Bombay High Court Dismisses Appeals Against Acquittal In Sohrabuddin Shaikh Encounter Case; Says Prosecution Failed To Prove Conspiracy

"A judgment of acquittal cannot be interfered in a casual or cavalier manner and it is not permissible in law to overturn the judgment only on the ground that another view is possible." Bombay High Court, in a latest judgment, dismissed the criminal appeals challenging the acquittal of 22 accused persons in the Sohrabuddin Shaikh, Kausar Bi, and Tulsiram Prajapati encounter cases.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam A. Ankhad held that the prosecution failed to establish a "politician-police nexus" or an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence to prove the alleged fake encounters. The Court observed that the trial judge’s findings were not perverse and that the presumption of innocence is significantly strengthened following an acquittal.

The appeals were filed by Rubabuddin Shaikh and Nayamuddin Shaikh, brothers of Sohrabuddin Shaikh, challenging a 2018 judgment by a Special CBI Court in Mumbai which acquitted several police officers and a civilian. The case, which originated in Gujarat in 2005, involved the alleged abduction and killing of Sohrabuddin and his wife Kausar Bi, followed by the death of Tulsiram Prajapati in 2006. The investigation was eventually transferred to the CBI, and the trial was relocated from Ahmedabad to Mumbai by the Supreme Court to ensure a fair trial.

The primary question before the court was whether the trial court’s judgment of acquittal was perverse or based on an impossible view of the evidence. The court was also called upon to determine if the prosecution had established the existence of a criminal conspiracy and a complete chain of circumstances. Furthermore, the bench examined whether the protection of Section 197 of the CrPC was applicable to the accused public servants.

High Threshold To Revert Acquittals

The Court emphasized the limited scope of appellate interference with a judgment of acquittal. It noted that the presumption of innocence, which is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence, gets "concretized" when a trial ends in acquittal. To overturn such a judgment, a much higher threshold is required to prove manifest illegality or grave miscarriage of justice.

Court Reinforces Presumption Of Innocence After Acquittal

The Bench observed that if two views are possible based on the evidence, the appellate court must follow the view that favors the accused. It held that the "two-views theory" is judicially recognized and reinforces the principle that any reasonable doubt must result in a benefit to the defendant. The judges noted that the trial court’s view was a "fairly possible view" based on the record.

Failure To Prove Criminal Conspiracy

While dealing with the charge of conspiracy under the IPC, the Court noted that mere intention or transmission of thought is insufficient. It held that the prosecution failed to provide evidence of an agreement between the respondents to commit an unlawful act. Citing precedents like Saju v. State of Kerala, the Court reiterated that the onus lies on the prosecution to prove the accused was directly and personally connected to the crime.

"Prosecution Failed To Prove Physical Manifestation Of Agreement"

The Bench further observed that there was no "iota of evidence" to prove that any politician was involved in the conspiracy or that a politician-police nexus existed. The Court found that the theory of a larger conspiracy connecting the three deaths was not supported by reliable evidence, as the testimonies of key witnesses were either hearsay or contradicted by medical reports.

Witness Hostility And Hearsay Evidence

The Court took note of the fact that 92 prosecution witnesses turned hostile during the trial. It observed that the testimony of these witnesses did not support the prosecution's story of abduction from a luxury bus or the subsequent killings. The Bench held that the prosecution could not rely on statements recorded under Section 161 or 164 of the CrPC as substantive evidence once the witnesses resiled in court.

"Hostile Testimony Cannot Be Used To Fill Gaps In Prosecution Case"

The Court noted that even if a witness is declared hostile, the portion of their evidence consistent with the prosecution's case can be relied upon, but here, the witnesses denied making any statements to the police altogether. The Bench found that most of the material evidence was based on hearsay, which is generally inadmissible and cannot form the basis for a conviction in a case of this magnitude.

Broken Chain Of Circumstances

In cases based on circumstantial evidence, the Court reminded that every link in the chain must be established beyond reasonable doubt. In the present case, the Bench found several "broken links," particularly regarding the abduction from the bus and the use of specific weapons. The Court noted that the ballistic experts were not used to match seized cartridges with the service revolvers of the accused.

"Chain Of Circumstances Must Rule Out Every Hypothesis Of Innocence"

Citing the landmark Hanumant v. State of M.P., the Court held that the circumstances must point only to the guilt of the accused. The Bench found no direct evidence linking the accused to the place of occurrence or proving their presence at the alleged encounter sites. The tampering of mess registers at the police academy further weakened the prosecution's attempt to place the accused at the scene.

Mandatory Sanction Under Section 197 CrPC

The Bench upheld the trial court's finding that the accused police officers were acting in the discharge of their official duties. Consequently, a previous sanction from the government under Section 197 of the CrPC was a sine qua non for their prosecution. The Court noted that even if the officers acted in excess of their duty, the protection of the statute applies if there is a reasonable nexus between the act and the official duty.

"Sanction Is A Condition Precedent For Prosecuting Public Servants"

Following the principles laid down in D.T. Virupakshappa v. C. Subhash, the Court held that the Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the offence without the requisite sanction. The Bench observed that the acts complained of were integrally connected to the performance of the official duties of the police personnel, thus making the bar of Section 197 CrPC applicable at the threshold.

Dismissal Of Impleadment Application Against Amit Shah

The Court also addressed an interim application filed by a third party seeking to challenge the 2014 discharge of Amit Shah (A-16). The Bench dismissed the application, observing it was filed with "oblique motives" and at the instance of "political adversaries." The Court noted that the discharge order had already attained finality and the applicant had no standing in the current appeals.

The High Court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the foundation of its case, including the abduction and the fake nature of the encounters. Finding no perversity in the trial court's judgment, the Bench dismissed the appeals and affirmed the acquittals.

Date of Decision: 07 May 2026