‘Police fabricated vital evidence’: Bombay HC acquits man who got death penalty for double murder – The Indian Express

Rejecting the death confirmation plea filed by the state government against Yadav, the High Court observed that the trial was conducted in the “most casual manner” and the prosecution had “suppressed and fabricated vital evidence (dying declarations of victims)”.

As per police, on November 5, 2015, Yadav allegedly stole his colleague’s phone, resulting in the colleague complaining to their employer. The two worked at a chemicals and acid trading company in Boisar.

The police alleged that the employer pulled up Yadav and asked him to return the phone, leading Yadav to allegedly seek revenge. In the wee hours of November 6, 2015, Yadav allegedly went to the company’s quarters – where his colleague stayed with his wife – with a bucket of concentrated sulphuric acid and poured the same on them while they were asleep.

The couple was taken to the hospital, where the husband died four hours later and the wife the next day.

The police relied on dying declarations of the couple and two other employees who were key eye witnesses to the incident.

The Palghar sessions court, on May 9, 2019, convicted Yadav and sentenced him to death. It observed that the same was “a unique case beyond imagination and a crime of such a nature, which is undeserving of any sympathy or mercy”. Thereafter, the state government had moved HC seeking confirmation of Yadav’s death sentence.

Advocate Yug Mohit Chaudhry, appearing for Yadav, argued that as per material on record, there was major discrepancy and contradiction about the time of the deaths and thus, the dying declarations cannot be admitted as evidence.

Referring to the evidence given by the doctor and the nurse who first attended to the couple, the High Court said that the two victims “would not have been conscious to record their respective dying declarations”.

A division bench of Justice Sadhana S Jadhav and Justice Milind N Jadhav observed, “After having appreciated the entire evidence on record, the material discrepancies, lacunae and blatant illegalities, we would definitely indicate that the prosecution has utterly failed in connecting the dots and bringing home the guilt of the accused. Merely because the crime is heinous and brutal, it would not be just to get carried away sans any legal proof required to substantiate the charge of murder on the accused.”

“…The evidence led by the prosecution is fraught with major inconsistencies… The trial was conducted in the most casual manner and whether it was just and fair in a capital punishment case is a question remaining unanswered. The quality and credibility of the evidence adduced is not even up to the mark…”. “We have come to the unequivocal conclusion that the prosecution has not only suppressed vital evidence but deliberately fabricated the dying declaration of the deceased, which forms the basis of its case,” the bench noted.

Rejecting state’s plea, the High Court said, “There is absolutely no question of awarding death sentence to the accused, rather, it is the case in which the accused must be given the benefit of doubt, nay, it would be a travesty of justice.”