The Supreme Court acquitted an individual in a murder case and noted that when prosecution relies upon the evidence of extra-judicial confession, normally, the Court will expect that the evidence of the persons before whom extra-judicial confession is allegedly made must be of sterling quality.
Brief Facts:
The appellant appealed the conviction by the Gujarat High Court under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for the alleged murder of one Hukabhai. The prosecution's narrative relied heavily on the testimony of key witnesses, particularly PW-2 Kalabhai, the deceased's brother, and PW-3 Ramabhai, a resident of the same village. According to the prosecution, Hukabhai was assaulted by the appellant, armed with a bamboo stick, as he proceeded towards his field. Eyewitnesses claimed that the accused returned to the village around 6:30 p.m. still holding the same stick.
Contentions of the Parties:
The appellant contested the conviction, asserting that the evidence presented by the prosecution failed to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The defence questioned the credibility of an alleged extra-judicial confession made by the appellant before PW-2 and PW-3, who were the real brothers of the deceased. The defence argued that it is uncommon for an accused to confess before individuals closely associated with the victim. Additionally, the appellant's legal counsel highlighted discrepancies in the prosecution's narrative, particularly concerning the recovery of an axe alleged to be the murder weapon. Eyewitnesses consistently stated that the appellant was carrying a bamboo stick, not an axe. The bloodstains on the appellant's clothes were also challenged, citing a Serology Report that indicated inconclusive opinions and discrepancies in blood groups between the accused and the deceased. The defence contended that these inconsistencies raised reasonable doubt about the appellant's involvement in the crime, urging the Supreme Court to overturn the conviction.
Observations by the Court:
The Supreme Court raised fundamental questions regarding the reliability of an extra-judicial confession allegedly made by the appellant before PW-2 and PW-3, the deceased's real brothers. The court expressed skepticism about the usuality of an accused confessing before individuals so closely associated with the victim. Justices Oka and Mithal underscored the importance of the quality of evidence, particularly when relying on confessions, stating that it must be of "sterling quality." The court held that it was challenging for it to accept that the appellant would confess before the deceased's real brothers and a close acquaintance, casting doubt on the credibility of such testimony.
Furthermore, the court scrutinized the prosecution's narrative, emphasizing the inconsistencies in the accounts of eyewitnesses regarding the weapon used in the alleged assault. While the prosecution claimed the recovery of an axe as the weapon, eyewitnesses consistently asserted that the appellant carried a bamboo stick. This incongruence raised doubts about the veracity of the prosecution's version of events. The court further highlighted a crucial aspect—the bloodstains on the appellant's clothes. A Serology Report revealed disparities in blood groups between the deceased and the accused, further weakening the prosecution's case.
The decision of the Court:
Conclusively, the Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. Justices Oka and Mithal set aside the impugned judgments, acquitting appellant of the murder. The court acknowledged the appellant's 11-year incarceration and ordered the cancellation of bail bonds, bringing closure to a case.
Case Name: Prabhatbhai Aatabhai Dabhi V. State Of Gujarat
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay S. Oka and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Mithal
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 1926 OF 2011
Citation: 2023 Latest Caselaw 861 SC
Advocates of the Appellant: Mr. Harinder Mohan Singh, AOR Ms. Shabana, Adv.
Advocates of the Respondent: Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, AOR Ms. Devyani Bhatt, Adv. Ms. Neha Singh, Adv.
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
