SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(SC) 192

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Pinaki Chandra Ghose, N.V. Ramana, JJ.
ASHOK - APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA - RESPONDENT
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2224 OF 2011
Decided on : 11-03-2015

IMPORTANT POINTS
In a case of circumstantial evidence prosecution must establish each link in the chain.
Lodging of FIR after a month of the incident is detrimental to prosecution case.

Headnote:(a) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 106 – Normally the initial burden of proof to prove guilt of the accused is on prosecution – Not so when last seen together theory applies – Here the burden shifts on the accused who has special knowledge of the incident being the last person with the deceased – Last seen together itself is not a conclusive proof – Non-explanation of death of the deceased accused in last seen together scenario may lead to presumption of guilt of the accused in conjunction with other circumstances surrounding the incident, like relations between the accused and the deceased, enmity between them, previous history of hostility, recovery of weapon from the accused etc. (Para 13)

       (2006)10 SCC 106; (2001) 8 SCC 311; (1972) 2 SCC 80; (2014) 4 SCC 715; (2013) 7 SCC 45 – Relied upon

       (b) Criminal trial – Circumstantial evidence – FIR lodged after one month of incident – Prosecution not putting up a viable and consistent story of its own – Burden cannot shift to the accused to explain the incident – Prosecution failing to prove guilt of the accsued-appellant. (Para 16, 17, 20)

       Facts of the case:

       The accused-appellant was convicted and sentenced for offences under Sections 302, 201 and 498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860, for the murder of his wife and two daughters.

       His conviction and sentence was affirmed by the High Court.

       Finding of the Court:

       Impugned judgment cannot be sustained.

       Result: Appeal allowed.

       

JUDGMENT

Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J.

1. This criminal appeal arises from final order and judgment dated 13 December 2010 of the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench in Criminal Appeal No. 296 of 2010 whereby the High Court has upheld the conviction and sentence of the accused-appellant. The accused-appellant was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli for offences under Sections 302, 201 and 498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860, for the murder of his wife Shubhangi and two daughters being Namrata and Janhavi. He was sentenced, inter alia, for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1 lakh, and in default of payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment of five years, for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Sentences for offence under Sections 201 and 498A of Indian Penal Code were to run concurrently.

2. The facts of the case are that Ashok, the appellant herein was the husband of Shubhangi, (deceased herein) and they had two daughters, Janhavi (5½ years old) and Namrata (3½ years old), both deceased. The accused-appellant and Shubhangi were married on 4th May, 2001 according to customs. The two were related to each other prior to marriage as first cousins from the side of the Shubhangi's mother. At the time of their engagement, the accused-appellant was pursuing D.Ed. Education and for completing the said course, Rs.50,000/-was given along with a 5 gm gold ring and one 15 gm gold chain. In addition, Rs.1 lakh was spent on the marriage arrangement. Thereafter, in 2004 Ashok finished D.Ed. and got a job of 'shikshan sevak' at Arer Navargaon. Till now Shubhangi was staying at her matrimonial home but after the accused-appellant got a job, they both started staying at a rented house in Arer Navargaon. Admittedly, they had cordial relations for 6 years of marriage but they got strained after 6 years. It is alleged that once they shifted to Arer Navargaon the parents of the accused-appellant used to visit them on festivals. On their visits, it is alleged, the father of the accused-appellant and the accused-appellant used to talk secretly and the accused-appellant would not sleep with Shubhangi. It is further alleged that the father of the accused-appellant used to taunt that his son could have got a better earning lady as his wife and also that Shubhangi had a squint in her one eye.

3. On the fateful day, i.e. 26 August 2008, as accused-appellant puts the story is that he took half day's leave from his school to visit to Wadsa, a nearby village, with his wife and 2 daughters to buy clothes and other things. On his way back, the fuel in his bike exhausted and, therefore, he dropped his wife and two daughters at the H.P. Gas station where there was a hotel also. He went to get the fuel and returned in 15-20 minutes. When he reached back, he found Shubhangi, Namrata and Janhavi missing from the place where he had dropped them. He has stated that after looking around he thought they might have left for village so he headed towards the village but he could not find them. He lodged a missing report next day at 9.30 am and also informed the family of Shubhangi that she, along with both the daughters, was missing. The father and mother of Shubhangi visited the accused-appellant at the place of Haribhau, accused's friend, where the accused was at that time. But, allegedly the accused did not talk to the parents of Shubhangi properly and left in search of his wife and 2 daughters.

4. They could not find the missing persons for three days until 29th August, 2008 when a dead body was recovered from Sioni Ghat from the river Vainganga. The body was identified to be of Namrata and it was in a decomposed state, so the post mortem was conducted on the spot itself. It was revealed that the death was caused by throttling. Further it was found that death must have occurred within 4 hours of eating last meal. The last rituals were conducted at the site where the body was found. On the next day the body of Shubhangi was found in the same state as that o

































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top