When Proof Fails, Conviction Cannot Stand: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Death Sentence In Double Murder Case
The Court held that in cases resting on circumstantial evidence, failure to establish a complete chain of incriminating circumstances mandates acquittal, irrespective of the gravity of the offence.
Justice Ilesh J. Vora, Justice R.T. Vachhani, Gujarat High Court
The Gujarat High Court held that even in cases involving grave and heinous offences, including double murder, conviction cannot be sustained unless the prosecution proves its case beyond a reasonable doubt through a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances.
The Court emphasised that suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute proof, and failure of proof necessarily results in acquittal.
The Court was hearing a criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the conviction and death sentence imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad, for offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.
A Bench of Justice Ilesh J. Vora and Justice R.T. Vachhani, while setting aside the conviction of a man accused of double murder, observed that “when the proof fails, the only lawful outcome is to set aside the conviction even in a case involving horrific crimes”.
L.B. Dabhi, APP, represented the appellant, while Nirad D. Buch, Advocate, represented the respondent.
Background
The prosecution's case alleged that the accused committed the murder of a mother and her son in June 2017 and attempted to destroy evidence by wrapping the bodies, cleaning the scene, and disposing of incriminating materials. The case was based entirely on circumstantial evidence, including alleged motive, last seen theory, recovery of weapons, and CCTV footage.
The Trial Court, relying on these circumstances, convicted the accused and imposed capital punishment, holding that the chain of circumstances established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Court’s Observation
The High Court began by reiterating the settled principles governing cases based on circumstantial evidence, emphasising that each incriminating circumstance must be fully established and must form a complete chain pointing only towards the guilt of the accused.
It noted that “there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused”
Examining the prosecution's case, the Court found that several key circumstances were not proved. The alleged reconstruction of the crime scene and confessional statements made before police were held inadmissible in law, being hit by Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act.
On the “last seen” theory, the Court observed that the prosecution's witness did not support the case and was declared hostile. It held that reliance on statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was impermissible as such statements are not substantive evidence.
The Court further found that the recovery of weapons and other material evidence was not proved in accordance with Section 27 of the Evidence Act, as the panch witnesses did not support the prosecution's case.
On electronic evidence, the Court noted serious deficiencies, including non-compliance with mandatory requirements under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, thereby affecting admissibility.
Summarising the deficiencies, the Court emphasised that the prosecution failed to bridge the gap between “may be true” and “must be true”, observing that “the duty of the prosecution [is] to elevate its case from the realm of ‘may be true’ to ‘must be true’… Every piece of relevant fact needs to be sewn via the golden thread of circumstantial evidence in order to fabric the guilt.”
On the trial court’s approach, the Court held: “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”.
In the absence of a complete and conclusive chain of circumstances, the Court held 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”.
Conclusion
Allowing the appeal, the Court set aside the conviction and death sentence imposed by the Trial Court. It further declined to confirm the death reference and ordered the release of the accused.
Cause Title: State of Gujarat v. Baldevbhai Budhaji Dhulaji Chauhan Thakor (Neutral Citation: 2026:GUJHC:25493-DB)