In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India, on October 17, 2024, emphasized that convictions based on the testimony of a solitary witness must be founded on credible and reliable evidence, and that guilt must be established beyond reasonable doubt. The three-judge bench, consisting of Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, and Justice K.V. Viswanathan, acquitted Vishwaeet Kerba Masalkar in a case involving the brutal murders of his mother, wife, and daughter. The ruling overturned earlier decisions of the Bombay High Court and Pune Sessions Court, which had sentenced Masalkar to death.
Background of the Case
The case stems from the horrific events of October 4, 2012, when the bodies of Masalkar’s mother, wife, and two-year-old daughter were discovered in his Pune home. The murders had initially been reported by Masalkar himself, who claimed that the family was attacked during a robbery. However, during the investigation, the police grew suspicious of Masalkar after it was revealed that he had an extramarital affair and had expressed a desire to divorce his wife. Based on circumstantial evidence and the testimony of a solitary witness—his injured neighbor, Madhusudhan Kulkarni—the prosecution built its case, leading to Masalkar’s conviction in 2016.
The Pune Sessions Court convicted him under Sections 302 (murder), 307 (attempt to murder), and 201 (destruction of evidence) of the IPC. The death sentence was confirmed by the Bombay High Court in 2019. However, Masalkar’s legal team, led by advocate Ms. Payoshi Roy, challenged the conviction in the Supreme Court, arguing that the testimony of the solitary witness was insufficient and unreliable.
Legal Issues Involved
The key legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the conviction could stand based on the testimony of a single witness, particularly when there were doubts about the witness’s credibility. The court also examined whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution met the stringent requirements of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Ms. Roy, representing the appellant, contended that the testimony of the solitary witness, Madhusudhan Kulkarni, was riddled with inconsistencies. She argued that Kulkarni’s statement was recorded six days after the incident, and during that period, no other corroborating witness was brought forth by the prosecution. Additionally, Roy pointed out that Kulkarni did not witness the actual murders, but only claimed to have seen Masalkar leaving the scene after the crime.
The prosecution, led by Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, argued that the testimony of Kulkarni, combined with the circumstantial evidence—such as the recovery of a blood-stained hammer and CCTV footage showing Masalkar leaving his home shortly after the murders—was sufficient to prove guilt.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court, while delivering its judgment, underscored the importance of credibility in cases where conviction is based on the testimony of a single witness. The court ruled that while a conviction can indeed be based on such testimony, the witness’s statement must be credible and inspire confidence. In this case, the bench found that Kulkarni’s delayed statement, along with inconsistencies in his account, cast serious doubt on his reliability.
The court observed, “The delay of six days in recording the statement of the witness raises questions about its credibility. Additionally, the lack of corroborating witnesses further weakens the prosecution’s case. It is settled law that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt.”
Quoting from its previous judgment in Sharad Birdhichand Sharda v. State of Maharashtra, the court reiterated the five essential principles required to convict an accused based on circumstantial evidence. The court stressed that all circumstances must point conclusively to the guilt of the accused and exclude any other possible hypothesis.
Decision of the Court
After analyzing the evidence and the witness testimony, the Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove Masalkar’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The bench noted that the key pieces of evidence—the recovery of the hammer and blood-stained clothes—were not conclusively linked to the crime, and the forensic evidence was questionable due to the possibility of contamination.
In its judgment, the court held, “The conviction based solely on the testimony of a solitary witness, whose credibility is in doubt, cannot be sustained. The prosecution has failed to meet the rigorous standards required to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.”
The Supreme Court allowed Masalkar’s appeal, quashing the previous judgments of the Bombay High Court and the Pune Sessions Court. The death sentence was overturned, and Masalkar was ordered to be released from custody.
