Gujarat High Court Acquits Murder Accused | Says Circumstantial Evidence Chain Incomplete | Holds Improper Reliance On Section 106 Of Evidence Act | Conviction Set Aside Giving Benefit Of Doubt
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Gujarat Division Bench of Justice Ilesh J. Vora and Justice P. M. Raval held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt in a murder case resting on circumstantial evidence. The Bench observed that the "chain of evidence is not completed in all aspects and it is not conclusive in nature," and directed the acquittal of both accused persons. The Court set aside the trial court's conviction under Sections 302, 201, 120-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, ordering their release unless required in any other case.
The prosecution alleged that the accused Sujata @ Babita and Yogesh Murlidhar Gite, who were in a relationship, conspired to kill Sujata's husband, Suresh Ganpatrao Abhang. Sujata allegedly paid Rs.30,000 to absconding accused Shekhar Gnaneshwar Gadekar to execute the killing. On the night of 10.08.2010, the accused were said to have communicated via mobile phones, and Sujata kept the kitchen door open to facilitate entry. Around 4:00 a.m., Shekhar reportedly inflicted knife injuries while Yogesh smothered the deceased with a pillow. Sujata and Yogesh allegedly destroyed evidence, including washing clothes and discarding a mobile phone.
Following the investigation, a chargesheet was filed against Sujata and Yogesh, with Shekhar shown as absconding. The matter was committed to the Sessions Court, Vadodara, and registered as Sessions Case No.58 of 2011. The prosecution examined 20 witnesses and produced 24 documentary exhibits, including the complaint, postmortem report, panchnamas, and call detail records.
The trial court convicted both accused under Sections 302, 201, and 34 IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment and additional imprisonment under Section 201. Both sentences were directed to run concurrently.
In appeal, learned counsels for the appellants argued that the case was based solely on circumstantial evidence and the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of circumstances pointing to the guilt of the accused. It was further contended that the discovery panchnamas did not meet the standards required under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and that alleged confessions were inadmissible under Section 26. They also challenged the admissibility of call detail records on the ground of absence of a certificate under Section 65B.
The prosecution, on the other hand, maintained that the accused were proven guilty through consistent oral and documentary evidence. It was argued that the affair between Sujata and Yogesh was established, that Sujata was present at the crime scene, and that the call records corroborated their involvement. The washing of blood-stained clothes was pointed to as further evidence of guilt.
The Court examined the oral and documentary evidence in detail. It noted that multiple panchnama witnesses turned hostile, and several panchnamas, including those related to the scene of offence and discovery of weapons, were not proved in accordance with law. The Court recorded: "the Investigating Officer has not brought on record the contents of the panchnama of Exh.22" and "thus, the said panchnama is not proved in accordance with law."
The Bench further held that "the deposition of this witness does not satisfy the provisions of section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act" and "thus Exh.51 – panchnama of discovery of weapons is also not proved." Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022 SC 843), the Court reiterated that proper procedure under Section 27 must be followed, including independent witness corroboration and exact statements recorded.
Witness testimonies were found unreliable. For instance, Vrushali and Nainita, daughters of the deceased, admitted that their knowledge of the accused's confession was based on police information. The Court observed: "she has accepted that it is true that the police informed that these two accused persons have confessed their crime."
Regarding call detail records, the Court stated: "call details which are placed on record during the examination of this witness are not supported by any certificate issued under section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act and thus, these call details are also not proved in accordance with law." The Court cited Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (AIR 2020 SC 4908), holding that such electronic records are inadmissible without a valid certificate.
In considering the alleged confessions made by accused No.2, the Court relied on Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar (1966 SCR (1) 134), stating: "A confession made to a police officer under any circumstances is not admissible in evidence against the accused."
On circumstantial evidence, the Court applied the five-point test laid out in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116, holding: "chain of evidence is not completed in all aspects and it is not conclusive in nature" and "the facts so proved should unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused."
On the use of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, the Court referred to Shambhu Nath Mehra v. State of Ajmer [AIR 1956 SC 404], noting: "Section 106 is certainly not intended to relieve it [the prosecution] of that duty." It added: "Initial burden of proof by the prosecution has not been discharged and no conviction merely on the reliance of section 106... can be passed."
The Court concluded: "at the most, it could be said that strong suspicion is pointing towards the accused persons... but suspicion, however grave, cannot take the place of proof." It cited Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam (AIR 2013 SC 3817) to affirm that conviction must rest on clear and cogent evidence.
The Court concluded that the judgment and order of conviction dated 28.03.2014 in Sessions Case No.58 of 2011 passed by the 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara, was not sustainable. It held: "Impugned judgment and order passed by the learned 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara dated 28.3.2014 in Sessions Case No.58 of 2011 is required to be set aside and accordingly, it is set aside."
It directed: "The accused are given the benefit of doubt for the offence under sections 302, 201 read with section 120-B and 34 of Indian Penal Code and the accused are acquitted of the charges leveled against them."
"The accused be set at liberty if in jail and if not required in any other case."
"Record and Proceedings be sent back forthwith."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mrs. Rekha H. Kapadia, Advocate; HCLS Committee for the Appellants.
For the Respondents: Mr. L.B. Dabhi, APP for the State of Gujarat
Case Title: Sujata @ Babita Suresh Ganpatrav Abhang v. State of Gujarat
Case Number: R/Criminal Appeal Nos. 813 and 1006 of 2014
Bench: Justice Ilesh J. Vora and Justice P. M. Raval
