Fleeing After Friend's Drowning Does not prove Murder

Case Details

Case Title: -Taher Vajiyuddin Rangwala & Anr. Versus The State of

Gujarat

Case No: - Criminal Appeal No. 76 of 2020

Bench: - Justice J.B. Pardiwala

Justice K. Vinod Chandran

Counsel for Appellant: - Mr. Iqbal Syed, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mohammad Aslam,

AOR Mr. Amaan Syed, Adv. Mr. Syed Kashan Ali, Adv. Ms. Sara Shambhavi,

Adv. Mr. Waseem Akhtar Khan and Adv. Mr. Ashraf Yusuf Khan

Counsel for Respondent: - Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, AOR Ms. Aditi Agarwal

Decided: - 13 August 2026

Summary

The Supreme Court of India had given a significant judgment overturning the findings of

both the Trail Court and the High Court that the evidence was not sufficient to prove the

murder and it was a case of accidental drowning. The Court accordingly set aside both the

orders and acquitted the accused.

What happened?

The accused were alleged to have murdered their friend by drowning him in river. They had

taken the deceased to the river where he was drowned. The prosecution relied on the last seen

theory, alleged motive, conduct of the accused and other circumstantial evidence. The Trial

Court and High Court convicted them for murder under Sections 302, 34, 201 and 120B IPC.

Supreme Court’s observation

The Supreme Court found that the medical evidence did not establish homicidal

death. The post-mortem evidence was more consistent with accidental

drowning. The alleged motive appeared to be an afterthought and the evidence

found regarding the soda bottles did not directly connect the accused to the

murder. The Court held that the accused conduct of fleeing the scene and then

going for a movie was reprehensible but this only does not prove murder. The

accidental drowning was more convincing then pre-planned matter based on the

reliability of the evidence.

Final Order

The Supreme Court had allowed the appeal and then reversed the judgements of

of both the Trail Court and High Court and has acquitted the accused. They

were directed to release, if not required in any other case and their bail bonds if

it was applicable to be cancelled.

Conclusion

The Judgement reinforces that conviction for murder cannot be based merely

on suspicion or circumstantial evidence unless the circumstances clearly proves

of a crime. Where the evidence supports a reasonable and more plausible

explanation of accidental death and the accused must be given the benefit of

doubt.