Prolonged Pre-Trial Detention and Right to Liberty Cannot Be Ignored” - Punjab & Haryana High Court Emphasizes Bail as the Rule Taxation Law | Andhra Pradesh High Court Rules Hotel’s Expenditures on Carpets, Mattresses, and Lampshades are Deductible as Current Expenditures Orissa High Court Upholds Disengagement of Teacher for Unauthorized Absence and Suppression of Facts In Disciplined Forces, Transfers are an Administrative Necessity; Judicial Interference is Limited to Cases of Proven Mala Fide: Patna High Court Act Of Judge, When Free From Oblique Motive, Cannot Be Questioned: Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes Disciplinary Proceedings Against Additional Collector Registration Act | False Statements in Conveyance Documents Qualify for Prosecution Under Registration Act: Kerala High Court When Junior is Promoted, Senior’s Case Cannot be Deferred Unjustly: Karnataka High Court in Sealed Cover Promotion Dispute Medical Training Standards Cannot Be Lowered, Even for Disability’ in MBBS Admission Case: Delhi HC Suspicion, However Strong It May Be, Cannot Take Place Of Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Acquittal No Detention Order Can Rely on Grounds Already Quashed: High Court Sets Precedent on Preventive Detention Limits Tenant's Claims of Hardship and Landlord's Alternate Accommodations Insufficient to Prevent Eviction: Allahabad HC Further Custodial Detention May Not Be Necessary: Calcutta High Court Grants Bail in Murder Case Citing Lack of Specific Evidence High Court, As A Constitutional Court Of Record, Possesses The Inherent Power To Correct Its Own Record: Bombay High Court A Fresh Section 11 Arbitration Petition Without Liberty Granted at the Time of Withdrawal is Not Maintainable: Supreme Court; Principles of Order 23 CPC Applied Adult Sexual Predators Ought Not To Be Dealt With Leniency Or Extended Misplaced Sympathy: Sikkim High Court Retired Employee Entitled to Interest on Delayed Leave Encashment Despite Absence of Statutory Provision: Delhi HC Punjab and Haryana High Court Grants Full Disability Pension and Service Element for Life to Army Veteran Taxation Law | Director Must Be Given Notice to Prove Lack of Negligence: Telangana High Court Quashes Order Against Director in Tax Recovery Case High Court of Uttarakhand Acquits Defendants in High-Profile Murder Case, Cites Lack of Evidence In Cases of Financial Distress, Imposing A Mandatory Deposit Under Negotiable Instruments Act May Jeopardize Appellant’s Right To Appeal: Rajasthan High Court Patna High Court Acquits Accused, Questions “Capacity of Victim to Make Coherent Statement” with 100% Burn Injuries High Court of Himachal Pradesh Dismisses Bail Plea in ₹200 Crore Scholarship Scam: Rajdeep Singh Case Execution of Conveyance Ends Arbitration Clause; Appeal for Arbitration Rejected: Bombay High Court

Inconsistencies in Witness Testimonies Cannot Sustain Conviction: Gujarat High Court Upholds Acquittal in 1993 Murder Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Gujarat High Court has upheld the acquittal of Dipakbhai Nanubhai Patel in a murder case dating back to 1993, rejecting the State's appeal against the trial court’s decision. The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justices Aniruddha P. Mayee and Divyesh A. Joshi, emphasized the inconsistencies in witness testimonies and the lack of credible medical evidence, reinforcing the principle that an acquittal should not be overturned unless there is substantial and compelling evidence to do so.

The case revolved around the alleged murder of Bhikhabhai, who was attacked with a hockey stick on the night of April 3, 1993, while returning from a condolence meeting. The prosecution claimed that the accused, Dipakbhai Nanubhai Patel, was the perpetrator. Following the attack, Bhikhabhai was hospitalized and eventually succumbed to his injuries on April 16, 1993. Despite witness statements and the recovery of the alleged weapon, the trial court acquitted Dipakbhai due to insufficient evidence, leading the State to file an appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The court highlighted significant discrepancies in the witness statements. The complainant, Naginbhai Govindbhai, who was also the deceased’s nephew, initially claimed to have witnessed the attack but admitted during cross-examination that he had not disclosed this information earlier. The court noted, "The complainant’s statements before the trial court were marked by contradictions and improvements over his initial complaint, diminishing their reliability."

The court examined the medical evidence and the purported dying declaration of the deceased. Justice Mayee observed, "The statement of the deceased recorded by the investigating officer was not substantiated with proof that the deceased was in a conscious state at the time of giving the statement. Furthermore, the autopsy report indicated the cause of death as a brain infection, which could also result from a fall." The court concurred with the trial court’s assessment that the dying declaration lacked the necessary evidentiary weight.

The prosecution’s case also relied on the recovery of the hockey stick, allegedly used in the crime. However, the court found this evidence unconvincing, noting that the recovered stick did not have any blood stains or other corroborative material linking it to the crime.

The judgment reiterated the principle that in criminal appeals against acquittal, the presumption of innocence is reinforced, and the appellate court should be cautious in reversing such decisions unless there is clear evidence of a miscarriage of justice. "The golden thread in criminal jurisprudence is that if two views are possible, the one favoring the accused should be adopted," the bench stated, referencing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Allahrakha K. Mansuri vs. State of Gujarat.

Justice Mayee remarked, "The contradictions in the complainant’s testimony and the unsubstantiated medical evidence fail to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt."

Conclusion: The Gujarat High Court’s decision to uphold the acquittal underscores the judiciary’s commitment to the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty.' The judgment highlights the importance of consistent and corroborated evidence in securing a conviction. This ruling serves as a critical reminder of the stringent standards required for overturning an acquittal and is expected to influence future judicial assessments in similar cases.

 

Date of Decision: 27 May 2024

State of Gujarat vs. Dipakbhai Nanubhai Patel

Similar News