“The case hinges entirely on circumstantial evidence. The cause of death was found to be shock and hemorrhage due to excessive bleeding caused by multiple wounds. It cannot be disputed that the death was homicidal and it was caused with the intent to commit murder. The circumstances may indicate that the theft and murder must have been committed at the same time. But it is not safe to draw the inference that the person in possession of the stolen property was the murderer. As far as nature of the article is concerned, it was a mobile phone which was capable of being transferred by mere delivery. It will be totally unsafe to convict Sonu of the charges of which he is found guilty, including Section 302, based only on the recovery of the mobile phone where the recovery itself suffers from suspicion and doubt. He would be entitled to the benefit of doubt.
There is no law to our knowledge which lays down that a person accompanying the principal culprit shares his intention in respect of every act which the latter might eventually commit.”
– Hon’ble Justice K.M. Joseph, Sonu v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [Criminal Appeal No. 57 of 2013].