Gujarat High Court Frees Three Convicts in Gangrape and Murder Case
The Gujarat High Court has acquitted three men previously convicted for the gangrape and murder of a married woman. This decision came after the court found critical flaws in the prosecution's case, including a significant delay in handling DNA evidence.
Court Cites DNA Sample Delay as Key Issue
A bench comprising Justices Ilesh J Vora and R T Vachhani delivered the verdict. They highlighted that DNA samples from both the victim and the accused remained at a police station for approximately 14 days. The prosecution failed to provide any explanation for this delay or details about how the samples were preserved during that period.
The court emphasized that proper protocols for maintaining the chain of custody were breached. This raised serious doubts about the accuracy and integrity of the DNA profiling report presented as evidence.
Suspicion Cannot Replace Proof, Says Court
In its ruling, the bench firmly stated that a strong suspicion cannot substitute for concrete proof in criminal cases. The judgment read, "There is indeed a long distance between the accused may have committed the offence and must have committed the offence." The prosecution must bridge this gap with reliable and cogent evidence, which the court found lacking here.
Multiple Evidentiary Gaps Led to Acquittal
The High Court identified several weaknesses in the case presented by the prosecution:
- The "last seen" theory used by the trial court was dismissed. The court found no proof that the accused were at the crime scene or that they kidnapped the victim.
- An extrajudicial confession by one accused to a witness was deemed unreliable. The court questioned whether it was voluntary, true, and credible, noting it was a "one line confession" without details of how or where the crime occurred.
- The circumstantial evidence chain was incomplete. The court stressed that each link in such a chain must be firmly proven, which did not happen in this instance.
Defense Arguments and Prosecution Response
Advocates for the accused, including Ramnandan Singh and Bhavik Samani, argued that the trial court's conviction relied solely on circumstantial evidence without any eyewitnesses. They contended that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of events linking their clients to the crime.
Additional Public Prosecutor J K Shah opposed the appeals, maintaining that the trial court had correctly found the accused guilty. Shah argued there was no motive for the police to falsely implicate the accused in such a serious case.
Court Orders Immediate Release
Ultimately, the High Court concluded that the state failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. The bench directed the immediate release of the three accused, who were in jail serving sentences that included death penalty and rigorous imprisonment as awarded by the trial court.
This case underscores the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence: an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Despite the grave nature of the offences alleged, the court upheld this principle due to evidentiary shortcomings.
