Identification Vitiated, Diamonds Not Produced, Last Seen Theory Unreliable: Bombay High Court Acquits Two in 2011 Diamond Courier Murder

"When core links are unproven, conviction in a circumstantial case becomes legally untenable," In a significant judgment Bombay High Court acquitted Naresh Prabhubhai Golani and Dharmesh Vallabhbhai Patel, who had been convicted for the 2011 abduction and murder of a diamond delivery boy, citing fatal gaps in the prosecution’s case built solely on circumstantial evidence. The Division Bench of Justice Manish Pitale and Justice Manjusha Deshpande emphatically held that the trial court’s conviction was based on "perverse findings and unproven circumstances", rendering the conviction unsustainable in law.

The accused had been convicted in 2019 by the Sessions Court, Mumbai, under Sections 302, 364, 120-B, 201, 397 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to life imprisonment. The prosecution had alleged that the accused abducted Hardik Mordiya, a 23-year-old employee of a Surat-based diamond firm, and murdered him for diamonds worth ₹72 lakhs. However, the High Court found glaring deficiencies in evidence, chain of custody, and legal procedure.

“Identification Parade Stands Vitiated Once Police Shows Accused’s Photos Beforehand”

At the heart of the prosecution's case was the test identification parade (TIP) conducted to establish that the accused were last seen with the deceased at Matheran. However, the High Court found the TIP exercise compromised beyond repair.

The Court observed, “Once witnesses admit that the police had shown them photographs of the accused before the TIP, the very purpose of the test identification exercise is lost. The TIP stands vitiated.”

Relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Gireesan Nair v. State of Kerala, the Bench noted that showing photographs to witnesses before a formal identification parade corrodes its evidentiary value, making it inadmissible and unreliable. The prosecution’s reliance on such tainted identification created what the Court called a "foundational defect" in its case.

“No Diamonds Produced in Court, No Motive Proved”

Perhaps the most damning blow to the prosecution’s narrative was its failure to produce the stolen diamonds in court — the alleged motive for the murder. Although the police claimed recovery of diamonds worth ₹72 lakhs from the residence of one accused, no recovery panchnama was presented in court, and no diamonds were ever marked or exhibited.

The Court recorded with dismay, “Despite a written statement by the APP that diamonds were returned to the owner, no application was moved before the Court, and no proof was placed on record to justify non-production.”

Referring to Niranjan Panja v. State of West Bengal, the High Court clarified that recovery and production of stolen property in a murder case involving alleged robbery is not a formality — it is essential. In the absence of this, the prosecution failed to prove either the motive or the link between the accused and the alleged crime.

“CCTV Footage Unusable: Pen Drive Corrupted, Witness Unable to Identify Accused”

The prosecution attempted to rely on CCTV footage from a petrol pump in Matheran to show the presence of the accused with the deceased. However, the pen drive presented in court was found corrupted, and the key witness clearly stated he could not identify the persons in the video.

The Court noted, “When even the investigating witness cannot identify anyone in the footage, and there is no forensic authentication under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, the footage cannot form a reliable circumstance.”

In sum, the so-called electronic evidence collapsed, adding to the weakening chain.

“Last Seen Theory Fails Without Proximity of Time and Death”

A central plank of the prosecution was the “last seen together” theory — that the accused were last seen with the deceased at a resort in Matheran in the early hours of November 18, 2011, while his body was recovered from Panchgani a day later. The High Court found this time gap fatal to the prosecution’s theory, especially since the time of death was never conclusively established by medical evidence.

Rejecting this theory, the Court held, “Unless the time gap between the last seen and death is narrow and unambiguous, and unless medical opinion corroborates it, no inference of guilt can arise. That is clearly absent here.”

Moreover, the Court noted that some witnesses allegedly identifying the accused in Matheran had previously seen their photographs shown by police — thus the identification was “vitiated and wholly unsafe to rely upon.”

“Bloodstains in Vehicle Cannot Be Relied Upon Without Sealing and Chain of Custody”

The prosecution had also claimed recovery of bloodstains from the accused’s vehicle, a silver Indica car. However, the Court pointed out that the door of the vehicle was never sealed, and there was no evidence showing continuous custody or proper forensic handling.

The Bench stated, “Bloodstains in a vehicle cannot be treated as incriminating unless the vehicle’s custody is shown to be exclusive, sealed, and protected from contamination. Here, the gaps are too wide to ignore.”

“Weapon Recovery From Public Places Weakens Inference of Guilt”

The Court also rejected the recovery of alleged murder weapons — a knife, nylon rope, and belt — as irrelevant since they were retrieved from open and accessible areas such as bushes and a spot behind a decorator’s shop.

Relying on Jaikam Khan v. State of U.P., the Court remarked, “Recoveries from public places devoid of exclusive knowledge offer no evidentiary weight in a circumstantial case unless tightly linked with other proven facts.”

“Medical Evidence Does Not Support Time of Death or Manner of Murder”

Interestingly, the trial court had presumed that death occurred around the same time the accused were allegedly last seen with the deceased. However, the High Court found no such opinion by the medical officer.

The Bench underlined, “The trial court committed a clear error by concluding time of death based on an assumption, not medical evidence. This undermines the very basis of the ‘last seen’ theory.”

 “Benefit of Doubt Is Not a Weak Surrender to Guilt, But a Constitutional Mandate”

In powerful closing words, the High Court reaffirmed the principle that suspicion, however grave, can never take the place of proof.

Quoting settled law, the Court concluded, “When the links in the chain of circumstances are missing, or the chain is broken, or one or more circumstances are not conclusively proved, the only result is acquittal. The benefit of doubt is not a concession — it is a constitutional right.”

The appeals were accordingly allowed, and the accused were directed to be released forthwith, subject to furnishing bonds under Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Date of Decision: December 15, 2025