The Supreme Court docket has held that fleeing from the spot after witnessing a pal drown and failing to tell the deceased’s household, although “reprehensible” conduct, can’t by itself be handled as an incriminating circumstance to ascertain homicide.
A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Ok. Vinod Chandran acquitted two people who had been convicted over the loss of life of a deceased who by accident died by drowning in a river. Apart from the appellants, there was no eyewitness to the incident; nobody noticed the Appellants final time with the deceased.
Nevertheless, the prosecution emphasised the post-incident conduct of the Appellants, as they fled away from the place of the incident to look at a film and did not report the incident to the deceased’s household promptly. The prosecution attributed such conduct of the appellants to be incriminating materials towards them.
The case arose from the loss of life of the sufferer, who was taken from his dwelling within the early hours of July 17, 2006, purportedly to go to Ankleshwar to play volleyball. He didn’t return dwelling that night. His garments and belongings had been later discovered on the financial institution of a river, and his physique was recovered the next morning. The autopsy examination attributed the loss of life to cardio-respiratory arrest brought on by drowning.
The prosecution alleged that the 2 accused had murdered their pal and tried to hide the crime. The trial court docket convicted them below Sections 302, 34 and 201 learn with Part 120B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to life imprisonment for homicide, moreover extra jail phrases for conspiracy and inflicting disappearance of proof. The Excessive Court docket later confirmed the convictions
Setting apart the competition, the judgment authored by Justice Chandran discovered the appellants’ conduct to be a possible human conduct; furthermore, the autopsy report didn’t counsel a homicidal loss of life, moderately confirmed a loss of life brought on by ‘Asphyxia’ resulting from drowning.
“The silence of the accused and their having not knowledgeable the relations of the deceased, can’t be an incriminating circumstance since that was a possible conduct, even when there was an accident of drowning…As for homicidal loss of life, there was nothing popping out from the autopsy report and the testimony of the Physician, PW-1, in proof of murder.”, the Court docket noticed.
The Supreme Court docket discovered that the medical proof didn’t set up that the loss of life was homicidal. The sufferer had suffered three accidents, however the physician had said that they may have been induced whereas bathing within the river or when the physique was dragged by the move of water and struck a tough object. The Court docket famous that there was no dependable proof displaying that the sufferer had been struck on the top, rendered unconscious and intentionally drowned.
The Court docket additionally rejected the prosecution’s declare {that a} damaged soda bottle supported the homicide principle. Though the prosecution argued that the sufferer might have been struck with a glass bottle, no damaged bottle or blood-stained fragments had been seized from the scene or despatched for forensic examination.
“Not one of the circumstances having been proved, we’re inclined to seek out the possible and extra doable model of the accused, that the deceased drowned by accident. The accused are responsible of getting fled from the spot and never having tried to rescue the drowning individual, by crying out for assist. Their conduct of getting gone for a film after witnessing their pal drowning, although reprehensible, can’t be discovered to be an incriminating circumstance, to ascertain homicide moderately than drowning. The speculation of innocence is crystal clear, and circumstances point out an accident and never a premeditated homicide.”, the Court docket added.
By way of the aforesaid, the enchantment was allowed, acquitting the Appellants, and directing their launch except required in different circumstances.
Trigger Title: Taher Vajiyuddin Rangwala & Anr. Versus The State of Gujarat
Quotation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 810
Click here to download judgment
Look:
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Iqbal Syed, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mohammad Aslam, AOR Mr. Amaan Syed, Adv. Mr. Syed Kashan Ali, Adv. Ms. Sara Shambhavi, Adv. Mr. Waseem Akhtar Khan, Adv. Mr. Ashraf Yusuf Khan, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, AOR Ms. Aditi Agarwal, Adv.
