The Chhattisgarh High Court has overturned the conviction of four accused in a high-profile murder case, emphasizing that “mere recovery of weapon from the appellants cannot become the basis of conviction when there is no established motive for commission of the offence.” The bench, comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, acquitted Mohd. Yasin, Shekh Gufran Ahmad, Mohd. Aasif Ahmad, and Shekh Samir Ahmad of all charges, including murder and criminal conspiracy, related to the death of Bablu alias Irfan in 2017.
Background of the Case
The case dates back to June 15, 2017, when the complainant, Rajeev Bhosale, reported that his associate Bablu alias Irfan was shot dead by unidentified assailants while they were returning from a family event. According to Bhosale, four masked men on motorcycles intercepted their car near Sejbahar, Raipur. One of the men, identified by Bablu as “Asif,” shot him in the head, leading to his death on the way to the hospital.
The prosecution alleged that the murder was motivated by a long-standing rivalry involving the accused and the deceased. The trial court convicted the appellants based on the testimonies of eyewitnesses, including Rajeev Bhosale, and forensic evidence linking the weapons recovered from the accused to the crime.
Legal Issues and Court’s Decision
The appellants were initially convicted by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Arms Act. Appellant No. 1, Mohd. Yasin, was convicted under Sections 341, 302, and 27 of the Arms Act. Appellant No. 2, Shekh Gufran Ahmad, and Appellant No. 4, Shekh Samir Ahmad, were convicted under Sections 341 and 302/34 of the IPC. Appellant No. 3, Mohd. Aasif Ahmad, faced additional charges under Section 25(1-1A) of the Arms Act.
In their appeal, the appellants argued that the prosecution failed to conclusively establish their identities and involvement in the crime. They contended that the sole eyewitness, Rajeev Bhosale, had inconsistencies in his testimony, including incorrect identification of the accused during the trial. Furthermore, they argued that the ballistic examination of the recovered weapons was not conducted promptly, raising questions about the integrity of the evidence.
Key Observations of the Court
The High Court critically analyzed the evidence presented and found significant discrepancies in the prosecution’s case. The judges noted that Bhosale’s identification of the accused in court was flawed, as he misidentified several individuals during his testimony. The court underscored the importance of reliable identification, stating, “Any false or wrong identification made on part of the witness becomes a gateway to the wrongful conviction of an innocent.”
Also Read
Additionally, the bench highlighted that the prosecution failed to establish a clear motive behind the murder. The court observed, “Mere recovery of weapon from the appellants cannot become the basis of conviction when there is no established motive for commission of offence.” The judgment emphasized that in criminal cases, the guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and mere suspicion or weak evidence cannot suffice for conviction.
