Bombay High Court: Evidence against Andure ‘extremely weak’, eyewitnesses did not identify his photograph
The Bombay High Court granted bail to Sachin Andure in the Dr. Narendra Dabholkar murder case, ruling that the evidence against him was "extremely weak." The court highlighted that eyewitnesses identified Andure years after the incident in court but not from photographs during the investigation, and an extra-judicial confession lacked corroboration.
Why it matters
This ruling underscores the importance of strong, timely evidence in criminal proceedings and raises questions about investigative practices, particularly regarding witness identification and confessions.
The court observed that the two eyewitnesses identified Sachin Andure in court after a gap of eight years and seven months and nine years and three months, respectively, and had not identified his photograph during the investigation. The bench also noted that the extra-judicial confession was made after five years and lacked corroboration.
The Bombay High Court, while granting bail to Sachin Andure in the murder case of rationalist Dr Narendra Dabholkar, made a series of observations on the quality of evidence presented against him. A division bench of Justice Sarang Kotwal and Justice Ranjitsinha Bhonsale recorded that the identification of Andure by the two key witnesses was “extremely weak” and that the extra-judicial confession relied upon by the prosecution was another “extremely weak piece of evidence”.
Get smarter about the news
Sign up free for a feed built around what you actually care about, Dive Deeper research on any story, and the full text of every article.
Create free accountAlready have an account? Sign in