Gujarat High Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case, Cites Weak Circumstantial Evidence

Gujarat High Court Overturns Murder Conviction, Emphasizing Weakness of Circumstantial Evidence

Ahmedabad, Gujarat – In a significant ruling, the Gujarat High Court has acquitted Nasim @ Rajubhai Sahjadhusen Mansuri, who was previously convicted of murdering his ex-wife, Jayshri @ Karuna @ Shabnam. Justices Ilesh J. Vora and Hemant M. Prachchhakk presided over the appeal, finding that the prosecution's case, based primarily on circumstantial evidence, failed to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The judgment, dated March 28, 2025, sets aside the conviction and sentence previously imposed by the Fast Track Court in Ahmedabad.

Case Background

Nasim Mansuri was convicted by the trial court under Sections 302 (murder) and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. The prosecution alleged that Mansuri murdered Jayshri , his former wife, due to jealousy after she remarried following a divorce and alleged torture during their marriage. The prosecution claimed Mansuri took Jayshri from the hospital, slit her neck, disposed of her body parts in Kankaria lake and a canal, and based their case on circumstantial evidence including recovered items and witness testimonies.

Arguments Presented

Appellant’s Counsel, Mr. Soeb Bhoharia, argued:

The prosecution’s case heavily relied on witnesses who turned hostile.

There was a lack of direct evidence linking Mansuri to the crime.

The timeline and "last seen together" theory were not convincingly established, pointing towards other potential suspects, including Jayshri ’s second husband, Dushyant Barot.

Key witnesses like neighbors and daughters were not examined, and crucial evidence like mobile phone records were not presented.

Written submissions highlighted inconsistencies and improbabilities in the prosecution’s narrative, questioning the motive and the investigation's focus.

Respondent’s Counsel, Ms. Chetna Shah, Additional Public Prosecutor, contended:

The trial court’s judgment was just and proper, supported by evidence.

Circumstantial evidence, including recovery of the murder weapon at Mansuri's instance and bloodstains matching the deceased's blood group, pointed to his guilt.

The bedsheet and quilt found on the body, identified by the deceased's mother, were linked to Mansuri.

Motive was established through testimonies indicating Mansuri's displeasure over Jayshri 's second marriage.

Written submissions emphasized corroborating witness testimonies and forensic evidence.

Reliance on Legal Principles and Precedents

The High Court emphasized the principles governing cases based on circumstantial evidence, referencing landmark judgments like Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra . The court reiterated that:

> "the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established... the accused 'must be' and not merely 'may be' proved guilty..."

The judgment cited several Supreme Court cases, including Raja Naykar v. State of Chhattisgarh and Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab , to underscore the necessity of a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances that unequivocally points to the accused's guilt and excludes any other reasonable hypothesis. The court noted that suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute for proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Pivotal Excerpts from the Judgment

The court highlighted critical deficiencies in the prosecution's case, stating:

> "The circumstances which referred and relied upon by the trial Court... there was lacuna in the investigation and during the trial which was completely missing i.e. last seen together theory adhere by the prosecution is not proved by adducing cogent and material evidence..."

The bench further pointed out investigative lapses:

> "Surprisingly, the prosecution has not examined said Priyaben as witness nor any telephone details were collected and produced on record during the trial and even the call details of the present accused was also not collected. The another lacuna is that the concerned Investigating OfÏcer has not recorded the statement of the doctor of the civil hospital... nor any rent receipt or any documentary evidence with regard to occupation of the premises has alleged to have been placed."

Regarding the evidence presented, the court observed:

> "The circumstance of last seen together is a very weak circumstance in the facts of the case. The circumstances brought on record are not conclusive in nature. The circumstances are not consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the appellant."

Court's Final Decision and Implications

Allowing the appeal, the Gujarat High Court quashed the trial court's judgment and order of conviction. The court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of circumstances, and the evidence presented was insufficient to prove Mansuri's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

> "We are of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to complete the chain of circumstances against the accused and the trial Court has committed an error of facts and law in passing the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence..."

The High Court ordered Mansuri's immediate release from prison, emphasizing that "the prosecution has not established its case beyond reasonable doubt" and that "the appellant’s guilt has not been established beyond a reasonable doubt." This judgment serves as a reminder of the stringent standards of proof required in criminal cases, particularly those relying on circumstantial evidence, and the importance of thorough investigation and presentation of a complete and convincing chain of evidence by the prosecution.