Why was Desmand Miranda acquitted after 36 years in the 1990 burning case?

Desmand Miranda was acquitted due to the collapse of the prosecution's case, caused by missing evidence, the death of key witnesses, and the victim's own contradictory statements.

Were there any dying declarations in the 1990 burning case?

The victim's alleged dying declaration incriminating the accused was never formally proven in court, and her initial statements to police and doctors suggested a suicide attempt.

Home / Crime and Justice / 36-Year Wait Ends: Man Acquitted in 1990 Burning Case

36-Year Wait Ends: Man Acquitted in 1990 Burning Case

Q: What happened to the evidence in the 1990 burning case?

Over the 36 years the case spanned, crucial evidence like the original FIR, panchnama records, and post-mortem notes were lost, and physical evidence became damaged or unavailable.

10 Jan

•

Summary

Accused acquitted after 36 years due to case collapse.
Key evidence and witnesses lost over decades of delay.
Victim's own statements contradicted, aiding acquittal.

36-Year Wait Ends: Man Acquitted in 1990 Burning Case

A Mumbai court acquitted a 64-year-old man, Desmand Miranda, accused of setting a woman ablaze in 1990. The acquittal concludes a 36-year legal process, as Miranda was only apprehended in 2025 after absconding for decades. The prosecution's case disintegrated over time, leading to the loss of crucial evidence and the demise of several witnesses.

Ultimately, the court could not establish a clear narrative due to the victim's own inconsistent statements made before her passing. While the victim's brother-in-law alleged she named Miranda, her initial statements to police and doctors suggested suicide. Forensic reports also lacked evidence linking Miranda to the crime.

The original FIR, panchnama records, and post-mortem notes were untraceable, and physical evidence was damaged or unavailable. The deposition of the victim's then-10-year-old daughter contained hearsay and improvements. The judge emphasized that suspicion alone is insufficient for conviction without clear, convincing evidence.