The Supreme Court of India on October 29, 2025, acquitted Mohamed Sameer Khan of all charges, including rape and murder, in a 2016 case involving an 85-year-old woman in Coimbatore. The Court held that the prosecution’s case, which was based entirely on circumstantial evidence, was “laden with deficiencies creating significant gaps.”
A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih allowed the appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 2069 of 2024), setting aside the concurrent judgments of the Madras High Court (28.10.2021) and the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Coimbatore (17.11.2017), which had previously convicted and sentenced the appellant under Sections 302 (Murder), 449 (House-trespass), 376 (Rape), and 394 (Robbery) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Background of the Case
According to the prosecution, the 85-year-old victim lived alone in a house (Door No. 369) opposite her daughter, Deivanai (PW-1), in Coimbatore. As per their daily routine, on December 18, 2016, at about 9:00 p.m., PW-1 and her son, Karunakaran (PW-2), served dinner to the deceased and locked her door from the outside.
The next morning, on December 19, 2016, at 5:30 a.m., PW-2 went to open the door and found it already open. He discovered his grandmother lying on the floor. PW-1 and PW-2 found the deceased had been strangulated with a towel, and two gold bangles she wore were missing.
An FIR was registered (Crime No.1119/2016) at 6:30 a.m. The investigation was taken over by Inspector Gopi (PW-16), who associated a fingerprint expert, a sniffer dog, and a photographer. The post-mortem report, prepared by Dr. Jaisingh (PW-14), concluded the cause of death was asphyxiation due to compression on the neck and also noted that the deceased had been subjected to sexual assault.
Arguments of the Parties
Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant argued that the prosecution’s case was based entirely on circumstantial evidence with no direct evidence connecting the appellant to the offence. It was submitted that the appellant was falsely implicated, the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and important persons who could have shed light on the incident were not examined.
Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent-State defended the concurrent findings of the lower courts, submitting that the prosecution had proved its case on circumstantial evidence, leaving no “unbroken link.” The State relied on the recovery of the two gold bangles from the appellant and the testimony of Senthil Kumar (PW-5), who allegedly saw the appellant “coming out of the compound where the deceased was residing.”
The Supreme Court’s Analysis and Findings
The Supreme Court, after analyzing the evidence, identified several critical “missing links” and “serious doubts” in the prosecution’s narrative.
The judgment, authored by Justice Augustine George Masih, noted that in a case of circumstantial evidence, the chain of events must be complete. The Court cited its decision in Karakkattu Muhammed Basheer v. State of Kerala (2024), reinforcing that if “an iota of doubt creeps in,” the benefit must flow to the accused.
The Court highlighted the following deficiencies:
1. Doubt over Arrest and Recovery of Bangles The prosecution claimed that on December 22, 2016, at 4:00 a.m., an “informant” identified the appellant, who then jumped from an over-bridge upon seeing the police, injuring his leg. He was subsequently arrested at the hospital, where, in the presence of Raghavan (PW-8), he allegedly confessed and produced the two stolen gold bangles from his pocket.
The appellant, in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., denied this. He stated he was picked up from “Punjab Restaurant,” taken into custody, and received injuries “because of torture at the hands of police.”
The Supreme Court found the prosecution’s story doubtful, noting: “Nothing has come on record, either in the form of any document or in the statement of any of the witnesses… with regard to the identity of the informant.” The Court questioned how the police identified the appellant at the bridge when no witness knew him previously (Para 22, 29).
Regarding the recovery, the Court found it “unreasonable that the Appellant would be carrying the bangles with him at these odd hours… two days after the incident.” The Court concluded: “Therefore, planting of the gold bangles upon the Appellant cannot be ruled out, casting serious doubt upon the alleged recovery.” (Para 23).
2. Failure to Examine a Material Witness The prosecution’s case relied on the testimony of Akash Saksena (PW-6), with whom the appellant was staying. PW-6 stated that on the night of the incident, at 2:00 a.m., the appellant and another man named ‘Marcus’ went out to smoke. The appellant returned alone an hour later, looking “perturbed,” and then left.
The Supreme Court noted that Marcus, who was the last person seen with the appellant before the alleged time of the crime, was never examined. The prosecution’s explanation was that “he was not a material witness.”
The Supreme Court strongly rebutted this, stating: “This creates a doubt as he could be a suspect and in any case the person who would have indicated as to how long he and the Appellant were together…” (Para 20). The Court found it “rather strange for the prosecution to claim that Marcus was not a material witness… this creates a strong possibility of false implication.” (Para 30).
3. Lack of Forensic and Scientific Evidence The Court observed that despite a fingerprint expert and a sniffer dog visiting the scene, “Nothing has come on record which would indicate any fingerprint of the Appellant having been found at the place of occurrence.” (Para 25). The sniffer dog also did not lead the police to the appellant’s residence.
While the medical evidence (PW-14) confirmed the victim was raped and the appellant was found to be “potent,” the Court held this “would not suffice nor would it connect or associate him to the offence.” (Para 24).
4. Weakness of “Last Seen” Testimony The testimony of Senthil Kumar (PW-5) was deemed insufficient. The Court noted that PW-5 “has only established his proximity to the place, with him merely been seen coming out of the compound, and not specifically out of the house of the deceased.” (Para 28).
The Decision
The Supreme Court invoked the principle laid down in Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh (1973), holding that when “two views are possible on the evidence… one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted.”
The bench concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove the appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. “The prosecution has failed to bring forth reliable evidence forming a complete string of events, leading to the guilt of the Appellant,” the Court stated. “The chain of events being sought to be projected is laden with deficiencies creating significant gaps… Due to such missing links, a finding of guilt cannot be recorded.” (Para 32).
The appeal was allowed, and the judgments of the High Court and the Trial Court were set aside. The Supreme Court ordered that the appellant, Mohamed Sameer Khan, “is acquitted of the charges and is ordered to be released forthwith… if not required in any other case.”
