Legal Review and Analysis of Nilesh Baburao Gitte vs State of Maharashtra 2025 INSC 1191

1. Heading of the Judgment

Case Name: Nilesh Baburao Gitte vs. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 INSC 1191
Court: Supreme Court of India
Jurisdiction: Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction
Judges: Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
Date of Judgment: October 7, 2025

2. Related Laws and Legal Provisions

This judgment primarily interprets and applies the following legal provisions:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Punishment for murder.

• Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge.

• Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Motive, preparation, and previous or subsequent conduct.

• Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: How much of information received from accused may be proved.

• Principles of Circumstantial Evidence: As established in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116.

3. Basic Details of the Case

• Origin: The appeal was filed against the judgment of the Bombay High Court, Bench at Aurangabad, which had upheld the conviction and life sentence of the appellant.

• Background of the Case: The appellant, Nilesh Baburao Gitte, was convicted for the murder (matricide) of his mother, Sunanda. The prosecution case was based entirely on circumstantial evidence. The case began when police received an anonymous call about the "doubtful death" of the deceased and found her body about to be cremated hurriedly in an open field. The police noticed strangulation marks and a head injury, stopped the cremation, and initiated an investigation.

• Lower Courts: The Trial Court convicted the appellant and one other accused (Balasaheb Gangadhar Gitte). The High Court acquitted Balasaheb but confirmed the appellant's conviction.

4. Core Principles and Issues Addressed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court's judgment is a classic analysis of a conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence. The Court identified multiple infirmities in the prosecution's case, which are addressed under the following heads.

A. The Foundational Infirmity: Was the Death Even Homicidal?

This was the primary issue that created a reasonable doubt.

• Medical Evidence Ambiguity: The postmortem report and the testimony of the doctor (PW-6) were ambiguous. The cause of death was opined as "asphyxia due to strangulation." However, a critical feature was the absence of a ligature mark on the back of the neck.

• Suicide vs. Homicide: The doctor candidly admitted under cross-examination that the absence of a ligature mark on the back of the neck is a feature of hanging (suicide) and that in strangulation (homicide), the mark should be present all around the neck. This admission created a serious doubt about whether the death was homicidal at all.

• Pre-existing Mental Illness: The prosecution had obtained a certificate from a hospital showing the deceased was treated for schizophrenia but did not exhibit it. The Court, relying on Ramaiah vs. State of Karnataka (2014) 9 SCC 365, held that the defence could rely on such documents to create doubt. The doctor also opined that some injuries on the body could be possible if a schizophrenia patient attempts suicide.

B. The Flawed Presumption of Common Residence and Its Consequences

The prosecution heavily relied on the principle from Trimukh Maroti Kirkan vs. State of Maharashtra (2006) 10 SCC 681, which places a lighter burden on the prosecution and a corresponding burden on the inmate of a house to explain a death that occurred in secrecy inside the house.

• Evidence of Separate Residence: The Supreme Court found that the prosecution's own witness, the Investigating Officer (PW-9), categorically stated that the appellant was residing in the house of one Motiram Gitte on a rental basis. This directly contradicted the prosecution's foundational assumption that the appellant lived with his mother.

• Rejection of the Trimukh Maroti Principle: Given the clear evidence of separate residence, the Court held that the principle of Trimukh Maroti Kirkan was not applicable. The appellant did not have any "special knowledge" of the incident that would invoke Section 106 of the Evidence Act. The Court quoted the classic formulation from Shambu Nath Mehra vs. State of Ajmer (1956 SCR 199) that Section 106 is not intended to relieve the prosecution of its fundamental duty to prove guilt.

C. The Unreliable Nature of the Alleged "Discovery" and Recovery

The prosecution relied on discoveries of an iron pipe and a nylon rope at the instance of the appellant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

• Unreliable Panch Witness (PW-2): The sole witness to the recovery (PW-2) was declared hostile. His testimony was full of contradictions, including how he traveled to the spot and his admission that he was called to the police station by PW-3 (the appellant's uncle), with whom he had close ties. The Court found him to be taking "enormous liberties with truth."

• Contradiction with Medical Evidence: The doctor (PW-6) opined that the injury on the scalp was caused by a sharp-edged weapon, but the recovered iron pipe was not a sharp-edged weapon. This further discredited the recovery.

• Acquittal of Co-accused on Similar Evidence: The Court noted that the co-accused, Balasaheb, was acquitted by the High Court because the recovery of a nylon rope at his instance was deemed not incriminating. The State's failure to challenge this acquittal while relying on similar recovery evidence against the appellant weakened its case further.

D. The Dubious Motive and the Biased Testimony of PW-3

The prosecution alleged the motive was the appellant's desire to acquire his mother's property.

• PW-3's Hostility and Delay: The key witness for motive was the appellant's uncle (PW-3), who had his own property disputes with the deceased. His statement was recorded after a delay of 50 days, for which no explanation was offered. The Court found it "intriguing" and suspected he "masterminded the prosecution."

• Lack of Corroboration: The alleged phone call from the appellant to PW-3 discussing the sale of property five days before the incident was not corroborated by any Call Detail Records (CDR). The appellant denied this in his Section 313 statement.

• Inherent Implausibility: The Court found the motive theory weak, noting that the deceased was survived by her husband and two daughters, so the property would not automatically devolve solely to the appellant.

5. Analysis and Final Outcome

Analysis: The Supreme Court conducted a meticulous analysis of the entire chain of circumstantial evidence. It found that the prosecution had failed to satisfy the "five golden principles" of circumstantial evidence laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda. The circumstances were not fully established, they were not consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt, and they did not exclude every possible hypothesis of innocence. The Court cautioned against the human mind's tendency, as noted in Hanumant vs. State of M.P. (1952) 2 SCC 71, to "strain circumstances a little" to form a connected whole of guilt, which is what the lower courts had done in this case.

Final Outcome:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal. The impugned judgment of the High Court was set aside. The appellant, Nilesh Baburao Gitte, was acquitted of all charges. His bail bonds were discharged.

MCQs Based on the Judgment

1. In Nilesh Baburao Gitte vs. State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court held that the principle established in Trimukh Maroti Kirkan regarding the burden of proof was not applicable. What was the primary reason for this conclusion?
a) The death was not proven to be homicidal.
b) The appellant was a minor at the time of the incident.
c) The prosecution failed to prove that the appellant resided with the deceased.
d) The appellant had an alibi for the time of the murder.

c) The prosecution failed to prove that the appellant resided with the deceased.

2. The Supreme Court acquitted Nilesh Baburao Gitte because the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence. Which of the following was a critical medical ambiguity that created a reasonable doubt regarding the cause of death?
a) The time of death could not be precisely determined.
b) The absence of a ligature mark on the back of the neck, which is a feature of hanging.
c) The weapon recovered did not have any blood stains.
d) The doctor who conducted the postmortem was not qualified.

b) The absence of a ligature mark on the back of the neck, which is a feature of hanging.