Temple Caretaker Murder Acquittal Stands: Gujarat HC Finds Witness Who Slept Beside Accused Unreliable, Evidence Chain Incomplete

The State appealed under Section 378 CrPC from the trial court’s acquittal of the respondent for offences under Sections 302 and 397 IPC and Section 135 of the B.P. Act.

The prosecution alleged that the respondent entered a temple at night, killed the deceased with a sickle, and took money from the donation box.

The case rested on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution relied principally on testimony that the respondent had been at the temple that night, his apprehension with money, the recovery of a sickle from an open area, and blood found on clothing and the weapon.

The trial court acquitted the respondent, finding the evidence insufficient to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.

Whether the trial court’s acquittal was perverse or otherwise warranted interference in the State’s appeal under Section 378 CrPC.

Whether the circumstantial evidence established a complete chain proving beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent committed the offences charged.

Section 378 CrPC permits an appellate court to review and reappreciate evidence in an appeal against acquittal, but the acquittal reinforces the presumption of innocence; where two reasonable views are possible, the appellate court must not substitute its view for the trial court’s.

For a conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must be fully established, consistent only with guilt, conclusive, exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, and form a complete chain pointing to the accused.

The Court also considered Section 27 of the Evidence Act in assessing the alleged weapon recovery and the charged offences under Sections 302 and 397 IPC and Section 135 of the B.P. Act.

The Court found that the temple witness’s account did not reliably connect the respondent to the crime: although he claimed to have known the respondent and slept beside him, he did not witness the attack and his conduct and subsequent account were found untrustworthy.

The sickle was recovered from an open, publicly accessible place and the Court did not treat the recovery as a disclosure-based recovery under Section 27.

The blood evidence was inconclusive because the deceased’s blood group was not determined and the respondent’s blood sample was not tested; the presence of Group B blood on the weapon and clothing therefore did not establish that it was the deceased’s blood.

Taken together, the evidence did not complete the circumstantial chain or exclude reasonable hypotheses consistent with innocence; the trial court’s view was therefore a possible one and not perverse.

The State’s appeal was dismissed, and the trial court’s acquittal of the respondent under Sections 302 and 397 IPC and Section 135 of the B.P. Act was confirmed.