High Court highlights inadmissibility of electronic evidence and procedural errors in confessional statements leading to wrongful conviction.
In a significant judgment, the Bombay High Court acquitted Shantilal Dashrath Gaikwad, originally convicted for kidnapping and murder under Sections 363, 302, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The division bench, comprising Justices A.S. Gadkari and Shyam C. Chandak, set aside the July 2024 conviction by the Special Judge (POCSO), Thane, citing procedural flaws and lack of credible evidence.
The appeal stemmed from Gaikwad's conviction based on circumstantial evidence, including CCTV footage and confessional statements, which the High Court found inadmissible. The court emphasized that the electronic evidence, notably CCTV footage, lacked the required certification under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, rendering it inadmissible for proving guilt.
The High Court noted the failure to adhere to mandatory procedural requirements during the recording of confessions. It pointed out the absence of Gaikwad's signature on the confessional statement, a critical omission that violated Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, thus making the confession unreliable.
Key prosecution witnesses failed to provide a clear identification of Gaikwad as the perpetrator. The court criticized the prosecution for not conducting a proper Test Identification Parade and relying on unclear photographs and weak circumstantial evidence, leading to a flawed conviction.
The judgment also highlighted that the prosecution's reliance on confessional statements and electronic evidence was insufficient to establish a complete chain of events proving Gaikwad's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This, coupled with the procedural lapses, led the court to quash the conviction and order Gaikwad's immediate release.
This ruling reiterates the critical importance of adhering to procedural safeguards in criminal trials and ensuring that convictions are based on credible and admissible evidence. It underscores the judiciary's role in safeguarding individual rights against wrongful convictions due to procedural irregularities and inadequate evidence.
Bottom Line:
Appellant acquitted due to lack of credible evidence, non-admissibility of electronic records without proper certification, and unreliable confessional statements.
Statutory provision(s):
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Section 65B, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 164, Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 363, 302, 201
Shantilal Dashrath Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra, (Bombay)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2872055
