Body found not his missing wife's, man acquitted in murder case after 8 years

Ghaziabad: A man jailed for nearly eight years for allegedly murdering his wife and dumping her body in a drain was acquitted after the court found gaping holes in the prosecution story — starting with the most basic question that whether the body police recovered was even that of the missing woman.

The additional sessions court also held that the prosecution failed to establish any motive for the alleged murder, and that the case, built entirely on circumstantial evidence, did not form an unbroken chain that pointed only to the accused.

Rajiv Poddar, originally from Darbhanga in Bihar, was arrested on Aug 28, 2018, under sections 302 (murder) and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) of IPC in connection with the disappearance of his wife, Sanjana. He had remained in jail since then, with even the Allahabad High Court rejecting his bail plea. On Thursday, the additional sessions court ordered his immediate release after acquitting him of all charges.

The case began with an FIR being lodged at Vijaynagar police station on Aug 19, 2018, by Poddar himself, alleging that his wife was missing.

On Aug 25 that year, when police recovered the body of a woman from a drain, Sanjana's brother, Rajesh, identified it as his sister's and alleged that Poddar must have killed her and disposed of the body. A case was registered on Aug 27 and Poddar was arrested the next day.

During trial, the defence argued that the prosecution could never prove that the recovered body was Sanjana's. "The body of the deceased unidentified woman was unidentifiable. The plaintiff's evidence does not clearly state the basis on which he identified the deceased as his sister, Sanjana, nor did the prosecution produce any witness to prove that the body of the deceased unidentified woman was actually that of Sanjana," defence counsel DK Mishra and Vikas Chaturvedi submitted.

The case also involved a second body — that of a child — found along with the woman's body. Both bodies were mutilated, and the child's body was never identified — a gap that further complicated the prosecution's narrative about who the victims were and what exactly happened. The defence also argued that Poddar and Sanjana had three children, all of whom were with their father at home.

A key discrepancy highlighted in court was between the complainant's claim of identification and the body's measurements recorded by investigators and medical evidence, which did not conclusively match Sanjana's description.

The court noted that without reliable identification, the prosecution's central claim — that Sanjana was murdered and that the recovered body was hers — remained unproven. Police filed a chargesheet on Nov 6, 2018. A separate case under Arms Act was also registered over a knife, which cops claimed was the murder weapon.

But the court found the recovery doubtful. It recorded that prosecution witnesses admitted the recovery spot was a road frequented by people.

"Members of the public were also present at the time of the recovery, but the recovery report did not name any witnesses," the court noted. It also pointed out that CCTV cameras were acknowledged to be installed at the site, yet "none of the witnesses presented in the recovery report attempted to view the CCTV cameras", making the recovery appear suspicious.

The prosecution examined 12 witnesses, including the complainant, neighbours, the doctor who conducted the autopsy and investigating officers.

However, the defence stressed that the case was purely circumstantial and lacked any direct evidence that anyone saw Sanjana being killed. They also argued there was no proof of enmity or a motive.

The court agreed. It noted that one of the witnesses, in cross-examination, admitted there was no quarrel between Sanjana and Poddar, undermining the allegation of assault. "In this case, when witness PW-1 admitted in his cross-examination that there was no quarrel between his sister and brother-in-law, the statement of PW-1 regarding assault became unreliable," the judge observed.

Citing Supreme Court rulings in Manjeet vs State of Kerala (2000 ACC) and Subimal Sarkar vs Sachindra Nath Mandal and others (2003), Additional sessions judge Niranjan Chandra Pandey reiterated that in circumstantial cases, the evidence must be "cogent and convincing" and form a complete chain that rules out every hypothesis except the accused's guilt. The judge concluded that the prosecution's oral and documentary evidence failed that test. It did not establish a complete chain of circumstances, did not prove motive, and did not show that Poddar disposed of the body to destroy evidence.

The court acquitted him of all charges and ordered his immediate release.