-
by sayum
07 January 2026 6:27 AM
In a stinging rebuke regarding the quality of police investigation in capital offenses, the Bombay High Court has overturned the life sentences of three men convicted for the 2012 gang rape and murder of a 19-year-old woman. The Division Bench, comprising Justice Suman Shyam and Justice Shyam C. Chandak, acquitted Lakhya Sargar, Anuj Pawar, and Dadaso Athawale, holding that the prosecution failed to forge a complete chain of circumstantial evidence.
The Court’s judgment highlights a critical failure in the investigative machinery, noting that the "mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is quite large," and in this case, the prosecution failed to bridge that gap.
The "Stoic Silence" of the Last Seen Witness
The prosecution's case leaned heavily on the "last seen together" theory, primarily supported by a witness (PW-8) who claimed to have seen the victim with the accused at a bus stand shortly before her disappearance. However, the High Court found this testimony deeply flawed and legally unsustainable.
The Bench observed that the witness, despite being the employer and a close acquaintance of the victim’s father, maintained a "stoic and unexplainable silence" for days. He failed to inform the father or the police about sighting the victim with the accused, even while attending her post-death rituals. The Court noted, "The conduct of PW-8 in remaining indifferent and failing to disclose the vital information to PW-11 and the police entirely discredits his version." This unnatural delay rendered the "last seen" circumstance unreliable.
"Miraculous" Recoveries and the Shadow of Planted Evidence
Perhaps the most damaging aspect of the judgment for the prosecution was the Court’s dismantling of the evidence recovery process under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The Investigating Officer claimed to have recovered incriminating articles—including used condoms and the victim's clothes—at the instance of Accused No. 1.
The Court pointed out a glaring impossibility: the police had thoroughly searched the exact spot (100 meters from the crime scene) on October 17th and found nothing. Yet, two days later, after the arrest of the accused, the same spot yielded multiple pieces of crucial evidence.
Justice Chandak, writing for the Bench, questioned this convenient discovery: "One is compelled to pose a question as to why despite such a thorough search, [the Officer] had failed to notice the allegedly recovered articles lying at the spot?" The judgment went further, suggesting malfeasance: "Possibility of planting witnesses by the police so as to stage manage the prosecution story cannot be ruled out in this case."
Tampered Registers and "Inconclusive" DNA
The credibility of the investigation was further eroded by physical evidence of tampering. The Court noted that the Muddemal (property) register entries appeared to have been altered with whitener to manipulate the dates of when seized items were deposited. "The possibility of manipulation of record cannot be completely ruled out," the Bench remarked.
Furthermore, the scientific evidence failed to corroborate the police theory. The DNA analysis of the semen found on the recovered evidence did not match any of the three appellants. It matched only a fourth accused, who had died during the trial. With the forensic link broken and the ocular evidence discredited, the case against the surviving appellants collapsed.
Benefit of Doubt
Invoking the "Panchsheel Test" for circumstantial evidence, the High Court held that the circumstances did not conclusively point to the guilt of the accused. The Bench concluded that where two views are possible, the one favorable to the accused must be adopted.
"The prosecution has failed to prove the chain of circumstances... so as to point towards the only hypothesis that, except the Appellants, no other person has committed rape on the victim," the Court ruled. The conviction and life sentences were quashed, and the appellants were ordered to be released forthwith.
