Leaving the scene after a friend drowns and failing to notify their family is "reprehensible," yet it does not suffice to establish a murder charge, according to a Supreme Court ruling.
In Taher Vajiyuddin Rangwala & Anr. v. State of Gujarat, decided on 13 August 2026, the Supreme Court set aside the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the Gujarat High Court, which had convicted the Appellants under Sections 302, 34 and 201 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The deceased in this case was a friend of the accused. He died after drowning in a river. The Prosecution’s case was based on the accused’s conduct after the incident. It was alleged that he walked away from the scene of the crime, did not attempt to save his friend or alert anyone about the problem. According to the prosecution, the accused went to watch a movie and threw soda bottles when he returned to the river. The Trial Court found his conduct as an indication of criminal activity, specifically murder. It found both accused guilty of the crime and sentenced them accordingly. The finding was upheld by the Gujarat High Court.
The Supreme Court, on the other hand, did not take the accused’s conduct after the crime as an indication of guilt. The Court observed that the Appellants had fled from the spot without attempting to rescue their friend or raise an alarm, but held that such conduct could not substitute for proof of murder. It noted that the conduct of not informing the family of the deceased was also “reprehensible.”
The Supreme Court also took note of the Appellants’ failure to inform the deceased’s family about the drowning, but did not treat that conduct as sufficient proof of murder. The Supreme Court found that the medical evidence did not establish homicidal death. The post-mortem evidence was consistent with drowning, while the injuries could also have resulted from contact with rocks or other hard surfaces in the river. The Court therefore found the possibility of accidental drowning to be more plausible.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court reiterated that suspicion, however strong, and reprehensible conduct cannot substitute for proof beyond reasonable doubt. Where the prosecution fails to establish homicidal death and the circumstances are reasonably consistent with accidental drowning, a conviction for murder cannot be sustained.
The Supreme Court accordingly allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions and sentences, and acquitted both appellants, directing their release if they were not required in any other case.
Source:
Case: Taher Vajiyuddin Rangwala & Anr. v. State of Gujarat
Citation: 2026 INSC 859
Criminal Appeal No.: 76 of 2020
Date of Judgment: 13 August 2026
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran