High court quashes execution of accused in gangrape, murder case

The Bombay High Court has refused to reinstate the death sentence handed down to a man accused in the 2012 gangrape and murder of two women. The court noted that the ruling party had unequivocally failed to prove the case.

The testimony of a living victim cannot be relied upon. Justice. Sadhana Jadhav and Nya. A division bench of Prithviraj Chavan in its November 25 order acquitted Rahimuddin Mohfuz Sheikh and directed his release.

Another accused was declared a minor in the Thane murder case of two women who were raped and killed. The court questioned the victim's testimony in the order, saying it was in the accused's suggestion that she was engaged in prostitution.

The court also noted that the victims were not forced to accompany the accused and also drank alcohol with the accused without any protest. It is the duty of the government party to prove conclusively that the accused has committed a crime.

It is not the court's job to determine how the crime was committed, the ruling said. The Indian Constitution's rule of refusing to accept a statement of a victim of sexual harassment without confirmation is like rubbing salt in a wound, the court said.

In this case, the facts, circumstances and evidence as well as the involvement of the accused are questionable and hence it is not safe to rely on the victim's statement alone, the court noted.

The High Court said that it was not appropriate to be prosecuted without any legal evidence just because the offense was of a hesitant and brutal nature, adding that at most the case could be a matter of suspicion and nothing else. The order noted that the accused should be given the benefit of the doubt in this case.

Since the victim was drunk at the time of the incident, it is not safe to assume that his statement is factual. The victim's complaint was registered while she was in the hospital but was not read or heard so she did not know what the police had written.

The court noted that the investigation into the case was extremely light and negligent. The court noted that the lower court judge had also inadvertently convicted the accused and sentenced him to death. The victim sustained serious injuries but the government party could not prove that the accused had inflicted such injuries.