Prosecution Could Not Show Unbroken Link Between Accused And Crime, Cant Convict On Mere Suspicion: Gujarat HC Acquits Man In Murder Case

While acquitting a man convicted in a murder case, the Gujarat High Court said that prosecution could not establish an "unbroken" link between the man and the crime, adding that nobody can be convicted on a mere suspicion however strong it may be.

A single judge bench of Justice Divyesh A Joshi in its judgment observed, "No doubt, a family has lost its loved one in the present case, but the pivotal issue remains as to whether the totality of the circumstances unerringly point a finger at the appellant accused as the real culprit and none else. The circumstances indicated by the learned APP do create a suspicion against the appellant-accused but the point is whether those circumstances would be sufficient to hold that he was guilty of this crime".

"In my opinion, the distance between "may be true" and "must be true" has not been satisfactorily traversed by the prosecution to establish an unbroken link between the appellant-accused and the crime. One must be mindful of the fact that no one can be convicted on the basis of a mere suspicion however strong such a suspicion may be," the high court added.

The order was passed in an appeal by one Mukeshbhai Mohanlal Saragra against the judgment conviction passed by the sessions court, where he was convicted for the offences punishable under IPC Sections 302(murder), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt to a person) and 114(Abettor present when offence is committed) and provisions of the Bombay Police Act.

Background

The complaint lodged by the elder brother of the deceased said that the deceased Kantibhai Ramabhai was running a tea stall and the co-accused Babubhai Samnaji was their neighbour. It was alleged that one Suresh Punamjibhai was working at the tea stall of the deceased, who met with an accident and sustained disability. It was alleged that the Punamji had before his death, executed a will for the claim amount received by him and lying in his bank account in favour of the complainant and deceased's mother. However, Babubhai also claimed to have the same will executed by Punamjibhai in his favour. Counter claims from both the sides resulted in disputes between them and both the sides initiated legal proceedings against each other.

One night when the deceased was going for urination towards the canal, Babubhai along with the appellant convict and other co accused, confronted the deceased and started an altercation with him. It is alleged that all the accused persons then started beating the deceased and the appellant inflicted knife blow on the left side of the stomach of the deceased due to which the deceased received serious injuries. The deceased was taken to the Hospital where he succumbed to the injuries.

Findings

The court first noted that there was no direct evidence in the case to connect the accused with the offence in question and the case of the prosecution rested solely on circumstantial evidence. The court said this after noting that the persons who are cited as eye-witnesses are the "interested witnesses"–the real brother, mother and sister-in-law of the deceased and they had not elaborated the entire sequence of events of the incident that had taken place on the fateful day and, therefore, the trial court in its judgment itself has made "detailed discussion" and given the findings to the effect.

The trial court had said that these witnesses cannot be termed as the eye-witnesses as they might have reached to the place of offence immediately after the occurrence of the incident and the said findings of the trial court has not been challenged by the prosecution side and thus has attained finality.

Taking note of the conditions for fully establishing circumstancial evidence the high court said, "A case can be said to be proved only when there is certain and explicit evidence and no person can be convicted on pure moral conviction".

Referring to the complainant brother's deposition the high court said that there are "vast discrepancies" in the complaint filed by the complainant and his testimony recorded during the trial. It further noted that there appeared to be vast contradictions in the testimonies of the complainant and his mother.

"It appears that in the FIR it is stated that when the deceased was going for urinating towards the canal, he was stopped by the accused persons and brutally beaten by them, however, I am unable to find anywhere in the entire body of the complaint that whether the complainant was accompanying the deceased or not and how he came to know about the occurrence of the incident. It has not been stated anywhere in the complaint that whether he rushed to the place of occurrence on some noise of quarrel being heard by him or whether somebody informed him about the said quarrel. The complaint is completely silent about the same..." the high court noted.

Observing that the prosecution had not been able to "dispel the cloud of doubt" on the appellant accused's culpability, the court while granting him the benefit of doubt and allowed his appeal and set aside the conviction order.

Case title: MUKESHBHAI MOHANLAL SARAGRA v/s STATE OF GUJARAT

Click Here To Download Judgment