Facts
The Appellants were convicted by the Trial Court for the murder [Section 302/34 IPC], kidnapping [Section 364 IPC], and destruction of evidence [Section 201 IPC] of two victims, Rakesh and Amitchand
Source reference: p.1-2The prosecution alleged that following a series of altercations between Accused Nos. 1 & 2 and a shop owner (PW-24) on December 28–29, 2012, the accused intercepted the victims (employees of PW-24) on the night of December 30, assaulted them in a shop block (gala), and later slit their throats near a railway track.
Source reference: p.6-7, 9-10The police discovered the bodies on December 31.
Source reference: p.8The conviction relied on circumstantial evidence: the accused’s blood-stained clothes, the recovery of the victims' mobile phones and weapons from Accused No. 1’s shop, and the recovery of a scooter at the instance of Accused No. 4.
Source reference: p.15-26The Appellants challenged the conviction, citing lack of motive and fabricated recovery evidence.
Source reference: p.35-37Issues
1. Whether the prosecution established a complete chain of circumstantial evidence pointing unerringly to the guilt of the accused
Source reference: p.40, 482. Whether the recoveries made under Section 27 of the Evidence Act were legally sustainable and believable given the timeline of police custody
Source reference: para. 38, 413. Whether the presence of blood on the clothes of the accused was incriminating in light of their own prior injuries
Source reference: para. 37Law Applied
The court applied the settled law on circumstantial evidence, which requires that the chain of circumstances must be so complete as to leave no reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused.
Source reference: p.48Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, regarding the admissibility of information leading to discovery, noting that only the portion leading to a fact is admissible, and subsequent "recoveries" from open or accessible areas are weak evidence.
Source reference: p.47Section 34 of the IPC regarding common intention and relevant sections of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Source reference: p.2Reasoning
The High Court found the Trial Court's reasoning relied on "conjectures and surmises".
Source reference: p.41The court noted a total lack of motive, as the prior quarrels involved PW-24, not the deceased victims.
Source reference: p.41The "recovery" of mobile phones from the accused’s shop was deemed "unbelievable" because the accused were in police custody when the shop was allegedly locked and the keys hidden; this was confirmed by CDR data showing an incoming call was received on a victim's phone at 7:19 a.m. while the accused was already in custody.
Source reference: p.42-44The blood-stained clothes were not incriminating because the accused had sustained their own bleeding injuries in a previous documented fight (NCs filed), and the CA report failed to determine the blood group.
Source reference: p.42The court criticized the Trial Court for improperly relying on the inadmissible confessional portions of Section 27 statements.
Source reference: p.47Holding
The court held that the prosecution failed to prove any incriminating circumstance beyond reasonable doubt and failed to complete the chain of circumstantial evidence.
The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment dated August 8, 2023, and all Appellants were acquitted of all charges with orders for release and execution of P.R. bonds under Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Source reference: p.48-49Original Court PDF
Balvindersingh Balvirsingh Rathod And Ors.vsState Of Maharashtra And Ors.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in