The Gujarat High Court on Wednesday acquitted a woman in a case of murder of her husband, setting aside the 2012 order of conviction and sentence of life imprisonment of the trial court, based on an “extra-judicial confession” made before the village sarpanch.
Holding that the prosecution had “miserably failed” to prove the case by cogent evidence, the court said that the confession of the convict before the “influential” Village Sarpanch could “not be said to be voluntary”.
A Division Bench of Justice Ilesh J Vora and Justice R T Vachhani on Wednesday pronounced the oral judgment in an appeal filed by Bhartiben Gamit, wife of the deceased Gunesh Gamit, who lived together in Doswada village in Songadh Taluka of Tapi district and were married for 20 years.
The court noted that their married life was “disturbed due to matrimonial dispute” as the husband suspected the character of his wife and the couple had heated quarrels whenever he visited their home from Surat, where he worked in a textile manufacturing unit.
The Additional Sessions Judge at Vyara had sentenced the woman to life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs 100 in January 2012, based on the prosecution’s case based on a May 2010 FIR lodged at Songadh Police station.
The judgment of the HC notes that the trial court “while recording the conviction, mainly relied upon the evidence of extra-judicial confession, allegedly made before the village sarpanch (a prosecution witness) and others”. The HC judgment also noted that the trial court found the extra-judicial confession to be made “voluntarily and true and made in a fit state of mind… not by any inducement, threat and promise”.
However, when the appellant was questioned under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973, during the trial, she had stated that she was innocent and falsely implicated in the charge of the murder. The HC recorded that as per the medical evidence produced by the prosecution, the death of the man had occurred due to “asphyxia resulting from ligature strangulation”, and the nature of injuries was “homicidal”.
Story continues below this ad
The advocate appearing for the convicted woman submitted before the High Court that the trial court had “grossly erred” while convicting the accused without considering the evidence in the “right perspective” and that the FIR was lodged by the brother of the deceased man at the insistence of the village sarpanch of the relevant time, who had claimed that the woman had confessed to him about murdering her husband in his sleep.
The High Court noted that the prosecution’s case was based on circumstantial evidence– mainly that the deceased husband and the convicted wife often quarrelled over the suspicion of the deceased that his wife was having an extra-marital affair. However, the High Court noted that it has not come on record that the convicted wife was having an extra-marital affair with any person and therefore, “the motive is not established by the prosecution” for the convicted wife to commit the murder of her husband.
Additional Public Prosecutor Bhargav Pandya submitted that the trial court did not commit any error in holding the convict guilty of the offence as the accused had “with a premeditated mind… procured the nylon string in her possession and when the deceased was in deep sleep, he was strangulated to death”. The APP also submitted that villagers had gathered at the residence of the couple after hearing screams and the village sarpanch, being the head of the village, had dutifully inquired from the appellant about the incident.
Citing precedents of the Supreme Court in the matter of considering extra-judicial confessions, the Gujarat High Court delved to consider whether the extra-judicial confession of the offence made by the accused before the sarpanch “inspire confidence, (is) truthful and can be the basis for conviction”. The High Court also noted that the deceased and the convicted woman had been married for 20 years and the statement of the elder daughter, who was in the house, had been recorded. The court noted that it had “understood the topography” of the village home of the couple from a map prepared by the revenue officer and considered the fact that the area was thickly populated.
Story continues below this ad
The High Court observed that the villagers, in their statements did not clearly state that they heard the screams of the deceased but “on the contrary, they have heard the crying of the appellant” and then reached the house of the couple and then “waited till the arrival of the sarpanch”, who was “having influence over the local villagers”.
The High Court judgment also notes that the convict made the confessional statement of her guilt of killing her husband to the village sarpanch, “in presence of 10 to 15 people”.
The judgment states, “In our opinion, we have serious doubt about the genuineness and truthfulness of the prosecution case regarding evidence of extra judicial confession. At the first point of time, before the neighbours, the appellant did not have disclosed anything… and when the village sarpanch arrived… she made a confession before him. This shows that, under the influence and pressure of (the Village Sarpanch), she made an extra-judicial confession. If the village sarpanch would not have arrived at the place of incident, then she might not have confessed her guilt by making an extra judicial confession.”
The HC further stated in the judgment: “…when the extra judicial confession is not supported by a chain of cogent circumstances and corroborated by other prosecution evidence, the conviction for the offence of murder cannot be made on the evidence of extra judicial confession… (The confession) does not inspire confidence and cannot be relied upon.”
Story continues below this ad
The court also held that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the motive “assumes pertinent significance” as the existence of motive is “an enlightening factor in the process of presumptive reasoning”. The court held that the deceased man, who worked in Surat and visited his home once a week–where his wife stayed with their two children– suspected the character of his wife but “bald allegation of suspicion is not sufficient”.
Stating that the prosecution had failed to prove by cogent evidence that the woman was in an extra-marital relationship with a particular individual, which could be a motive for her to kill her husband, the court judgment states, “…the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charge of murder against the appellant by acceptable, cogent and credible evidence. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against the appellant-accused is not sustainable in law and accordingly deserves to be set aside and are hereby set aside.”
