Bombay High Court Acquits Man On Death Row Convicted Of Double Murder Citing Fabrication Of Evidence

The High Court was hearing a death confirmation petition filed by the state government as a death sentence awarded by a sessions court has to be confirmed by the High Court before it can be executed.

A Division bench of Justices Sadhana S Jadhav and Milind N Jadhav rejected the death confirmation plea, observing that the trial was conducted in the "most casual manner" and the prosecution had "suppressed and fabricated vital evidence".

"After having appreciated the entire evidence on record, the material discrepancies, lacunae and blatant illegalities, we would definitely indicate that the prosecution has utterly failed in connecting the dots and bringing home the guilt of the accused. Merely because the crime is heinous and brutal, it would not be just to get carried away sans any legal proof required to substantiate the charge of murder on the accused," the bench said.

According to the prosecution, on November 5, 2015, Yadav allegedly stole his colleague's phone, who then complained to their employer. Consequently, the employer pulled up Yadav and asked him to return the phone. This allegedly caused Yadav to seek revenge. In the wee hours of November 6, 2015, Yadav allegedly went to the company's quarters – where his colleague stayed with his wife – with a bucket of concentrated sulphuric acid and poured the same on them while they were asleep. The couple was taken to the hospital, where the husband died four hours later and the wife the next day.

The police relied on dying declarations of the couple and two other employees who were key eye witnesses to the incident. The Palghar sessions court, on May 9, 2019, convicted Yadav and sentenced him to death observing that the same was "a unique case beyond imagination and a crime of such a nature, which is undeserving of any sympathy or mercy".

Thereafter, the state government had moved the High Court seeking confirmation of Yadav's death sentence. Yadav argued that as per material on record, there was major discrepancy and contradiction about the time of the deaths and thus, the dying declarations cannot be admitted as evidence.

The court noted that it was amply clear after going through the evidence of the doctor and the nurse who first attended the murdered couple that they were not conscious enough to record a dying declaration.

The bench noted that "the evidence led by the prosecution is fraught with major inconsistencies… The trial was conducted in the most casual manner and whether it was just and fair in a capital punishment case is a question remaining unanswered. The quality and credibility of the evidence adduced is not even up to the mark…".

Referring to the Supreme court case of Ashish Batham Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2002 Supreme Court 3206, wherein it was held that charges must be proved beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of clear, cogent, credible or unimpeachable evidence and the question of indicting or punishing an accused does not arise, merely carried away by heinous nature of the crime or the gruesome manner in which it was found to have been committed, the bench came to the unequivocal conclusion that the prosecution has not only suppressed vital evidence but deliberately fabricated the dying declaration of the deceased, which forms the basis of its case. Yadav was thus acquitted.

Case Title: The State of Maharashtra Vs Guddu Krish Yadav

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 181

Click Here To Read/Download Order