecution claimed that the appellant, being the son of the deceased, had attempted to hurriedly cremate his mother to destroy evidence. It was further alleged that his motive was to acquire his mother’s property.
Key Circumstantial Factors Relied Upon
Both the trial and appellate courts below had based the conviction primarily on circumstantial evidence, citing the following factors:
- Medical opinion that the death was homicidal.
- Appellant’s proximate presence with the deceased.
- Unnatural conduct—the attempt to cremate the body without police intimation.
- Recovery of incriminating articles, including a nylon rope and an iron pipe, allegedly linked to the offence.
- Motive—the desire to obtain ownership of the deceased’s property
The courts viewed these as forming a consistent chain pointing toward guilt.
Appellant’s Arguments
Senior Advocate K. Parmeshwar, representing the appellant, advanced a comprehensive critique of the prosecution’s case, contending that:
- There was serious uncertainty about whether the death was homicidal or suicidal.
- The postmortem report indicated the absence of ligature marks on the backside of the neck, suggesting possible hanging rather than strangulation.
- The deceased had a history of schizophrenia, supported by a 1989 medical certificate from Vivekanand Hospital, Latur, which the Investigating Officer had ignored.
- The alleged recovery of weapons was fabricated and witnessed by interested parties with property disputes against the appellant.
- The Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report was inconclusive, with no DNA test or blood group analysis of the deceased conducted.
- There was no direct evidence that the appellant was even present during the first attempted cremation or that he resided with his mother, as claimed by the prosecution.
State’s Contentions
On the other hand, counsel for the State, Mr Adarsh Dubey, defended the conviction, asserting that:
- The appellant and the deceased lived together, making him the person best placed to explain her death.
- His failure to report the death and his attempt at hasty cremation indicated a consciousness of guilt.
- The postmortem clearly pointed to asphyxia by strangulation, and the rope marks and injuries were consistent with homicide.
- The bloodstains on the nylon rope matched the appellant’s blood group, linking him to the crime.
- The property motive was well established through the testimony of PW-3 (the appellant’s uncle)
Supreme Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court carefully examined the entire record and highlighted several inconsistencies and investigative lapses that made the conviction unsafe.
1. Mystery Around the Attempted Cremation
The Court observed that while several police officers — PWs 4, 7, 8, and 9 — had reached the spot and witnessed the attempted cremation, no investigation was conducted into who organised it or who was present. Despite a large crowd being present, not a single person was examined in court. Crucially, no one confirmed having seen the appellant there at that time.
This, the Court said, was a “mystery” that undermined the very foundation of the prosecution’s case.
2. Medical Evidence and Doubt Over Cause of Death
The postmortem report by Dr Salunke (PW-6) recorded a ligature mark absent on the backside of the neck, which is possible in hanging but not in strangulation. The doctor also admitted that the imprint of the nylon rope was more consistent with hanging, as the body’s own weight causes such marks — unlike in strangulation, where force is externally applied.
Furthermore, injuries on the body were consistent with self-infliction or accidental contact during a schizophrenic episode.
The Court referred to Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, noting that ligature marks in strangulation are typically horizontal and continuous, whereas in this case, the medical evidence did not support such a pattern.
Hence, the Court held that suicide could not be ruled out, and there was no definite medical opinion confirming homicide.
3. Non-production of Schizophrenia Certificate
The Court strongly criticised the investigating officer for failing to produce or rely upon the 1989 Vivekanand Hospital certificate, which showed that the deceased had suffered from relapsed schizophrenia.
The Court cited Ramaiah @ Rama v. State of Karnataka (2014) 9 SCC 365, observing that even if a prosecution document is not formally exhibited, it can still be used by the defence to challenge the prosecution’s narrative.
This omission, the Court held, cast serious doubt on the prosecution’s theory of a sane victim murdered by her son.
4. Acquittal of Co-accused on Identical Evidence
A crucial factor in the Court’s reasoning was that co-accused Balasaheb Gitte had already been acquitted by the High Court on the same set of evidence. Since the prosecution’s case rested on identical recovery and circumstantial evidence, and since the State had accepted that acquittal, the same benefit had to extend to the appellant.
5. Proof of Separate Residence
The prosecution’s reliance on Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra (2006) 10 SCC 681 — that when a crime occurs inside a house, the inmate must explain it — was rejected.
The Investigating Officer, PW-9, had himself testified that the appellant lived separately, as a tenant in another person’s house. Therefore, there was no basis to presume shared residence or that the appellant possessed special knowledge of the circumstances of death.
The Court emphasised that Section 106 of the Evidence Act does not relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
6. Unreliable Panch Witness and Recovery Evidence
The Court found the testimony of PW-2 (panch witness) unreliable. He gave contradictory versions — first claiming to have witnessed the recovery, later admitting he was merely following the police jeep on a motorcycle and could not read the language of the document he signed.
Moreover, PW-2 admitted he was politically associated with PW-3 (Sudhakar Nagargoje), the appellant’s uncle and chief prosecution witness, with whom the appellant had property disputes.
The Court observed that such evidence “takes enormous liberties with truth,” and the recovery, being neither credible nor corroborated, could not form part of the chain of guilt.
7. Motive and Family Disputes
The alleged motive — that the appellant killed his mother to inherit property — was deemed speculative. The Court noted that the uncle (PW-3) himself had an ongoing property dispute with the deceased and her family, including pending civil suits and Lok Adalat settlements.
The Court found that PW-3’s statement was recorded 50 days after the incident, an unexplained delay that rendered his evidence highly suspicious.
Furthermore, since the deceased’s husband and two daughters were alive, the appellant would not have gained exclusive ownership even if his mother died. Thus, the alleged motive was illusory.
8. The Appellant’s Conduct
The Court rejected the State’s argument that the appellant’s failure to raise an alarm or report the death was incriminating. It was observed that his conduct — calling his uncle to inform him about the death and participating in the funeral — was consistent with that of a son mourning his mother.
The prosecution’s reliance on Section 8 of the Evidence Act/Section 6 of BSA (concerning subsequent conduct) was misplaced, as the genesis of the incident itself was doubtful due to poor investigation and a lack of credible witnesses.
Reaffirmation of Legal Principles
The judgment serves as a textbook reaffirmation of the five golden principles of circumstantial evidence outlined in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (1984):
- Circumstances must be fully established.
- They must be consistent only with guilt.
- They must be of a conclusive nature.
- They must exclude every hypothesis except guilt.
- The chain of evidence must be complete and unbroken.
Applying these, the Court found multiple missing links — from the cause of death to recovery, motive, and residence — rendering the conviction unsustainable.
Caution Against Overreliance on Circumstantial Evidence
The Bench cited the cautionary words of Baron Alderson in Hodge’s Case (1838), reiterated in Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1952):
“The mind is apt to take a pleasure in adapting circumstances to one another… to overreach and mislead itself, to supply some little link that is wanting, to take for granted some fact consistent with its previous theories and necessary to render them complete.”
The Court thus reminded lower courts that circumstantial evidence must lead only to one logical conclusion, not conjecture or moral suspicion.
Final Order
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court:
- Set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the High Court.
- Acquitted the appellant of all charges.
- Ordered that since the appellant was already on bail, his bail bonds stand discharged.
Broader Implications of the Judgment
- Importance of Forensic Precision: The ruling exposes how inadequate forensic analysis — such as failure to perform DNA or blood group testing — can compromise the prosecution’s case. The Court’s scrutiny highlights the need for scientific rigour in criminal investigations.
- Investigative Objectivity: By criticising the police for ignoring the schizophrenia certificate and not examining neutral witnesses from the cremation site, the judgment reaffirms that objective investigation is the bedrock of criminal justice.
- Protection Against Misuse of Section 106: The Court’s nuanced interpretation of Section 106 of the Evidence Act/ Section 109 of BSA ensures that the burden of proof never shifts improperly to the accused, preserving the presumption of innocence.
- Reinforcement of the Benefit of Doubt: The decision reiterates that when two views are possible, the one favouring the accused must prevail — a core doctrine safeguarding against wrongful convictions.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in Nilesh Baburao Gitte v. State of Maharashtra stands as a robust reaffirmation of criminal jurisprudence anchored in reason and restraint. The Court dismantled a conviction that rested more on suspicion than certainty, exposing investigative gaps, speculative motives, and misapplied evidentiary presumptions.
By acknowledging the possibility of suicide and stressing the duty of courts to guard against conjecture, the judgment reinforces the principle that no person should suffer conviction on uncertain or incomplete evidence.
In the words of Justice K.V. Viswanathan, this case illustrates the judiciary’s obligation to “remain vigilant against the human tendency to fill evidentiary gaps with imagination.” The acquittal thus serves as both a correction of individual injustice and a vital reaffirmation of due process in India’s criminal system.
Important Link
Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams