Circumstantial cases often lean heavily on how the accused behaved afterwards: he fled, he said nothing, he carried on as if nothing had happened. In Taher Vajiyuddin Rangwala & Anr. v. The State of Gujarat, Criminal Appeal No. 76 of 2020, 2026 INSC 859, decided on 13 August 2026, a Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran confronted a conviction resting almost entirely on such conduct — and acquitted, holding that before conduct can incriminate, the prosecution must first prove that there was a crime.
An evening at the river, twenty years ago
On 17 July 2006, a young man left his home in Ankleshwar, Gujarat, to play volleyball with friends. He did not return. His clothes and belongings were found on a riverbank; his body was recovered the next morning. The post-mortem recorded cardio-respiratory arrest caused by asphyxia due to drowning. The prosecution’s case was that the two appellants — his companions that evening — had murdered him and concealed the crime, and it pointed to their conduct: they left the scene, went to a cinema, and did not promptly inform the family.
The Sessions Court convicted both under Sections 302 and 201 read with Sections 34 and 120B of the IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment. The High Court affirmed. By the time the Supreme Court heard the appeal, the appellants had lived under the case for nearly two decades.
First question: was there a murder at all?
The Court began where every homicide case must — with the corpus delicti. The medical evidence pointed the other way. Death was by drowning; the three minor injuries on the body were, on the doctor’s own testimony, capable of being caused either when taking a bath in the river or when dragged in the flow of the water. No forensic material connected the appellants to any act of violence. The circumstances the prosecution advanced — motive, last seen together, presence near the scene — were, in the Court’s assessment, not proved. As the Bench put it, none of the circumstances having been proved, the probable and more possible version was that of the accused: an accidental drowning.
The prosecution's chain
Companionship that evening; presence at the river; departure from the scene; a film watched afterwards; silence towards the family — treated by two courts as the conduct of guilty men and, from that, as proof of murder.
What the evidence showed
A post-mortem consistent with accidental drowning; injuries explicable by the river itself; no forensic link to violence; motive and last-seen circumstances unproved. The hypothesis of accident loomed larger than that of homicide.
Conduct as evidence: relevant, never sufficient
The heart of the judgment is its treatment of post-incident conduct. Leaving a drowning friend and going to a movie is conduct any court would call reprehensible — and the Supreme Court did. But moral condemnation is not a substitute for legal proof. Conduct after an event can lend colour to circumstances already established; it cannot conjure the crime itself into existence. Where the threshold question — homicide or accident — is unresolved on the medical and forensic evidence, conduct cannot resolve it.
What the decision reinforces for the defence of circumstantial cases
- Insist on proof of the corpus delicti before the chain of circumstances is even examined.
- Test medical evidence closely — a cause of death consistent with accident undercuts the entire structure.
- Treat conduct evidence as parasitic: it supports a proved chain, it cannot substitute for one.
- Concurrent findings are not immune where suspicion has been allowed to do the work of proof.
The provisions today
| Subject | IPC (offences before 1 July 2024) | BNS, 2023 |
|---|---|---|
| Murder | Section 302 | Section 103(1) |
| Causing disappearance of evidence | Section 201 | Section 238 |
| Common intention | Section 34 | Section 3(5) |
| Criminal conspiracy | Section 120B | Section 61(2) |
The appellants were acquitted and their convictions set aside. For practitioners, the case is a clean statement of an old discipline: in a circumstantial prosecution, the first link in the chain is proof that a crime occurred — and no amount of unattractive behaviour afterwards can forge that link.
This article summarises a reported judgment of the Supreme Court of India for general information and is not legal advice on any individual matter.
Frequently Asked Questions
What must the prosecution prove in a circumstantial case?
Each circumstance relied upon must be fully established, the circumstances must form a complete chain consistent only with the guilt of the accused, and they must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. If the proved facts are equally consistent with an accident, the benefit goes to the accused.
Can conduct of the accused after the incident be used as evidence?
Yes — conduct is relevant under the Evidence Act (now the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023). But it is a supporting circumstance, not a substitute for proof of the offence itself. This judgment holds that fleeing or remaining silent, though morally reprehensible, is not per se suggestive of murder where the medical evidence does not establish a homicidal death.
What role does medical evidence play in a murder trial?
It establishes the cause and, often, the manner of death. Here the post-mortem attributed death to asphyxia due to drowning, and the doctor accepted that the few minor injuries could have been caused in the river itself. Once the medical evidence left accidental drowning as the more plausible cause, the foundation for a murder charge fell away.
Can the Supreme Court reverse concurrent findings of two courts?
Yes, though it does so sparingly. Where the trial court and High Court have convicted by treating suspicion and conduct as proof, and the chain of circumstances is incomplete, the Supreme Court will interfere to prevent a miscarriage of justice — as it did here after the appellants had faced proceedings for nearly two decades.