Supreme Court Acquits Man in Decade-Old Friend's Murder Case Due to Lack of Motive

The Supreme Court acquitted Vaibhav of his friend's 2010 murder, citing lack of motive and inconsistent circumstantial evidence. Despite initial accusations, the court decided there was a reasonable possibility of accidental death. Vaibhav was only convicted of evidence tampering, sentenced to time served.

In a landmark judgment on Wednesday, the Supreme Court acquitted Vaibhav of the 2010 murder of his friend, citing a lack of motive and inconclusive circumstantial evidence. The bench, comprising Justices B V Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma, argued that the high court erred in supporting the trial court's verdict, which condemned Vaibhav based solely on circumstantial evidence without any apparent motive.

According to the police, Vaibhav had allegedly used his father's service revolver to fatally shoot his friend, Mangesh. However, Vaibhav maintained that the incident was an accident, claiming Mangesh shot himself accidentally and that he tampered with the scene out of fear. Witness testimonies suggested no ill-will between the friends, and even Mangesh's father testified to their amicable relationship.

Considering these factors, the Supreme Court deemed that the evidence was not consistent with the charges of murder. Nonetheless, the court upheld Vaibhav's conviction under Section 201 IPC for causing the disappearance of evidence, sentencing him to the period already served. The ruling highlights the importance of motive in circumstantial cases and underscores that grave suspicion cannot replace solid proof in criminal trials.

(With inputs from agencies.)