SC Acquits Death Row Inmate, Citing Lack of Evidence

The Supreme Court on Thursday has acquitted a death row prisoner convicted of murdering his family members, including his toddler daughter, stating that mere suspicion can’t justify a conviction.

The bench, comprising Justices B.R. Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra, and K.V. Viswanathan, emphasized that an accused individual must be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and that suspicion, no matter how strong, is insufficient for a conviction.

The court rejected the testimony of a neighbor who claimed to have witnessed frequent quarrels between the convict and his family. It noted a significant delay of six days in recording the neighbor’s statement after the incident and highlighted the absence of corroborating evidence.

The justices remarked that the neighbor’s testimony did not definitively establish whether they had witnessed the murder.

Given the lack of direct evidence, the court ruled that the case relied solely on circumstantial evidence. It stressed that for the prosecution to establish guilt, all circumstances must be thoroughly proven.

The court also expressed skepticism regarding the recovery of the alleged murder weapon—a hammer—questioning the circumstances of its discovery. They pointed out that it seemed improbable for the weapon to remain in a flowing stream three days after the incident, especially when two swimmers were required to locate it.

Additionally, the court dismissed the prosecution’s claims about the motive behind the crime, which suggested that the convict, Vishwajeet Kerba Masaklar from Pune, killed his family after they objected to his desire to marry another woman. The prosecution had argued that he intended to divorce his wife.

Previously on October 4, 2012, Masalkar reported a robbery, claiming that his mother, wife, and daughter were killed and that cash and jewelry were stolen. However, the police subsequently arrested him for the murders.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court set aside the death penalty, reinforcing the principle that a conviction must rest on solid proof, not just suspicion.

Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, International