Ahmedabad: A prosecution case built on circumstantial evidence fell apart in a city sessions court after witnesses refused to support the allegations against a 28-year-old woman. Rizwana Vadnagarwala had been accused of killing her 10-month-old daughter by slitting her throat with a blade.
The court said suspicion, however strong, could “never take the place of proof”. However, witnesses, including her husband who had lodged the complaint, turned hostile during the trial.
In this case, Rizwana was arrested in July 2024 for allegedly killing Fatima at her house in Astodia.
Upon her arrest, she told the cops that she was not happy in her marriage and wanted to marry another man. Her husband, Aamin, filed a complaint against her. She thought her daughter was a hurdle in getting a divorce and decided to eliminate her.
During the trial, the prosecution examined 18 witnesses, including nine private witnesses, four panch witnesses, two cops, a scientific officer, a doctor who conducted the autopsy and an FSL official.
The court further said that the investigating officer’s explanation for not securing fingerprints was not sustainable. “When the case against the accused is based on circumstantial evidence, each and every link is required to be established,” the court said. After recording the evidence, the court noted that, besides the hostility of the witnesses, the scientific officer had asked the investigator to secure fingerprints from the blade used in the crime, but the instruction was clearly not followed.
The present matter rests on circumstantial evidence, and therefore the motive must be proven beyond doubt. ”
additional sessions judge A J Vora said, “Upon examination, the complainant, independent witnesses, and panch witnesses have not supported the prosecution’s case and have been declared hostile While acquitting the woman by granting her the benefit of doubt. Consequently, the prosecution has not succeeded in proving the motive behind the alleged offence.
The court further said, “Moreover, although direct evidence showing that the deceased and the accused were together at the relevant time was expected before the court, no such evidence has been presented. Hence, even based on the ‘last seen together’ principle, the prosecution’s case is not established. However strong a suspicion may be, it can never take the place of proof.”