Gujarat High Court Quashes Man's Death Penalty In Double-Murder Case, Says Trial Court Verdict Based On Conjectures

The Gujarat High Court set aside death penalty awarded to a man convicted in a double-murder case, after observing that the prosecution had failed to prove the circumstances with "clinching evidence" and the trial court had delivered a guilty verdict based on surmises and conjectures disregarding law.

The accused was convicted by the trial court for the murder of a woman's husband and her mother-in-law, whom the prosecution alleged had an affair with the accused.

A division bench of Justice Ilesh J Vora and Justice RT Vachchani in its order said:

"...we are of the considered opinion that, the prosecution failed to prove all incriminating necessary circumstances by reliable and clinching evidence which would constitute a complete chain without any gap, pointing to the guilt of the accused. The prosecution failed to prove the charge against the appellant accused by adducing reliable and truthful evidence beyond reasonable doubt. We are conscious about the seriousness of the offence, as there is a charge of double murder. However, it is one of the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence that the accused is presumed to be innocent till he is proved to be guilty and the burden to prove the guilt is on the prosecution and same is require to be proved by legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence and prosecution to stand on its own legs and not to drive support from the witness of the defence.

In the present case, the prosecution has failed to prove a charge against the accused. We are constrained to observe here that the trial court on the basis of suspicion, surmises and conjectures, held guilty the accused without appreciating the evidence in its true perspective and in utter disregard to the settled principle of law and criminal jurisprudence, which says that, the when the case rests on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances howsoever strong, cannot take place of proof and conviction is not permissible on the basis of suspicion"

The deceased Kanchanben and her son Vipulbhai were residing in a rented house in Ahmedabad. Vipulbhai was married to one Sujata and they had a daughter together.

It was alleged that the appellant was a compounder at a hospital, which Kanchanben used to visit for age related treatment accompanied by Sujata; as a result, the appellant came into contact with Sujata. They exchanged phone numbers, got acquainted and were active on social media. It was alleged that wife of Vipulbhai had an affair with the appellant.

The husband and mother-in-law allegedly opposed this relationship and the daughter-in-law was asked to leave the house and she went to her parental home.

It was alleged that the appellant held a grudge against the mother-in-law for sending her daughter-in-law to her parental home. According to the prosecution on 03.06.2017 the appellant came to the deceased's house where the mother-in-law Kanchanben was alone, and after having a heated exchange of words with the deceased he inflicted fatal blows on her head with an axe.

When Vipul entered the house and saw his mother lying in pool of blood while the appellant was trying to wrap her body into polythene bag, the appellant also killed Vipul by inflicting axe blows on his head.

The prosecution alleged that the accused was last seen in the early morning carrying with him a plastic bag filled with the weapons and clothes prosecution witness Amit Rana.

It was alleged that the accused went to the hospital where he was employed and concealed the weapons in an electric box and burnt the clothes. Further during the reconstruction of crime scene and while he was in police custody, the accused had voluntarily disclosed the facts about how he had killed two persons by weapon axe and the motive behind it.

With respect to the confessional statement incorporated in the panchnama, the bench observed that it was hit by Sections 25 and 26 of The Evidence Act as per which a confession made to a police officer is prohibited and cannot be admitted in the evidence and no confession made by any person while he is in police custody shall be proved against such person.

The court thus refused to accept the statement of the accused as evidence.

It also refused to rely on Statement of the IO regarding reconstruction of the crime scene and said that nothing had been recovered/discovered during crime scene reconstruction to connect the accused to the offence.

"Thus, the circumstances of reconstruction of scene of crime cannot be read in evidence against the accused as substantial evidence," the court said.

On the last seen testimony given by prosecution witness Amit Rana court said, "On careful reading of the testimony of the witness, nothing being stated by the witness that on 03.06.2017, in the early morning, he had seen the appellant-accused, leaving the house of the deceased carrying with him a plastic bag. On the contrary, the witness has not supported to the case of prosecution and he has been declared hostile".

The bench also said that the trial court had relied upon the IO's testimony who had recorded the witness's statement, and had considered the same as substantial evidence and recorded the conviction.

"In other words, the oral version of the I.O. (PW.36) is being considered. However, the fact remains that, he is not the witness of the incident. In our opinion, the statements under Section 161 and 162 Cr.P.C. are not admissible in evidence except for the limited purpose as provided in Section 157 of the Evidence Act and same may be used for contradicting the witness in the manner provided under Section 145 of the Evidence Act and the courts cannot use such statements as a corroboration of the statement made in the court," the court said adding that the last seen evidence was not established.

The bench also noted that the panch witnesses had had not supported the prosecution's case over alleged discovery of the murder weapon.

It further noted that the CCTV footage produced in the form of secondary evidence (in a pendrive) to prove that the next day after the incident the accused had gone to the hospital where he was working and had concealed the weapons and had burnt the clothes, cannot be accepted as evidence because it was not accompanied by a mandatory certificate as per Section 65-B(4) Evidence Act.

The court also observed that none of the deceaseds' close relatives or neighbourse had stated that the appellant was in a relationship with the wife of deceased Vipulbhai and that he used to come to their place often to meet her. Thus, the motive as projected by the prosecution for murder was not proved.

The appeal was allowed and the conviction as well as death penalty was set aside.

Case title: STATE OF GUJARAT v/s BALDEVBHAI BUDHAJI DHULAJI CHAUHAN (THAKOR)

R/CRIMINAL CONFIRMATION CASE NO. 2 of 2024, R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2812 of 2024

Click Here To Read/Download Order