Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Death Penalty Imposed In Alleged Honour Killing Case Citing 'Slipshod' Probe
The Gujarat High Court set aside the death penalty of a man convicted and sentenced by the trial court for the alleged honour killing of his own brother and sister-in-law, noting that the prosecution could not prove the case satisfactorily and the investigation was done in a "slipshod" manner.
As per the complaint, on the night of 04.08.2017 the complainant, his brother and his sister-in-law were attacked by five masked men, two of whom were armed with swords. The brother and sister-in-law were drugged and were rendered unconscious. It was alleged that one of the accused inflicted a sword blow on the complainant's left wrist, drugged him after which he became unconscious.
When he woke up, the complainant found himself locked inside the bathroom. When he got out of the bathroom, the complainant found his brother and sister-in-law lying dead in a pool of blood. Subsequently the complainant was booked as an accused and an FIR was lodged under various provisions including Section 302 IPC. The trial court in 2022 found him guilty and awarded capital punishment.
The accused argued that the deceased were distant relatives who got married. It was argued that the sister-in-law even filed a complaint fearing her life from her own family members; however the prosecution deliberately ignored this incriminating aspect.
The accused said that there was potential threat to the couple, which allegedly followed their honour killing. He however argued that he did not commit the offence. He argued that he is 22-years-old and is "far away from doing such honour killing alone", as alleged by prosecution. On the honour killing aspect, the State however argued that the trial court's view was just and proper.
With respect to the alleged motive alluded to the accused, a division bench of Justice Ilesh Vora and Justice PM Raval observed that the families of the deceased couple were not happy with their marriage and there were allegations made from both the sides.
"Thus, when two views are possible, the view benefiting the accused ought to have been adopted.The investigating officer has deposed and has admitted in his cross examination that the maternal side of Twinkle were not happy with the marriage with Vicky however on his own volition states that families from both the side were not happy. He has also admitted that cross applications against each other were also preferred in police station. Thus, the motive is also not proved beyond reasonable doubt"
On the prosecution's claim that the accused had committed the crime and had then locked himself inside the bathroom using a thread to close the door, the court said that the same could not be proved.
The court also said that the accused's contention that he sustained injury by unknown assailants cannot be ruled out, taking note of the testimony of the doctor who treated the accused.
"It is also required to be noted that the Investigating Officer has admitted in cross examination that FSL officer has not taken any finger print or foot prints from the place of offence. He also admits that he had taken help of Local Crime Branch (LCB) for investigation of the offence and on the basis of interrogation by LCB the present Investigation Officer had proceeded with further investigation but has not placed on record the details of such interrogation and that after such interrogation Vipul was shown as accused in the present case. This aspect reflects the slipshod manner of investigation carried out in the present case," the court observed.
The court said that the recovery of bloodstained weapons would be of no consequence when recovery or discovery/discovery made at the instance of the accused is not proved.
"It is the duty of the prosecution to prove each link satisfactorily by cogent admissible evidence and such each link collectively should point the finger of guilt towards the accused only, which in the present case as stated herein above is missing...It is also required to be noted that the chemical analysis report with regard to any poison etc. being administered by accused to both the deceased, which is placed on record vide Exh. 151, is negative. This aspect also goes in favour of the accused," the court said.
The court noted that the accused's mother (who was also the mother of the deceased brother) did not support the prosecution's case.
It further said that as per the witness statements of the sister-in-law's (Twinkleben) family, she had given an application before the police against her family, which also proved that the "maternal side of the deceased Twinkle were also at loggerheads with Twinkle as well as Vicky(deceased brother)".
The bench observed that as per evidence two knives were recovered from a heap of dried tobacco waste in an open field near the plot where the incident occurred. The court noted that the panchnama of the scene of crime was prepared while the accused was neither formally arrested nor treated as a suspect.
"Therefore, the recovery of weapons cannot be said to have been made at the instance of the accused. The recovery appears to have occurred merely in the course of preparing the panchnama of the scene of offence. There is no admissible evidence linking the recovery of the knives with any disclosure made by the accused under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act," the bench observed.
Acquitting the accused the court said, "The Appellant-Accused is ordered to be acquitted of all charges framed against him and be released released forthwith if not required in any other case".
The court thus allowed the appellant's appeal and dismissed the petition for confirmation of death penalty.
Case title: STATE OF GUJARAT v/s VIPULBHAI BHARATBHAI BIN CHHAPPANBHAI PATANI
CRIMINAL CONFIRMATION CASE NO. 1 of 2022
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 588 of 2022 (By Accused)