Murder OR Misfortune? SC frees youth after 15 years of legal battle 1st year student shot dead by his friend? (CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE)

Murder or Misfortune? Supreme Court Frees Youth After 15-Year Legal Battle

Introduction

The thin line between truth and suspicion was once again tested in the Supreme Court’s recent judgment in Vaibhav v. State of Maharashtra (Criminal Appeal No. 1643 of 2012). This case revolved around a tragic gunshot death, circumstantial evidence, and the complex role of the judiciary in weighing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Background of the Case

In 2010, Vaibhav and Mangesh, two close friends and first-year students at Bagla Homeopathy Medical College in Maharashtra, spent a routine day together. But only one of them returned home alive.

Mangesh was last seen with Vaibhav at his residence. The next day, his dead body was discovered—killed by a bullet fired from Vaibhav’s father’s service pistol. Vaibhav was arrested, accused of murder (Section 302 IPC), disposal of evidence (Section 201 IPC), and illegal use of a firearm (Arms Act).

The trial court found Vaibhav guilty. The Bombay High Court upheld the conviction. But the battle didn't end there.

Supreme Court Intervention (2025)

15 years later, the Supreme Court of India took a fresh look into the case and overturned the murder conviction.

Key Observations:

• No eyewitnesses: The entire case was built on circumstantial evidence.

• Medical angle mattered: Forensic expert (PW-9) explained the bullet trajectory—it entered through the eye and exited from the lower part of the skull but then strangely hit a ventilator located above.

• This meant the bullet travelled upward after exit, which made homicide unlikely and accidental discharge more probable.

What the Court Noted:

• Vaibhav's consistent defense was that Mangesh accidentally fired the gun while inspecting it.

• His "suspicious conduct"—removing the body, cleaning the scene—was seen as a panicked reaction, not proof of murder.

• Importantly, no motive was found. In cases based on circumstantial evidence, motive plays a crucial role.

“Suspicion, no matter how strong, cannot take the place of proof.” — Supreme Court of India

Final Judgment

• Conviction under Section 302 IPC and Arms Act — Set Aside

• Conviction under Section 201 IPC — Upheld, but sentenced only for time already served

• Vaibhav walks free—15 years after being wrongfully convicted for murder.

Why This Case Matters

This case is a perfect example of:

• The importance of forensic evidence in criminal law.

• The principle that the burden of proof lies on the prosecution.

• How courts must test alternate explanations, especially in circumstantial evidence cases.

Conclusion

Justice delayed is not always justice denied. In Vaibhav v. State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court has reminded us that in criminal law, even the smallest reasonable doubt can tip the scales—and must always favour the accused.

Click here to view the judgement : https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2012/25992/25992_2012_3_1502_62151_Judgement_04-Jun-2025.pdf