Sohrabuddin Encounter Case: Bombay High Court Finds No Evidence To Reverse Acquittals

The Bombay High Court has dismissed appeals challenging the acquittal of several accused in the alleged fake encounter killings of Sohrabuddin Shaikh, Kausar Bi and Tulsiram Prajapati, holding that the prosecution failed to establish a complete and credible chain of circumstances or prove the alleged conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court emphasised that suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute proof, particularly in cases resting predominantly on circumstantial evidence and testimonies of witnesses who did not support the prosecution case.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam A. Ankhad upheld the trial court’s judgment dated December 21, 2018 acquitting the accused, observing that there was no material on record to establish the alleged politician-police nexus or any overarching criminal conspiracy.

"A judgment of acquittal cannot be interfered in a casual or cavalier manner and it is not permissible in law to overturn the judgment only on the ground that another view is possible. The High Court must take a holistic view and not a myopic view of re- appreciation of the evidence and render its judgment keeping in mind the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that there is presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Such presumption continues at all stages of the trial and gets concretized when the trial ends in the acquittal", the bench observed.

The Bench held that the parameters governing interference in an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were not met, and that the trial court’s appreciation of evidence did not suffer from perversity or manifest illegality.

The case arose from allegations that Sohrabuddin Shaikh was killed in a staged encounter in November 2005, his wife Kausar Bi was subsequently murdered and her body disposed of, and key witness Tulsiram Prajapati was also killed in a later encounter in December 2006.

Following dissatisfaction with the investigation conducted by the Gujarat CID, proceedings were transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation pursuant to directions of the Supreme Court, and the trial itself was shifted from Gujarat to Mumbai.

The prosecution examined more than 200 witnesses in an attempt to establish a wider conspiracy involving police officials and political actors.

However, a significant number of witnesses turned hostile during trial, including those who were projected as crucial to proving the alleged abduction, detention and subsequent killings.

The High Court noted that the testimonies of such witnesses could not be relied upon to sustain a conviction, particularly when they disowned earlier statements or stated that such statements were recorded under pressure.

The Court also recorded that cross-examination by the prosecution failed to elicit any material sufficient to corroborate the prosecution’s version.

The Court concurred with the trial court’s conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove a continuous and unbroken chain of circumstances. It noted that there was no conclusive evidence linking the accused to the alleged acts, nor any reliable forensic or ballistic evidence establishing that the weapons seized were used in the alleged encounters.

The absence of examination of cartridges and failure to connect them with the firearms attributed to the accused was treated as a serious lapse.

The Court further observed that key aspects of the prosecution story, including the alleged abduction from a bus and the movement of the victims thereafter, remained unsubstantiated.

On the allegation of a larger conspiracy involving political figures and police officials, the Court held that the evidence on record was insufficient even to prima facie establish such a theory.

It noted that several witnesses introduced the element of a political nexus at a later stage, and their statements were inconsistent and unsupported by independent material.

The Court observed that improved versions and hearsay evidence could not form the basis of a finding of guilt in a criminal trial.

The medical and forensic evidence, while establishing that the deaths occurred due to firearm injuries, did not conclusively support the prosecution’s case that the encounters were staged.

The Court took note of inconsistencies in the prosecution narrative and the lack of corroborative material to support the claim that the incidents were fake encounters carried out pursuant to a pre-planned conspiracy.

The High Court also reiterated the settled principles governing appellate interference in cases of acquittal. It held that unless the findings of the trial court are perverse, wholly unreasonable, or based on an erroneous understanding of law or evidence, an appellate court ought not to substitute its own view merely because another view is possible.

In the present case, the trial court had undertaken a detailed examination of the evidence and assigned cogent reasons for acquittal, and therefore no interference was warranted.

The appeals were accordingly dismissed, affirming the acquittal of all accused persons.

Case Title: Rubabuddin Shaikh & Anr. v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors.

Bench: Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam A. Ankhad

Date of Judgment: May 7, 2026