Supreme Court Acquits Ashoksinh Jayendrasinh in Murder Case Due to Lack of Evidence

The case of Ashoksinh Jayendrasinh vs. The State of Gujarat revolved around a conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC and an attempt to murder charge under Section 307 IPC. The Supreme Court had to determine whether the prosecution had established the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, especially considering conflicting witness statements and forensic evidence.

Background of the Case

On November 23, 1997, an incident occurred in the village of Dhemda, Gujarat, involving a land dispute. The complainant, Somabhai Rupabhai, had filed a civil suit against the appellant, Ashoksinh Jayendrasinh, regarding the usage of a road on disputed land. On the day of the incident, the appellant and other co-accused were allegedly ploughing the land when the complainant’s family intervened. An altercation ensued, and gunshots were fired, resulting in the death of Somiben and injuries to Ramanbhai and Nandaben.

The FIR was lodged on November 24, 1997, charging the accused under multiple sections, including 302, 307, 120B IPC, and Section 25(c) of the Arms Act. The trial court convicted Ashoksinh Jayendrasinh and another accused while acquitting others. The Gujarat High Court upheld the conviction, prompting an appeal to the Supreme Court.

Key Legal Issues

• Was there sufficient evidence to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt?
• Did the witnesses properly identify the accused given the lighting conditions at the crime scene?
• Did the forensic evidence conclusively link the weapon to the crime?

Arguments Presented

Petitioner (Ashoksinh Jayendrasinh)

• The incident occurred at night in an agricultural field, and no clear evidence indicated the presence of sufficient lighting.
• The eyewitness statements were inconsistent regarding who fired the fatal shots.
• The ballistic report did not conclusively link the bullets retrieved from the victim’s body to the appellant’s weapon.
• Key panch witnesses (PW-12 and PW-13) did not support the prosecution’s claim of weapon recovery.

Respondent (State of Gujarat)

• The prosecution presented four eyewitnesses, including the injured victims, who identified the appellant as the shooter.
• The medical and forensic evidence indicated that a firearm was used, and the appellant possessed a rifle.
• The trial court and High Court correctly relied on witness testimonies to convict the appellant.

Supreme Court’s Observations

1. Lack of Proper Identification

The Court noted that the crime scene was in an agricultural field at night, and there was no mention of any light source in the panchnama. Witnesses had conflicting statements regarding how they identified the accused.

2. Contradictions in Eyewitness Statements

While the complainant initially stated that both accused fired shots, later testimony suggested that only one accused fired all three shots. Such contradictions raised serious doubts about the accuracy of the testimonies.

3. Inconclusive Forensic Evidence

The post-mortem report noted puncture wounds but did not specify whether the injuries were caused by a rifle or a double-barrel gun. Additionally, the ballistic expert could not definitively link the recovered weapon to the bullets.

The Court stated:

“In the absence of any definite evidence as to which firearm caused the fatal injury, the same cannot be attributed to the appellant.”

4. Failure to Prove Motive

The prosecution argued that a land dispute was the motive for the crime. However, the Supreme Court observed:

“Motive is a double-edged weapon; its presence adds value to direct evidence, but its absence does not necessarily weaken the case.”

5. Acquittal of Co-Accused

The Court pointed out that the co-accused, Kalusinh, had been acquitted by the High Court due to lack of evidence. Given the similarities in their alleged roles, this raised further doubts regarding the appellant’s conviction.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court concluded:

“The evidence presented by the prosecution does not meet the threshold of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained.”

Accordingly, the Court set aside the conviction and ordered the immediate release of Ashoksinh Jayendrasinh.

Implications of the Judgment

• This case reinforces the principle that an accused must be convicted only when guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt.
• Forensic evidence must be conclusive to link the accused to the crime.
• Eyewitness testimonies must be consistent and corroborated by other evidence.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in this case serves as a crucial reminder that every criminal conviction must be based on reliable, consistent, and legally sound evidence. By acquitting the appellant, the Court reaffirmed the importance of procedural fairness and due process in criminal trials.

Petitioner Name: Ashoksinh Jayendrasinh.
Respondent Name: State of Gujarat.
Judgment By: Justice R. Banumathi, Justice S. Abdul Nazeer.
Place Of Incident: Dhemda, Gujarat.
Judgment Date: 07-05-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Ashoksinh Jayendrasi vs State of Gujarat Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 07-05-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Murder Cases
See all petitions in Attempt to Murder Cases
See all petitions in Judgment by R. Banumathi
See all petitions in Judgment by S. Abdul Nazeer
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments May 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category