Prosecution Failed To Establish Unbroken Link Between Accused & Crime: Gujarat High Court Acquits Man In Murder Case
The Gujarat High Court acquitted a man in a murder case on the ground that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken link between the accused and the crime.
The Court was deciding an appeal preferred against the judgment of the Trial Court by which the accused was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 323, and 114 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951.
A Single Bench of Justice Divyesh A. Joshi 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.”
The Bench emphasised that, no one can be convicted on the basis of a mere suspicion however strong such a suspicion may be.
Advocate Maulin G. Pandya appeared on behalf of the appellant/accused while Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Monali Bhatt appeared on behalf of the respondent/State.
Brief Facts -
An FIR was lodged by the brother of the deceased i.e., the complainant who was a tailor by profession. The deceased was running a tea stall along with his father. A person working in his tea stall met with an accident and sustained disability and hence, he was being looked after by the complainant’s mother. That person received certain amount of accidental claim and before his death, he executed a will for the amount of claim in favour of the complainant’s mother and the deceased. The accused who was their neighbour, also claimed to have the same will executed in his favour.
Thus, there were counter claims from both the sides which resulted in disputes and resultantly, legal proceedings were initiated. It was alleged that keeping a grudge of the same, when the deceased was going for urinating towards the canal, the said accused along with the appellant-accused and other co-accused, confronted the deceased and started beating him. It was further alleged that all the accused persons then started beating him and the appellant inflicted knife blow on the left side of the stomach of the deceased due to which he received serious injuries. Ultimately, he died. As the Sessions Court convicted the appellant, he was before the High Court.
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, noted, “In the instant case, it is the case of the prosecution that before the incident in question, there was a fight between the accused Babubhai and one person belonging to Marvadi community, and at that time, the brother of the complainant, i.e, the deceased intervened and tried to segregate them. After such a row, the said Babubhai along with the appellant-accused and one another Mohan was standing there and when the deceased Kantibhai was going for urinating towards the canal, they stopped him and started beating him and in the said quarrel appellant-accused inflicted knife blow to the deceased.”
The Court elucidated that, a mere fight between the accused and the deceased on the fateful day over a petty issue cannot be treated as acceptable evidence to prove that there was a serious quarrel between the accused and the deceased which led the appellant-accused to kill the deceased.
“The picture is so foggy in the present case. There is no independent witness who has come fore to depose that he had seen the incident. Even the complainant has not stated that he had seen the appellant-accused inflicting knife injuries. What he has stated in the complaint is that after the incident when they saw his deceased brother coming towards the home and fell down on the road they rushed to him and by that time, the assailants were fled away. Contradictory to what has been stated in the complaint, the complainant, in his examination-in-chief, has deposed that he was present there at time of the incident”, it added.
The Court said that the circumstances of the case do not lead to an inevitable and decisive conclusion that the appellant-accused had committed the murder of the brother of the complainant and as the prosecution has not been able to dispel the cloud of doubt as to the culpability of the appellant-accused, the benefit of doubt must be extended.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment, and acquitted the accused.
Cause Title- Mukeshbhai Mohanlal Saragra v. State of Gujarat (Neutral Citation: 2024:GUJHC:51517)
