Mangat Ram, a resident of Haryana, was acquitted by the High Court after it found that life imprisonment was awarded to him merely on the basis of ‘inconclusive’ circumstantial evidence. Dispensing away with the judgment, the High Court held that “Undoubtedly, a conviction can certainly be based on circumstantial evidence. However, in a case based on circumstantial evidence alone, it should be tested on the touchstone of law relating to circumstantial evidence laid down by the Supreme Court”.

The Supreme Court had also held in the past that in cases, where circumstantial evidence was the only evidence, there was always a danger that conjecture or suspicion may take the place of legal proof.

Mangat Ram was accused of murdering his friend Madan Pal in the year 1995. Both Ram and Pal would often drink together. As per the prosecution, Ram had visited Pal on October 25, 1995 and taken him out for drinks. A few hours later, Pal’s brother was informed that his body was lying on the roof of Ram’s house. The post-mortem report stated that Ram had been strangulated.

A case was registered against Ram under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) on the charges of murder. The widow of Pal was made a key witness in the case, who had however given a contradictory statement. The prosecution had relied on the statement of Pal’s widow stating that she had last seen her late husband with Ram. Moreover, a cup, a glass and a bottle of liquor were recovered from the spot. Thus, relying upon on the circumstantial evidence and the statement of Pal’s widow, the trial court had awarded life imprisonment to Mangat Ram.