The Supreme Court reverses the Delhi High Court’s life sentence, ruling that suspicion cannot replace proof, and acquits husband and son after 22 years in a murder case.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court set aside a murder conviction, finding that the prosecution failed to establish the accused’s presence or role beyond a reasonable doubt.
It criticized the High Court for relying on speculative reasoning and inadmissible electronic evidence without proper certification, reaffirming that suspicion cannot substitute legal proof and that acquittal reinforces the presumption of innocence.
In Rahil & Anr. v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2025 INSC 858, the Supreme Court set aside the Delhi High Court’s order convicting Rahil and Noor Ahmed for the murder of Shakeel ur Rehman. The case originated from a property dispute between Suraiya (the wife/mother of the appellants) and the deceased.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a property dispute between a woman and a man with whom she had entered into a sale agreement.
A quarrel broke out when the man began constructing a boundary wall on the disputed property, leading to police intervention and an apparent resolution.
Later that evening, the man went missing and was subsequently found dead near Haridwar, with the postmortem revealing death due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation, and had occurred 3 to 5 days ago.
A case was registered against the woman, her family members, and associates. During the trial, the lower court acquitted some of the accused due to a lack of direct evidence but convicted others. However, the High Court later reversed the acquittal for two of the accused, relying on circumstantial evidence such as phone records and presumed presence at the crime scene.
This conviction was challenged in the Supreme Court.
Issues Before the Court
- Whether the High Court justified in reversing the well-reasoned acquittal of the appellants?
- Whether the circumstantial evidence, including call records and assumptions of presence, sufficient to convict Rahil and Noor Ahmed?
- Whether the electronic evidence (CDRs) admissible under Section 65B of the Evidence Act?
Supreme Court’s Observation
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s conviction, emphasizing the well-settled principle that an appellate court should not interfere with an acquittal unless the trial court’s findings are perverse or unreasonable.
“The appellate court would not interfere with the finding of the trial court unless the same finding is wholly perverse or against the weight of evidence on record……the presumption of innocence stands re-enforced by the acquittal.”
The Court criticized the High Court for drawing speculative conclusions without credible evidence of the accused’s presence at the crime scene.
“The High Court erred in relying on a speculative inference that all inmates must invariably be present in the house at all times to reverse the acquittal and convict the appellants.”
The Court found no credible evidence that the deceased had gone to the accused’s residence, dismissing the prosecution’s claim as an
“Such omission of a material fact by PW 3 in the FIR or his previous statement to police would amount to a contradiction or, even otherwise, would cast doubt on the credibility of such embellished version introduced as an afterthought.”
ALSO READ: Supreme Court: “Mere Recovery Of A Weapon Is Not Enough To Prove Guilty”
The Court held that the Call Detail Records (CDRs) produced lacked the mandatory certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, and thus were inadmissible.
“We are inclined to apply the ratio in PV Anvar and Khotkar to the case and hold that the exhibits are inadmissible in law, being secondary evidence without certification.”
The Court stated that the cell tower location only shows an approximate area, not an exact location, and thus cannot conclusively establish presence at the scene.
“It is hazardous to rely solely on this evidence to prove his presence at his residence beyond doubt.”
The Court reiterated that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace legal proof in a criminal trial.
“Mere suspicion, howsoever high, cannot take the place of proof.”
The High Court wrongly invoked Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act by presuming the accused were present and thus had a duty to explain the death.
“High Court failed to appreciate this lacuna in the prosecution case and illegally drew adverse inference against the appellants under Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872.”
Case Title: Rahil & Anr. Versus State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1856 OF 2014
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Murder
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Evidence
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
