Supreme Court of India· 13 August 2026
Can a murder conviction based on circumstances stand where post-mortem evidence favours the accused's version of accidental drowning?
Taher Vajiyuddin Rangwala & Anr v. The State of Gujarat
2026 INSC 859 · Criminal Appeal No. 76 of 2020
Coram: K. Vinod Chandran; J. B. Pardiwala
Answer
No. Where the post-mortem report and the evidence of the Doctor favour the version that the death was accidental rather than homicidal, the hypothesis of innocence remains intact and the conviction cannot be sustained.
Headnote
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s.302 — s.34 — s.201 — s.120B — Circumstances — Homicidal death — Hypothesis of innocence —
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s.302 — Circumstances — Proof of homicidal death —
Held: Where a conviction rests on circumstances, the prosecution must first prove that the death itself was homicidal; post-mortem evidence that leans in favour of the accused's version of an accidental drowning leaves the hypothesis of innocence intact. (¶10, 23)
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss.302, 34 — Circumstances — Post-incident conduct not incriminating —
Held further: Conduct after the incident — fleeing in panic, the accused's silence, or returning the soda bottles — is not an incriminating circumstance since that is probable conduct where there was an accident of drowning; appeal allowed, conviction and sentence set aside. (¶21, 22, 24)
In the Court's own words
Paragraph 8The first aspect to be examined is as to whether the death was homicidal. The post-mortem report is produced as Annexure A-2 and after the report of the chemical examination of viscera, there was a further report on 12.10.2006, produced as Annexure A-3. Both these reports clearly indicate the cause of death as ‘Cardio-Respiratory arrest due to Asphyxia due to drowning’. The post-mortem report also indicates that there were 3 injuries on the body: a contused lacerated wound on the frontal bone above the left eyebrow, abrasion between the left eye and left ear and an abrasion on the right mid clavicular region, reddish in colour. The wounds were not grievous and as the Doctor opined in cross-examination, the three injuries could be caused either when taking a bath in the river or when dragged in the flow of the water; on the body coming into contact with a hard substance like a stone with a sharp edge.
Paragraph 10A reading of the post-mortem report, juxtaposed with the testimony of the Doctor who conducted the post- mortem, PW-1, cannot lead to a finding that the death was homicidal. There is nothing to indicate that the victim was hit on the head, rendered unconscious and then drowned deliberately in the river, as the prosecution propounded before the Trial Court. The post-mortem report leans in favour of the defense version of an accidental drowning.
Paragraph 23None of the circumstances having been proved, we are inclined to find the probable and more possible version of the accused, that the deceased drowned accidentally. The accused are guilty of having fled from the spot and not having attempted to rescue the drowning person, by crying out for help. Their conduct of having gone for a movie after witnessing their friend drowning, though reprehensible, cannot be found to be an incriminating circumstance, to establish murder rather than drowning. The hypothesis of innocence is crystal clear, and circumstances indicate an accident and not a premeditated murder.
Acts & Sections
s.302 Indian Penal Code, 1860s.34 Indian Penal Code, 1860s.201 Indian Penal Code, 1860s.120B Indian Penal Code, 1860One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.
Read the full text of Taher Vajiyuddin Rangwala & Anr v. The State of Gujarat — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.
Create my free accountFree forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India
Open the full judgment →