Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.F. NARIMAN, B. R. GAVAI, JJ.
SHIVAJI CHINTAPPA PATIL – Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1348 of 2013
Decided on : 02-03-2021
(A) Criminal Law – Circumstantial evidence – There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for conclusion consistent with innocence of accused and must show that in all human probability act must have been done by accused. (Para 11)
(B) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 106 – Burden of proof – Section 106 of Evidence Act does not directly operate against either a husband or wife staying under same roof and being last person seen with deceased – Section 106 of Evidence Act does not absolve prosecution of discharging its primary burden of proving prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt – It is only when prosecution has led evidence which, if believed, will sustain conviction or which makes out a prima facie case, that question arises of considering facts of which burden of proof would lie upon accused. (Para 22)
(C) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 313 – Murder of wife – Conviction and sentence – Inordinate delay of almost 3 months in signing Post-Mortem Report by Doctor – Medical expert has admitted that in both cases of suicidal or homicidal hanging, ligature marks around the neck shall go upwards ears – In present case also, there are no marks on body which would suggest violence or struggle – Medical expert himself has not ruled out possibility of suicidal death – On the contrary, Post-Mortem Report shows that cause of death was asphyxia due to hanging – Trial court as well as High Court have erred in holding that prosecution has proved that death of deceased was homicidal – Prosecution has even failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that death was homicidal – False explanation or non-explanation can only be used as an additional circumstance when prosecution has proved chain of circumstances leading to no other conclusion than guilt of accused – However, it cannot be used as a link to complete chain – Though in a case of direct evidence, motive would not be relevant, in a case of circumstantial evidence, motive plays an important link to complete chain of circumstances – Motive relied on by prosecution is ill-treatment by appellant meted out to deceased for not arranging money from her mother – Relations between deceased and accused were cordial – Prosecution has utterly failed to prove motive beyond doubt – As such, an important link to complete chain of circumstances is totally absent in present case – If two views are possible, benefit shall always go to accused – Conviction and sentence passed by trial court as affirmed by High Court set aside and appellant acquitted of all charges. (Paras 13, 15, 17, 18, 23, 24, 26, 27, 30, 32 and 34)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal assails the judgment and order delivered by Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Appeal No. 46 of 2005, thereby dismissing the appeal of appellant and maintaining the conviction and sentence of the appellant as passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Islampur in Sessions Case No. 39 of 2003 for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Findings of Court:
Mother of the deceased has stated, that accused and deceased had been to her house and stayed for four days few days prior to the incident. It would thus show, that relations between the deceased and accused were cordial. It will not be safe to rely on the uncorroborated evidence of such a witness.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. This appeal assails the judgment and order delivered by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Appeal No. 46 of 2005, thereby dismissing the appeal of the appellant and maintaining the conviction and sentence of the appellant as passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Islampur in Sessions Case No. 39 of 2003 for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (For short 'IPC').
2. The prosecution case in brief as could be gathered from the material placed on record is as under:-
Deceased Jayashree was married to the accused prior to about 8 or 9 years from the date of the incident. They were blessed with two issues. PW-3-Anandibai is the mother of deceased. PW-5-Ramchandra Chintappa is the brother of the appellant, who was residing separately in different part of the same house. It is the case of the prosecution, that the appellant was addicted to liquor and used to abuse and beat the deceased forcing her to get money from her mother. On the fateful night of 23rd March 2003, the accused and deceased went to sleep in their house. At the dawn of 24th March 2003, PW-5 gave a call to the appellant, so that they could go to their field for harvesting jawar crop. The accused opened the door and expressed his inability to accompany him to the field stating, that Jayashree had committed suicide by hanging. PW-4-Ramchandra Shankar resides near the house of the appellant as well as PW-5. PW-5 informed PW-4 about the incident. PW-5 went to the village Panumbre to inform the mother of deceased and other relatives about the incident. PW-5 went to Kokrud Police Station and gave information about death of the deceased. On the basis of information received from PW-5, initially Ad No.13/2003 came to be registered. Subsequently, crime came to be registered for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. As per the advance death certificate, the probable cause of death was asphyxia due to strangulation. The charge-sheet came to be filed before the jurisdictional Magistrate, First Class.
3. The case was committed to the learned Sessions Judge. Charge was framed for the offence punishable under Section 302 I PC. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial judge convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. Being aggrieved thereby, the appellant preferred an appeal before the High Court, which came to be dismissed. Hence, the present appeal.
4. We have heard Shri M. Qamaruddin, learned amicus curiae appearing on behalf of the appellant and Shri Sachin Patil, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.
5. Shri Qamaruddin, learned counsel for the appellant submitted, that the case rests entirely on the circumstantial evidence. He submitted, that unless and until the prosecution proves its case beyond all reasonable doubt, conviction in a case of circumstantial evidence would not be warranted. The learned counsel submitted, that merely on the basis of suspicion, conviction would not be sustainable. He relies in this respect on the judgment of this Court in the case of G. Parshwanath v. State of Karnataka, (2010) 8 SCC 593.
6. The learned counsel submitted, that in the present case, the prosecution has not been in a position to establish, that the death of the deceased was homicidal. He submitted, that if the evidence of PW-6-Dr. Kishor Patki is considered, it would reveal, that the evidence is inconsistent with the theory of homicidal death. In this respect, the learned counsel relies on the judgment of this Court in the case of Eswarappa alias Doopada Eswarappa v. State of Karnataka, (2019) 16 SCC 269.
7. Insofar as the finding of the learned trial court and the High Court with regard to the burden of the accused in view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act is concerned, the learned counsel submitted, that unless the initial burden is discharged
(1) Section 106 of Evidence Act does not directly operate against either a husband or wife staying under same roof and being last person seen with deceased.(2) In a case of circumstantial evidence, m....
(1) Murder – If in a case based on circumstantial evidence, accused evades response to an incriminating question or offers a response which is not true, such a response, in itself, would become an ad....
Conviction based on circumstantial evidence is sustainable when the chain of events proves guilt exclusively and the accused fails to provide a plausible explanation for an unnatural death occurring ....
In cases of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of events excluding all hypotheses of innocence. Section 106 of the Evidence Act does not shift the burden of proo....
The significance of motive in cases of circumstantial evidence, the burden of proof on the accused in cases of murder committed in secrecy inside a house, and the application of Section 106 of the Ev....
Murder – Only on the basis of post-mortem report there cannot be conviction for offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C.
Advocates appeared :For the Appellant : Vivek Singh For the Respondent : Kamal Kumar Tiwari
Advocates appeared :For the Appellant : R. P. Gupta For the Respondent : C. P. Singh
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
