Mere Recovery Of Weapon Can't Justify Conviction Sans Established Motive: Chhattisgarh HC Acquits 4 In 2017 Murder Case

The Chhattisgarh High Court has overturned the conviction of four men accused in a 2017 murder case, underscoring the importance of a clear and established motive in criminal prosecutions.

The division bench, comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, acquitted observed, “Mere recovery of weapon from the appellants cannot become the basis of conviction when there is no established motive for commission of offence. In criminal cases, the guilt should be proved beyond any reasonable doubt that a reasonable man with ordinary prudence can have. There should be no doubt whether the accused is guilty or not. If there is slightest doubt, no matter how small it is, the benefit will go the accused.”

The case originated from an incident in 2017 when Rajeev Bhosale, the complainant, reported the shooting death of his associate, Bablu alias Irfan. According to Bhosale's account, the incident occurred while they were returning from a family birthday party. Bhosale stated that their car was intercepted by four masked men on motorcycles near Sejbahar, Raipur. During the confrontation, one of the assailants, whom Bablu identified as "Asif," allegedly shot him in the head. Bablu succumbed to his injuries while being transported to the hospital.

The prosecution argued that the murder was the result of a long-standing feud between the accused and the deceased. This narrative was supported by the trial court, which convicted the four appellants—Mohd. Yasin, Shekh Gufran Ahmad, Mohd. Aasif Ahmad, and Shekh Samir Ahmad—based on eyewitness testimony, including that of Rajeev Bhosale, and forensic evidence that purportedly linked the weapons seized from the accused to the crime scene. The charges against the accused were framed under Sections 341, 302, and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with various sections of the Arms Act.

In their appeal, the appellants challenged the trial court's findings, asserting that the prosecution had failed to conclusively prove their identities and involvement in the crime. They argued that the sole eyewitness, Rajeev Bhosale, had provided inconsistent testimony, particularly concerning the identification of the accused during the trial. The appellants also raised concerns about the handling of forensic evidence, noting that the ballistic examination of the recovered weapons had not been conducted in a timely manner, thereby compromising the integrity of the evidence.

The High Court, in its judgment, carefully examined the principles of law governing the identification of accused persons in criminal cases. The Court reiterated that when a prosecution case hinges solely on the identification of the accused—whether through a Test Identification Parade (TIP) or in-court identification—the prosecution bears the burden of proving that the accused were not previously known to the witnesses.

The Court further stated that the prosecution is required to provide corroborative evidence to eliminate any possibility that the witnesses had an opportunity to see the accused before the incident occurred.

Additionally, the Court reiterated that, according to established criminal jurisprudence, identification of the accused by witnesses during trial proceedings constitutes substantive evidence, while evidence from a TIP holds limited corroborative value. The Court underscored that in cases where the offenders were unknown to the witnesses and identification is the sole basis of the prosecution's case, it is imperative that the prosecution proves the witnesses had ample and clear opportunity to observe and identify the accused.

The Court noted, “Identification in Court i.e. dock identification is a substantive piece of evidence and admissible in evidence. Test identification attaches only corroborative value, it is not sine qua non in every case. Test identification is a rule of prudence and caution for accusation. If dock identification is otherwise reliable, then reliance can be placed upon the same.”

Citing the testimony of Rajeev Bhosle, the Court observed that he failed to identify the appellants during the trial, despite having correctly identified them during the TIP conducted by the Naib Tehsildar.

The Court remarked, “No witness of identification can be deemed reliable unless he is found to consistently identify an accused in TIP as well as in Court. It is a settled position of law that the evidence of a TIP is admissible under Section 9 of the Evidence Act. However, it is not a substantive piece of evidence. Instead, it is used to corroborate the evidence given by witnesses before a court of law at the time of trial.”

Consequently, the Court concluded that TIPs, even when conducted, cannot always be considered reliable evidence upon which a conviction can be based. The Court cautioned, “Any false or wrong identification made on part of the witness becomes a gateway to the wrongful conviction of an innocent for the crime which that person to all intents and purposes didn't commit.”

Regarding the testimony of Rajeev Bhosle, the Court found it unreliable, noting that Bhosle had testified that the appellants were masked and that the incident occurred at night. This incorrect identification during the trial cast doubt on the credibility of the witness, and the Court determined that a conviction could not be based on such testimony. The appellants, the Court noted, had also raised a specific defense, claiming that the deceased and Rajeev Bhosle were involved in financial disputes and that Bhosle and his brothers had been jailed for various offences.

In light of these considerations, the Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the Court granted the benefit of the doubt to the appellants, allowed the Criminal Appeal, and set aside the conviction judgement.

Case Title: Mohd. Yasin and Ors vs State of Chhattisgarh

LL Citation:

Click Here To Read Judgement