High Court Acquits Accused in Double Murder Case, Asserts ‘Suspicion Cannot Replace Proof’

Bench highlights inconsistencies in evidence, emphasizing strict adherence to legal standards for convictions.

The High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital has overturned the convictions of Raju Das, Kundan Das, Guddu, and Bablu in the infamous murder case of Abhijit Pal and Moumita Das. The decision, delivered by a bench comprising Hon’ble Justice Shri Ravindra Maithani and Hon’ble Justice Shri Alok Kumar Verma, highlighted the prosecution’s failure to establish a conclusive chain of circumstantial evidence. The court’s observations focused on the inadmissibility of confessional statements made to police officers and the unreliability of the evidence presented.

The case began on October 31, 2014, when the body of an unknown person was discovered near a road in Purola, Uttarakhand. Sub-Inspector Thakur Singh Rawat initiated the investigation, which later identified the deceased as Abhijit Pal. Abhijit and his friend Moumita Das had gone missing while visiting Dehradun. Subsequent investigations led to the arrest of Raju Das, Kundan Das, Guddu, and Bablu. The prosecution alleged that the accused had murdered Abhijit Pal and Moumita Das after a botched attempt to assault Moumita. The trial court had convicted Raju Das, sentencing him to death, and the other accused to life imprisonment based on circumstantial evidence and confessional statements.

The court reiterated the principle that confessions made to police officers are inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. “A confession made to a police officer is inadmissible not only against the person making it but also against other accused,” the bench stated. The confessional statements in this case lacked independent corroboration, making them unreliable.

The court scrutinized the recoveries made at the behest of the accused and found significant contradictions in the prosecution’s narrative. “Contradictory statements regarding the place and manner of recovery create serious doubts about the credibility of the evidence,” noted the judgment. The absence of independent witnesses during recoveries further weakened the prosecution’s case.

Emphasizing the principle that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof, the court observed, “In a criminal trial, suspicion no matter how strong, cannot and must not be permitted to take place of proof.” The prosecution’s failure to establish a conclusive link between the accused and the crime led to the acquittal.

The judgment highlighted the necessity of a complete chain of circumstantial evidence to sustain a conviction. “The chain of evidence should be complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused,” the court stated. The prosecution’s inability to provide such a chain warranted the acquittal of the accused.

Justice Alok Kumar Verma remarked, “The contradictory statements of the prosecution’s witnesses regarding the recoveries do not inspire confidence. The benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused.”

The acquittal underscores the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the principles of fair trial and the necessity of conclusive evidence for criminal convictions. This judgment serves as a reminder of the high standards required in criminal jurisprudence, ensuring that mere suspicion does not lead to wrongful convictions. The case sets a significant precedent for future criminal cases, emphasizing the importance of reliable and corroborated evidence.

Date of Decision:13th May 2024