Observing that an individual might be convicted based mostly solely on specific proof and never merely on grounds of morality, the Bombay Excessive Court docket on Wednesday put aside the conviction and life time period awarded to an accused in a rape and homicide case.
Mohan Jadhav (24), a resident of Raigad, was convicted and sentenced to a life time period by an area courtroom in 2015 for an offence beneath sections 302 (homicide) and 376 (rape) of the IPC.
Jadhav, nonetheless, challenged his conviction and sentence within the excessive courtroom claiming that he was harmless.
The prosecution informed the courtroom that whereas there have been no eye witnesses within the case, the police had relied on circumstantial proof to arrest Jadhav and safe his conviction.
It was said that the police had discovered Jadhav strolling, in a frightened state, close to the spot the place the physique of the 20-year-old sufferer was discovered.
The prosecution argued that the accused had additionally claimed earlier than a pal that he, together with one other individual, had killed a girl.
Nevertheless, the courtroom dominated that Jadhav strolling in a frightened state was not sufficient proof. It famous that the police had failed to search out any direct proof or eyewitness accounts linking Jadhav to the crime.
“The cardinal precept of legal jurisprudence is that, a case might be stated to be proved solely when there may be sure and specific proof and no individual might be convicted on pure ethical conviction,” a bench of Justices PB Varale and PD Naik stated.
Contemplating the discrepancies in proof, the accused is undoubtedly entitled to a advantage of doubt, it stated, whereas setting apart the trial courtroom order.