In a surprising turn of events, Jivan @ Ashok Chapane has been found not guilty by the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court. Initially found guilty of murder, the court found there wasn't enough evidence to keep the conviction.
Jivan Chapane was accused of murdering Yugandhara Yeole, a 20-year-old woman, in September 2015. The prosecution claimed that Jivan, a school van driver, had committed the crime after picking her up in his van.
On September 16, 2015, Yugandhara’s body was discovered at Isasani Camp MIHAN area, Nagpur. Her mother, Mangala Yeole, reported her missing when she didn’t come home. The body showed signs of being attacked, with scratches and marks from being tied up.
"Somebody had attacked her daughter and killed her," Mangala alleged.
The police investigation led to Jivan’s arrest based on indirect evidence. He was accused of meeting Yugandhara at a bus stop, taking her to a remote area, and committing the crime. The trial court found him guilty under Section 302 of the IPC.
Jivan challenged the conviction, arguing that the case was based only on indirect evidence without any direct link to him. His defense highlighted the lack of motive and the absence of any strong evidence linking him to the crime scene.
Justice Siddheshwar S. Thombre and Justice Anil L. Pansare reviewed the appeal. They noted the prosecution's failure to establish a clear chain of evidence.
"The circumstances should exclude every possible explanation except the one to be proved," the court emphasized, citing a previous case.
The prosecution presented 15 witnesses, including Yugandhara’s mother and a medical officer who confirmed the death was a murder. However, the court found inconsistencies and missing details in the testimonies.
The High Court canceled the previous conviction, ordering Jivan’s immediate release. The judges ruled that suspicion alone could not replace solid evidence for conviction.
"For a suspicion, however strong it may be, the same cannot take place of the proof," the judgment stated.
Jivan Chapane is now free, but the court has required him to post a bond to ensure he shows up if an appeal is filed against the decision.
This case highlights the critical importance of concrete evidence in criminal convictions, reminding us that justice must be served with certainty and fairness.
