Presumption of Innocence Must Be Respected, But Not When Findings Are Pervasive: Gujrat High Court

In a significant ruling on October 18, 2024, the Gujarat High Court partially overturned an acquittal in a decades-old family feud that resulted in murder. In State of Gujarat v. Govindbhai Nathubhai Boria & Others, the court convicted three respondents—previously acquitted by the trial court—for culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), downgrading the charges from murder due to lack of premeditated intent. The bench, comprising Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Pranav Trivedi, emphasized the high evidentiary value of injured eyewitness testimony and the role of corroborating medical evidence in reversing the acquittal of three accused. However, the court confirmed the acquittal of another respondent due to insufficient evidence.

The case originated from an altercation on March 7, 1994, between two families in Surat. The altercation was reportedly fueled by longstanding animosity, allegations of an illicit relationship, and a loud music dispute during a nearby wedding celebration. The confrontation quickly escalated, resulting in the fatal stabbing of Kanubhai Babariya, the complainant's brother. Multiple accused, allegedly armed with knives, swords, and hockey sticks, participated in the attack, while the complainant, Pravinbhai Babariya (also injured in the incident), lodged an FIR naming several family members of the accused as assailants.

The Sessions Court in Surat acquitted all the accused in 1996, citing inconsistencies in the prosecution's evidence and witness testimonies. The State of Gujarat appealed the acquittal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

The Gujarat High Court meticulously reviewed the trial court’s reasoning and evaluated whether it erred in dismissing crucial testimonies and evidence.

Credibility of Injured Witness Testimony:

The complainant, Pravinbhai, who was also injured during the incident, provided a detailed and consistent account of the assault. His version was corroborated by another independent eyewitness and medical records.

The High Court noted, "The testimony of an injured witness holds great evidentiary value and should not be lightly discarded unless compelling reasons exist." The trial court's dismissal of this testimony on grounds of minor contradictions was deemed "perverse" by the appellate court, which emphasized that minor discrepancies do not overshadow the core of the injured witness’s account.

Standard for Overturning Acquittals:

Under Section 378 of the CrPC, an appellate court can only overturn an acquittal if the trial court’s findings are manifestly perverse or based on a misapprehension of evidence.

Justice Trivedi observed that while the presumption of innocence is a foundational principle, it should not be a shield for findings that disregard key evidence. "Where the trial court fails to consider admissible evidence and reaches a conclusion that no reasonable tribunal would, intervention is justified," the court noted.

Analysis of Common Intention and Assembly Charges:

The court found that the prosecution had not sufficiently proven a common object among all the accused to murder the deceased. While a mob had gathered with weapons, the High Court observed that the violence likely resulted from an emotionally charged confrontation rather than premeditated intent to kill.

Consequently, the court modified the conviction for accused nos. 5, 6, and 10 from murder under Section 302 IPC to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II, IPC, which accounts for lack of premeditated intent.

Acquittal of Accused No. 3 Upheld Due to Lack of Evidence:

Allegations against accused no. 3 involved verbal abuse but no active participation in the physical assault. The High Court agreed with the trial court’s decision to acquit him, citing insufficient evidence to implicate him in the fatal altercation.

"Minor Contradictions Should Not Discredit Eyewitness Testimony": High Court Emphasizes Value of Consistent Accounts

The High Court strongly critiqued the trial court’s treatment of minor inconsistencies in the injured witness’s account. Justice Trivedi highlighted that contradictions regarding peripheral details, such as the sequence of fleeing or minor details about clothing, do not diminish the overall credibility of an injured witness’s account, especially when corroborated by medical evidence.

"Minor contradictions do not undermine the core of the testimony when the injured witness provides a consistent account of the incident and is corroborated by independent evidence," noted the court.

Based on its findings, the Gujarat High Court delivered the following rulings:

Conviction of Accused Nos. 5, 6, and 10: The acquittal of these respondents was overturned, and they were convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC. However, considering the 30-year gap since the incident and that the offense was deemed a result of a spontaneous altercation, the court limited their sentences to the period of incarceration already served.

Acquittal of Accused No. 3 Confirmed: Due to lack of substantive evidence linking accused no. 3 to the assault beyond verbal abuse, the court upheld his acquittal.

Observations on Trial Court's Errors: The High Court pointed out several flaws in the trial court’s approach, particularly its failure to properly assess the credibility of eyewitness testimony and misinterpretation of minor contradictions as grounds for dismissal of key evidence.

"The trial court’s findings were perverse in ignoring admissible evidence and dismissing eyewitness testimonies without valid grounds," the High Court remarked.

Importance of Ocular and Medical Evidence in Criminal Trials

The judgment underscores the Gujarat High Court’s stance on the probative value of eyewitness testimony, particularly from injured witnesses, and its significance in establishing the sequence of events. The court reiterated that unless compelling evidence exists to counter their accounts, injured witnesses' statements should be given high evidentiary weight. The court’s decision aligns with precedent set by the Supreme Court in cases like Akthar & Ors. v. State of Uttarakhand and State of M.P. v. Mansingh & Ors., which affirm that injured witness testimony, corroborated by medical records, should not be lightly dismissed.

This decision represents a careful balance between respecting the presumption of innocence in acquittal appeals and ensuring justice in cases where trial courts disregard substantial evidence. The Gujarat High Court’s ruling underscores that while appellate courts should be cautious in overturning acquittals, they must intervene where findings are clearly unsustainable.

Date of Decision: October 18, 2024

State of Gujarat v. Govindbhai Nathubhai Boria & Others