The bench held that the sessions court erred in convicting the accused of the offence of murder in the absence of convincing and satisfactory evidence on record.
“No doubt, in normal circumstances, one may be compelled to think or presume that due to resistance from the victim while attempting to commit rape, the appellant might have smothered her face with a bag or throttled her neck resulting into her death. However, as already stated, in the absence of any marks or bruises or abrasions on the person of the appellant, it is difficult to reach such conclusion. Moreover, the Investigating Officer had failed to produce hard and blunt object alleged to have been used in giving blows over the head of the victim,” the Court noted.
The Court further remarked that if the bag had been used to smother the victim, there would have been some evidence in the form of saliva or other liquid sticking to it, and thus disregarded the idea of the appellant smothering her.
Source: Barandbench
