Suspicion Can't Replace Proof, State Failed To Prove Guilt: Gujarat High Court Quashes Death Sentence Of 3 Convicted For Gang Rape, Murder

The Gujarat High Court set aside the death sentence of three men, convicted for the murder and gang rape of a woman, noting that the State was unable to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused as the complete chain of incriminating circumstances pointing towards their guilt could not be proved.The three accused men were convicted for gang rape and murder of a married woman and were sentenced to capital punishment. The court was hearing the accused appeal against conviction as well as death sentence reference.Finding that chain of evidence did not establish guilt of the accused a division bench of Justice Ilesh J Vora and Justice RT Vachhani said:"We are conscious about the seriousness of the offence as the deceased was raped and killed in a brutal manner. However, it is one of the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that the accused is presumed to be innocent till he is proved to be guilty. It is equally well settled that, suspicion however be strong, can never take place of the proof. There is indeed a long distance between accused may have committed the offence and must have committed the offence, which must be traversed by the prosecution by adducing reliance and cogent evidence.Recently, the Supreme Court in the case of Surendra Koli vs.State of U.P. (2025 LawSuit SC 1479), while acquitting the accused in the case known as “Nitharikand”, held that, the offences in Nithari were heinous and the suffering of the family is beyond measure. It is a matter of deep regret that despite of prolonged investigation, the identity of the accused perpetrator has not been established in the manner that meets the legal standards. Criminal law does not permit conviction on conjectures or on a hunch. Suspicion however grave, cannot proof beyond reasonable doubt. Courts cannot prefer expediency over legality. The presumption of innocence endures until guilt is proved through admissible and reliable evidence and when the proof fails, the only lawful outcome is to set aside the conviction even in a case involving horrific crimes". The bench held that the prosecution failed to prove all necessary circumstances by reliable and clinching evidence "which would constitute a complete chain without a snap" and would permit no confusion other than the one of guilt of the accused. "Resultantly, the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused as complete chain of incriminating circumstances pointing towards guilt of the accused has not been established and proved. The accused no.1 to 3 are acquitted of all charges," the bench held. The court was examining whether the circumstances forms a chain of events pointing only to the guilt of the appellants accused. The court held that the there was no dispute that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature and having regard to the injuries suffered, the possibility of gang rape as opined by the doctor, cannot be ruled out. Among various findings the court held that the DNA evidence did not give a conclusive finding linking the accused to the crime. The court said that the prosecution had failed to forward the DNA samples to FSL, Ahmedabad within a reasonable time (48 hours) "and in absence of any explanation about the sanctity and chain of custody of the samples, no reliance can be placed on the report to connect the accused in the crime". "It is the prosecution to prove that, after samples were drawn, then, for about 14 days, how they stored, transported and received by the FSL. The prosecution should have examine the police official who was in custody of samples and the person who had deposited the samples with the FSL. In such circumstances, the DNA Profiling Report cannot be read against the accused A1 and A3 so as to infer their involvement in the alleged offence," the court said. It also said that the evidence of Prosecution Witness 15 a shopkeeper, who had claimed to have last seen the deceased in the company of two of the accused at his shop, did not inspire confidence because in the evening hours, according to the witness's version, there were many customers standing at his shop. Referring to the last seen theory the court said, "The accused no.2 was not personally knowing him, nor before the incident, he came into contact with the accused in any manner. Admittedly, police brought both the accused to the shop of the witness and informed that, these accused had come to his shop for purchasing tobacco and at that time, deceased and other accused were standing outside the shop. The I.O. failed to conduct TIP of the witness as this circumstance of last seen together was most important link to connect the accused in the crime. There are glaring discrepancies in the evidence of PW.15 who allegedly seen the deceased last alive in the company of the accused no.2 and 3. In such circumstances, it was prudently not possible for the grocery shop owner to remember each customer and what kind of ...

Suspicion Can't Replace Proof, State Failed To Prove Guilt: Gujarat High Court Quashes Death Sentence Of 3 Convicted For Gang Rape, Murder

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags