High Court Acquits Husband in Wife's Ex Murder, Holds Conviction Based on Hostile Witnesses and IO Statements Unsustainable

A division bench of Justice Ilesh J. Vora and Justice R. T. Vachhani heard the appeal against conviction under Section 302 IPC arising from Sessions Case No.13 of 2014, brought by the sole accused who had been sentenced to life imprisonment by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar. The appeal challenged the Trial Court's reliance on evidence of hostile witnesses and on the Investigating Officer's account of statements recorded during investigation.

The High Court allowed the conviction appeal and set aside the trial court's judgment and sentence, acquitting the appellant for failure of the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court accepted that the post-mortem established homicidal death but held that presence of the accused in the field, unsupported by reliable eyewitness testimony or admissible corroborative evidence, did not establish authorship of the crime. The Court noted that reliance on statements made to police was impermissible as substantive proof and that Section 106 of the Evidence Act could not be invoked to shift the prosecution's burden. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “Section 106 is designed to meet certain exceptional cases in which it would be impossible for the prosecution to establish certain facts which are particularly within the knowledge of the accused. Section 106 would apply to cases where the prosecution could be said to have succeeded in proving facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding guilt of the accused and the section is not intended to relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt against the accused and is not in anyway modified by provisions contained in Section 106. The section 106 cannot be used to support conviction, unless the prosecution has discharged its burden.” The Court further observed that “a statement under Section 161 is not [a] substantial piece of evidence” and emphasised that the Investigating Officer could not be used to supply what witnesses had failed to prove in court.

Background
The dispute arose from an FIR registered on 25.09.2013 by Manjaliben, alleging that her son-in-law (the appellant) killed her daughter Kinjaliben in a cotton field at Pithadiya, Kalavad, by inflicting axe blows. The Investigating Officer (PW-18) arrested the accused, seized an axe and sent the body for post-mortem. Dr. Navin Dubey (PW-13) conducted the post-mortem and recorded injuries including multiple scalp lacerations, fractures and an atlanto-occipital joint fracture; he opined cause of death as “neurogenic shock due to assault head injury and fracture of Atlanto Occipital joint.” The prosecution examined 20 witnesses and produced 28 documents, including the post-mortem report and FSL/serology reports.

At trial the accused denied the charge under Section 302 IPC. Many material witnesses — including close relatives and the complainant — turned hostile and did not support the prosecution version in court, though their earlier statements to police had implicated the accused. The Trial Court convicted the accused, relying substantially on the Investigating Officer’s narration of the statements recorded during investigation and on parts of testimony of witnesses it deemed reliable.

On appeal the defence argued that there was no direct eyewitness evidence of the killing, that hostile witnesses had resiled from their Section 161 statements and that convictions could not be founded on inadmissible police statements. The State relied on circumstantial inference from the accused’s presence at the scene and the inability of the accused to explain the death.

The High Court reviewed authorities including Syad Akbar, Nagendra Sah and recent pronouncements on the evidentiary value of police statements (including Renuka Prasad), and reiterated that statements recorded under Sections 161/162 CrPC were not admissible as substantive evidence and could only be used for limited purposes. Finding that the prosecution had failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances linking the accused to the homicidal act and that the Trial Court had erred in treating the IO’s account as substantive corroboration, the Court concluded the prosecution did not discharge the burden of proof. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence dated 25.01.2017, directed refund of any fine paid, and ordered the jail authorities to release the appellant if not required in any other case; the Registry was directed to transmit the records to the trial court.

Case Details:
Case No.: R/CR.A/823/2017
NeutralCitation: 2026:GUJHC:17230-DB
Case Title: Khorban @ Kurbal @ Dinesh @ Sardar Lalubhai Nayak Versus State of Gujarat
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): HCLS COMMITTEE (4998); Mr. Pratik B. Barot (Advocate)
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Ronak Raval, Additional Public Prosecutor

Source: 2026 CaseBase(GUJ) 72