Circumstantial Evidence Incomplete: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Conviction & Death Sentence In Alleged Honour Killing Case

The Court held that the prosecution’s case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, but the links necessary to form a complete and conclusive chain were missing, leaving room for reasonable doubt.

The Court was hearing a criminal confirmation case and a connected appeal challenging the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, which convicted the accused for offences under Sections 302 and 328 of the IPC and awarded capital punishment.

A Division Bench of Justice Ilesh J. Vora and Justice P. M. Raval, while making these observations, remarked: “In the present case, we find neither the chain of circumstances to have been completely established nor the guilt of the accused alone, having committed the crime to be proven, much less beyond reasonable doubt. The essential conditions that must be fulfilled before an accused can be convicted in a case revolving around circumstantial evidence in the landmark case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (Supra) which are lacking in the case on hand”.

Advocate Dhairyapalsinh N Puwar appeared for the appellant-accused, while Public Prosecutor Jay Mehta represented the State.

Background

As per the prosecution, the accused murdered his brother and sister-in-law at their residence on the night of 04–05 August 2017. An FIR was lodged initially by the accused himself as the complainant, claiming that masked men had entered the house, assaulted him and killed the couple. During the investigation, he was later shown as the accused.

The prosecution alleged that the appellant obtained Lorazepam tablets from Ahmedabad Civil Hospital, mixed them into batter used to prepare fritters at a roadside stall, and served them to the victims before committing the murders with knives or swords. The trial court accepted these circumstances as sufficient proof and awarded the death penalty.

In appeal, the defence argued that the chain of circumstantial evidence was incomplete: scientific reports showed no poison in the victims’ bodies, weapon recoveries were not proved as discovery under Section 27, CCTV and forensic evidence did not support prosecution claims, and motive was not established.

Court’s Observation

The Gujarat High Court, upon hearing the matter, held that the law governing circumstantial evidence, as laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, requires a complete chain of circumstances leading only to the inference of guilt. In this case, several links were either missing or contradictory. While homicidal deaths were proved, the Bench held that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused was the perpetrator beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Bench found that knives were recovered during the preparation of the scene of the offence panchnama, at a location accessible to all. Since the accused was not arrested at that time and no disclosure statement was recorded before recovery, Section 27 did not apply. The Court held that the admissibility of discovery was not established, observing that such recoveries could not be relied upon.

The Bench also noted that the FSL report showed the viscera and fritter samples tested negative for toxins, contradicting the prosecution's theory of sedative-laced food. DNA analysis also did not conclusively connect the accused to the weapons. The Court noted that reliance on scientific evidence was crucial, and the prosecution failed to correlate these reports with its narrative.

Though the State suggested the murders were an honour killing related to family opposition to the couple’s relationship, the Court held that both sides of the family were unhappy, and cross-complaints existed. When two possible views exist, the Court remarked that the view favourable to the accused must be adopted.

The Court also held that alleged admissions by the accused before police officers could not be used against him due to Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act, and since no valid discovery followed such statements, they held no evidentiary value.

Conclusion

Holding that the prosecution failed to establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances, the Court set aside the conviction and death sentence. The appeal was allowed, the reference for confirmation of the death penalty was rejected, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges.

Cause Title: State of Gujarat v. Vipulbhai Bharatbhai Bin Chhappanbhai Patani

Appearances

Petitioner: Public Prosecutor Jay Mehta

Respondent: Dhairyapalsinh N. Puwar, Advocate

Click here to read/download Judgment