Gujarat High Court Upholds Life Sentence in Kidnapping-Murder Case, Rules Non-Proof of Motive Not Fatal in Strong Circumstantial Evidence Cases

Ahmedabad: The Gujarat High Court, in a significant ruling, has upheld the life imprisonment sentences for two men convicted in the 2015 kidnapping and murder of a college student. The Division Bench, comprising Justice Ilesh J. Vora and Justice P. M. Raval , dismissed the appeals filed by Shah Nirav @ Ravi Maheshbhai and his accomplice, holding that even if the motive is not proven, a conviction based on a complete and unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence is sustainable.

The court affirmed the 2019 judgment of the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Patan, which found the appellants guilty under Sections 363 (kidnapping), 364A (kidnapping for ransom), 302 (murder), and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Background of the Case

The case dates back to August 18, 2015, when Devang Thakar, a computer engineering student, was kidnapped after leaving for college. His father, Hiteshkumar Thakar, received a ransom call for Rs. 40 lakhs from an unknown person using his son’s mobile phone. The caller threatened to murder Devang if the police were informed. When no further call came, the family lodged an FIR against unknown persons.

The investigation led to the arrest of Nirav Shah and Dhaval @ Jato Darji. The prosecution's case was built entirely on circumstantial evidence, including the "last seen together" theory, an extra-judicial confession, and the recovery of the victim's body and belongings at the behest of the accused. The trial court found the evidence compelling and convicted both men.

Key Arguments in the High Court

Appellants' Arguments: The defense counsel, Mr. Mrudul M Barot, argued that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Key contentions included:

* Last Seen Theory: The statements of the two "last seen" witnesses were recorded after the accused were arrested, suggesting the theory was fabricated. Further, if these witnesses had informed the victim's father before the FIR was filed, the accused would have been named.

* Extra-Judicial Confession: The confession made by one accused to a friend was unreliable, as the witness was not a close confidant and remained silent for days.

* Recovery Evidence: The defense challenged the credibility of the discovery panchnamas, highlighting procedural irregularities and the improbability of the accused keeping blood-stained clothes and other incriminating evidence in their homes.

* Incomplete Chain: The prosecution failed to prove the alleged motive (that one accused was in debt and the other wanted money for luxuries) and did not recover the mobile phone used for the ransom call, thus breaking the chain of circumstances.

State's Arguments: Learned APP Mr. Aditya Jadeja countered that the prosecution had established a complete chain of circumstances. He submitted that:

* The "last seen together" theory was firmly established by two consistent witnesses.

* Crucial evidence, including the victim's body, his bag, blood-stained clothes of the accused, and the car used in the crime, were discovered at the instance of the appellants.

* Forensic evidence confirmed that the blood on the appellants' recovered clothes matched the victim's blood group.

* The father’s testimony proved the ransom demand and threat, fulfilling the conditions of Section 364A IPC.

Court's Analysis and Pivotal Observations

The High Court meticulously evaluated each link in the chain of circumstantial evidence and found it to be complete and conclusive.

On Last Seen Theory and Investigation Lapses: The bench found the testimonies of the two eyewitnesses who last saw the deceased with the accused to be credible. Addressing the defense's argument about the timing of statements, the court observed, "This aspect at the best can be considered as a lapse on the part of the investigating agency, the benefit of which will not enure to the accused." Citing Supreme Court precedents, the bench reiterated that omissions by an investigating officer cannot be used to the advantage of the accused.

On Recovery and Discovery Evidence: The court held that the discovery of the victim’s body, his bag, the car, and the blood-stained clothes at the instance of the accused was admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The conduct of the accused in pointing out the location of the body was also deemed relevant under Section 8 of the Act. The court noted: "The basic idea embedded in Section 27 of the Evidence Act is the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events... if any fact is discovered as a search made on the strength of any information obtained from a prisoner, such a discovery is a guarantee that the information supplied by the prisoner is true."

On the Absence of Motive: A crucial aspect of the judgment was the court's stance on the unproven motive. While acknowledging the prosecution's failure to establish why the crime was committed, the court held that it did not weaken the case. Quoting the Supreme Court's decision in Atley Vs. State of U.P. , the bench stated: "...where there is clear evidence that the person has committed the offence, it is immaterial where no motive for commission of the crime has been shown... absence of motive... would not necessarily become fatal provided the other circumstances would complete the chain and connect the accused with the commission of the offence..."

Final Verdict

The High Court concluded that the prosecution had successfully established an unbroken chain of circumstances pointing unequivocally to the guilt of the appellants. The cumulative evidence—including the last seen theory, recovery of incriminating articles, forensic reports, and the conduct of the accused—left no room for any hypothesis other than their involvement in the crime.

Dismissing the appeals, the court upheld the trial court's judgment and directed the appellants, if on bail, to surrender within four weeks to serve their life sentences.