In a significant ruling, the Chhattisgarh High Court, on November 18, 2024, overturned the conviction of Ganga Banjare, acquitting her of charges of abduction, attempted murder, and murder due to insufficient evidence. The division bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad emphasized that “suspicion, however grave, cannot substitute proof beyond reasonable doubt.”
Background of the Case
The case stemmed from an incident on September 23, 2019, in Raipur district, where the appellant, Ganga Banjare, was accused of abducting two minor girls, Namrata Nirala (2.5 years old) and Nigeeta Nirala (4 years old). The prosecution alleged that Banjare murdered Namrata and injured Nigeeta. The appellant was arrested the following day, and the trial court sentenced her to life imprisonment under Section 302 (murder) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), among other charges, on August 27, 2021.
Key Legal Issues
1. Nature of Evidence: The prosecution’s case was based entirely on circumstantial evidence, with no direct witnesses to the crime.
2. Reliability of Witness Testimony: The primary witness, Nigeeta Nirala, was both a minor and the sister of the deceased, raising concerns about the reliability of her testimony.
3. Mental Condition of the Accused: The defense claimed that Banjare suffered from mental health issues and was undergoing treatment, arguing that this factor should be considered in assessing her criminal culpability.
4. Application of Legal Standards: The case hinged on whether the “five golden principles” of circumstantial evidence, as outlined in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984), were met.
Court’s Observations
The High Court highlighted several flaws in the prosecution’s case:
– The postmortem report established the cause of death as asphyxia due to suffocation, but no direct link was established between the appellant and the act.
– The testimony of the child witness, though emotionally compelling, lacked corroboration and consistency with prior statements.
– The prosecution’s reliance on circumstantial evidence did not meet the stringent criteria required for conviction. The bench reaffirmed that “the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn must be fully established and consistent only with the hypothesis of the accused’s guilt.”
Quoting the Supreme Court’s precedent, the court reiterated, “The mental distance between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’ is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.”
Decision
The High Court set aside the trial court’s judgment, acquitting Banjare of all charges due to a lack of evidence. The bench emphasized that justice cannot rest on suspicion alone, stating, “In all human probability, the act must have been done by the accused,” but mere conjectures cannot suffice for a conviction.
The Court ordered Banjare’s immediate release, directing her to furnish a bond in compliance with Section 437-A of the CrPC.
Parties and Representation
– Appellant: Ganga Banjare, represented by Advocate Shashi Kumar Kushwaha.
– Respondent: State of Chhattisgarh, represented by Public Prosecutor Swajeet Ubeja.
