DINUBHAI BOGHABHAI SOLANKI v. STATE OF GUJARAT INSC 881

DINUBHAI BOGHABHAI SOLANKI v. STATE OF GUJARAT INSC 88 Introduction The current case of Dinubhai Boghabhai Solanki v. State of Gujarat relates to the inhumane murder of RTI activist Amit Jethwa, who was involved in the exposure of illegal mining activities. The appellant, Dinubhai Boghabhai Solanki, an erstwhile MP was stated to be the brain behind the heinous murder because of the incessant efforts by the victim while exposing the illegal mining activities of this appellant, Solanki.

Key Issues Criminal Conspiracy and Murder: Whether Dinubhai Boghabhai Solanki was guilty of criminal conspiracy and murder of Amit Jethwa. Credibility of Evidence: The question of admissibility and credibility of evidence presented, including testimonies by witnesses and circumstantial evidence. Role of Accused: To what extent was Dinubhai Boghabhai Solanki involved, and what was his part in his murder orchestration? Arguments by Appellant - Dinubhai Boghabhai Solanki Denial of Involvement: The appellant denied any involvement in the murder of Amit Jethwa and claimed to be falsely implicated because of his political status and influence within society. Evidence Which is Questioned over Credibility: On the side of the defense, it was raised that the evidence brought forward against Solanki consisted of circumstantial and uncredible material. It has also brought up that such witness testimonies are unreliable and politically motivated. Alibi: It was the appellant's case that he was never at the spot where the murder occurred and, therefore, he had no direct connection with the commission of the murder. Arguments by the Respondents (State of Gujarat) Strong Circumstantial Evidence: The prosecution contended that the circumstantial evidence that emerged against Dinubhai Boghabhai Solanki—a critical piece of evidence in establishing his linkage with the murder—was call records, witness testimonies, and the motive of silencing Amit Jethwa. Witness Testimonies: The respondents, in their documentary evidence, led various witnesses who fully supported Solanki's involvement in the conspiracy for the murder of Jethwa. Motive and Prior Threats: The motive was brought out by the prosecution on the part of Solanki and pointed out as to how Jethwa was pressurized and threatened to stop his RTI activism related to illegal mining. Analysis by the Court The evidence led by both parties, including the testimonies of witnesses, call records, and other pieces of circumstantial evidence that connect Solanki to the commission of crime, is carefully weighed in the scales by the Supreme Court. Appraisal of Witnesses: The credibility of the witnesses has been assessed based on their consistency, possibilities of bias, and the corroborative nature of their testimonies. Motive and Antecedent Threats: The court considered the motives behind the murder and antecedent threats against Jethwa coming from Solanki, and how such threats corroborated the case for the prosecution. Judgment After elaborately considering the evidence and arguments, the Supreme Court held:

The additional sessions court condemned Dinubhai Boghabhai Solanki for criminal conspiracy and the murder of Amit Jethwa. Though circumstantial, the evidence presented was credible and substantial enough to establish the involvement of Solanki. Credibility of Evidence and Witnesses: The court observed that the witnesses were credible, their testimonies consistent, providing a clear and clinching nexus between Solanki and the crime. The call records and other circumstantial evidence further corroborated the prosecution's case. Rejection of Alibi: The alibi of Solanki was disbelieved by the court, seeing that he had failed to prove it with any credible evidence. The alibi could not establish that Solanki had nothing to do with either the conspiracy or actual murder. The judgment in the Dinubhai Boghabhai Solanki v. State of Gujarat case was one that really brought justice to the board for the murder of RTI activist Amit Jethwa. The clear points that have been brought out by the court pertain to the requirement of credible evidence in a criminal case against persons of influence and that whoever commits a crime, no matter the political throttling influence or status, does not go above the law. This case is, therefore, a milestone in this fight against corruption and illegality, underscoring that the courts are for the protection of those lone individuals who dare to stand up against these wrongs.