Acquittal in Double Murder Case: Flawed Circumstantial Chain and Procedural Lapses Defeat Prosecution: Gujarat High Court

From Death Row to Acquittal: Gujarat High Court Overturns Conviction in Double Murder Case

In a significant ruling, the High Court of Gujarat has set aside the conviction and death sentence of Baldevbhai Budhaji Dhulaji Chauhan, who had been found guilty of a double murder and destruction of evidence under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code . The division bench, comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ilesh J. Vora and Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. T. Vachhani, underscored the high threshold of proof required in cases resting solely on circumstantial evidence, ultimately finding the prosecution’s case riddled with legal and procedural inadequacies.

The Background of the Alleged Crime

The case originated on June 6, 2017, after decomposed bodies of a mother and son, Kanchanben and Vipulbhai, were discovered in their rented residence in Odhav, Ahmedabad. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, a compounder at a local hospital, had been involved in an illicit relationship with the deceased Vipulbhai's wife, Sujata. According to the state, resentment over this relationship led the accused to attack the residents with an axe. The prosecution’s case heavily relied on the theory that the accused had, after the crime, concealed the murder weapon in an electric box at his workplace and burned his bloodstained clothes.

The Legal Battle: Arguments from Both Sides

The State argued that the heinous nature of the crime and the recovery of weapons, coupled with CCTV footage from Shriram Hospital, proved the accused's guilt beyond a shadow of doubt. They maintained that the appellant’s voluntary disclosure led to the discovery of incriminating items, thereby forming a strong chain of circumstantial evidence.

Conversely, the defense counsel, Mr. Nirad Buch, highlighted that the prosecution lacked a single eyewitness. The defense argued that key witnesses, including the neighbors and the panchas for the recovery of weapons, had turned hostile. Furthermore, the defense challenged the admissibility of the electronic evidence, noting the complete failure of the prosecution to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act .

Legal Analysis: The Failure of the Chain of Circumstances

The High Court’s ruling provides a masterclass on the rigid requirements of circumstantial evidence in criminal jurisprudence. The court identified three fatal flaws in the prosecution’s case:

1. Inadmissible Confessions: The court ruled that the "reconstruction of crime scene" panchnama was essentially a confessional statement made to the police, which is strictly prohibited under Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act .
   
   
2. Procedural Lapses in Discovery: Relying on the Supreme Court ’s interpretation of Section 27 of the Evidence Act , the bench observed that the Investigating Officer had failed to record the "exact words" uttered by the accused during the discovery process. Mere exhibition of a memorandum prepared by the police does not satisfy the legal requirement for discovery.
   
   
3. Lack of Certification for Electronic Evidence: The CCTV footage, which the State relied upon to document the accused's movements, was deemed secondary evidence. Because no certificate under Section 65-B(4) of the Evidence Act was produced, the footage was held inadmissible.

Key Observations

The judgment is defined by its firm adherence to legal procedure, with the court noting:

• "The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused."
• "The confession before the police is hit by Sections 24 and 25 of The Evidence Act . As such there is no provision to demonstrate the reconstruction of scene of offence."
• "The secondary evidence in the form of electronic evidence cannot be used and read against the evidence in the absence of a certificate under Section 65-B(4)."
• "When the proof fails, the only lawful outcome is to set aside the conviction even in a case of involving horrific crimes."

Conclusion and Practical Implications

The High Court’s decision to set aside the death sentence serves as a reminder that the judicial system’s role is to ensure that conviction is based on unimpeachable evidence rather than suspicion. Without a complete, unbroken chain of circumstances, the prosecution’s story—regardless of the brutality of the act—cannot be sustained in a court of law. The appellant, having been found innocent by the standards of the judiciary, was ordered to be released from jail forthwith, assuming no other custody requirements exist.