Observing that the prosecution’s case was based entirely on circumstantial evidence with “several broken links” and that there was “no direct evidence” of the alleged encounters, the Bombay High Court has upheld the acquittal of all 22 accused — including 21 police officers from Gujarat, Rajasthan and Andhra Pradesh — in the alleged fake encounter killings of Sohrabuddin Shaikh, his wife Kauser Bi, and Tulsiram Prajapati.
A bench led by Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar dismissed appeals filed by Sohrabuddin’s brothers against the 2018 acquittal order, with the detailed judgment being made available late Thursday night.
Upholding the 2018 verdict of the special court, the bench observed, “The case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence, and there are several broken links in the chain of circumstances… The discharge of 16 accused persons against whom the prosecution relied on the same set of evidence cannot be overlooked.”
The bench was referring to the discharge of 16 accused, including then Gujarat home minister Amit Shah, senior IPS officers Dinesh M N, Rajkumar Pandiyan, and D G Vanzara, and former Rajasthan home minister Gulab Chand Kataria.
“That decision of the trial court has now become final. The very foundation of the prosecution’s case is demolished, and the conspiracy theory must be held not proved,” it added.
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) claimed the three were abducted from a luxury bus while they were travelling from Hyderabad to Sangli on November 23, 2005. Sohrabuddin and Kausar Bi were taken to farmhouses in Gujarat owned by a non-police accused (acquitted in 2018) and illegally detained. Three days later, police records showed that Prajapati was arrested at a house in Rajasthan.
Prosecution’s claims
The prosecution alleged senior police officers in Gujarat and Rajasthan conspired to kill Shaikh. They allegedly misled Prajapati into believing that Sohrabuddin’s arrest was required due to political pressure, while assuring him of bail.
Story continues below this ad
Sohrabuddin died in an alleged fake encounter in Ahmedabad on November 26, 2005. Kausar Bi was killed that month, followed by Prajapati in a “staged encounter” a year later in Gujarat.
However, those acquitted claimed that Sohrabuddin was linked to a terrorist organisation and was about to kill a well-known politician in the city.
The bench observed the prosecution “failed to establish the abduction (of the deceased), their illegal detention at Disha Farmhouse and Arham Farmhouse and the alleged fake encounter.”
There was “no evidence to connect the weapon allegedly used in the crime with the bullet recovered from the thigh of Sohrabuddin.” “No record was produced to establish that the said revolver was issued to a particular accused person.”
‘No direct evidence’
Story continues below this ad
The Bombay High Court observed that “there is no direct evidence of encounter” and there was also “no evidence to establish the presence of the accused persons at the place of occurrence and at the time of occurrence”.
The Chief Justice Chandrashekhar-led bench also noted, “There is no evidence that the respondents arrived at Hyderabad and stayed in the Officer’s Mess with Rajkumar Pandian (then SP of Gujarat ATS—discharged in case).”
“…At best, it could be said on the basis of the testimony of the bus passengers and two drivers that the victims had gone to or were coming from Hyderabad,” the bench observed.
Witness testimonies fall short
Referring to the appellants’ reliance on the testimonies of 77 witnesses, of whom 39 turned hostile, the bench noted that Sohrabuddin’s brothers were not eye-witnesses and that their testimonies were based on hearsay.
Story continues below this ad
The bench noted that three of eight prosecution witnesses who had spoken about Prajapati’s apprehension that Sohrabuddin might be killed did not support the prosecution’s version.
The remaining 38 prosecution witnesses, as per the court, consisted of appellants, their friends, two doctors, and panchas, whose testimonies did not help the prosecution establish the respondents’ complicity in the alleged crime.
The bench added that hostile witnesses who were “put to intense cross-examination could not elicit material to support the prosecution’s case.”
The bench stated that the acquittal judgment “cannot be interfered with in a casual or cavalier manner” and could not be merely overturned on the ground that another view was possible.
Story continues below this ad
Therefore, dismissing the appeals, it added that the “holistic view” over “myopic view of reapplication of evidence” was warranted as the verdict was required to be passed on a “presumption of innocence in favour of the accused.”
