Gujarat HC Upholds Acquittal Of Five, Saying An Eight-Minute Shop Meeting And CDRs Failed To Prove Murder Conspiracy

The prosecution alleged that Bhaumik, the deceased, had business and financial dealings with the accused.

After he went missing, his car was found abandoned with bloodstains; his decomposed body was later recovered from an industrial wastewater canal and identified by physical features and tattoos.

The accused were charged with offences under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25(1-B)(a) and 27(2) of the Arms Act.

The Sessions Court acquitted them, finding the prosecution had not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.

The State appealed against that acquittal under Section 419 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The appeal was brought under Section 419 of the BNSS.

The charged offences were under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B of the IPC and Sections 25(1-B)(a) and 27(2) of the Arms Act.

In a case resting on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances relied upon must be proved and form a complete chain pointing to guilt while excluding other reasonable conclusions.

On appeal against acquittal, where two reasonable views are possible, the appellate court should not disturb the trial court’s view; interference is warranted where, among other things, the acquittal is perverse, clearly unreasonable, or based on a material misreading or omission of evidence.

The Court relied on Tulasareddi @ Mudakappa & Anr. v. State of Karnataka & Ors., 2026 INSC 67.

The judgment also noted that a certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act may establish admissibility of electronic footage, but admissibility is distinct from probative value.

The High Court found no proved link connecting the accused to the deceased during the critical period between when he was last seen alive and when the car and body were discovered; the allegation that the accused had called him out and taken him away was unproved.

The footage showed, at most, accused No. 4 at accused No. 1’s business premises on the preceding day. Without evidence of the conversation’s contents, that presence and the associated call-detail evidence did not establish conspiracy.

The Court considered the prosecution’s asserted circumstances—including motive, last-seen evidence and recovery—but concluded that the chain remained incomplete.

It further held that the State had not shown the Sessions Court’s findings to be perverse or demonstrably unsustainable, and that the trial court’s view was a possible one.

It also found no basis to interfere with the acquittal.

The State’s appeal was dismissed, and the Sessions Court’s acquittal was left undisturbed.