Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. V. Viswanathan, K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.
Nilesh Baburao Gitte – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1471 of 2013
Decided On : 07-10-2025
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 8 [(Section 6 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023] – Murder – Life imprisonment – Circumstantial evidence – There is a mystery surrounding genesis and origin of prosecution case – There is no evidence to show that appellant was present at site of first attempted cremation, or any of relatives of deceased – Doctor opined that cause of death was asphyxia by strangulation but there was no ligature mark from back side of neck – Document produced by prosecution as part of charge-sheet pursuant to investigation though not exhibited can be relied upon by defence – Nothing has been demonstrated by prosecution to show that there was any fact about alleged incident which was especially within knowledge of appellant – Medical evidence and post mortem report has also not conclusively established homicide – Recoveries alleged do not lend assurance about their genuineness – Motive alleged has not been established – Courts below have fallen into a serious error in convicting appellant on the basis of evidence on record – Judgment of High Court set aside and appellant acquitted of all charges framed against him. (Paras 26, 28, 31, 35, 43, 55, 56 and 57)
Facts of the case:
By impugned judgment, High Court, while dismissing the appeal of appellant, confirmed conviction and sentence imposed on him by Trial Court. Trial Court had convicted the appellant along with one Balasaheb Gangadhar Gitte (appellant before High Court in Criminal Appeal No.502 of 2012 and since acquitted by the High Court) for offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced them for life imprisonment.
Findings of Court:
It has come on record that the appellant has his father as well as two sisters who are alive. It is not as if that the property would, on the death of the deceased, immediately devolve on the appellant in the event of the alleged murder by him going undetected. There was no statement recorded from even the immediate family of the deceased.
Result : Appeal allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction of the appellant based on murder charge. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. defense arguments contest circumstantial evidence. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 3. prosecution's rebuttal and reliance on evidence. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 4. analysis of circumstantial evidence principles. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 5. critique on evidence and burden of proof. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40) |
| 6. evaluation of witness credibility and motivations. (Para 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53) |
| 7. conclusion regarding conviction based on circumstantial evidence. (Para 54 , 55 , 56) |
| 8. final ruling: acquittal of the appellant. (Para 57 , 58) |
JUDGMENT :
K.V. Viswanathan, J.
1. Nilesh Baburao Gitte (the appellant) stands convicted for matricide-killing of one’s own mother. By the present appeal, the appellant calls in question the correctness of the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in Criminal Appeal No.447 of 2012 dated 23.07.2013. By the said judgment, the High Court, while dismissing the appeal of the appellant, confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on him by the Additional Sessions Judge-2, Ambajogai in Sessions Case No. 42 of 2011. The Sessions Judge had convicted the appellant along with one Balasaheb Gangadhar Gitte (appellant before the High Court in Criminal Appeal No.502 of 2012 and since acquitted by the High Court) for offence punishable under Section 302 of INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for short the “IPC”) and sentenced them for life imprisonment.
THE PROSECUTION CASE: -
2. The prosecution case unfolded this way. PW-8 – Swati Bhore, Deputy Superintendent of Police, was on duty on 22.07.2010 when she received a phone call from an unknown person informing that there was doubtful death of the deceased-Sunanda (also known as Nanda Gitte) of Talani village. She intimated PW-7 – Vidyadhar Murlidhar Kale, Assistant Police Inspector (API), of Parali Police Station. Thereafter, PW-7 – Kale asked PW-4 – Dadarao Kondiram Bankar, Police Sub-Inspector, to go to the spot and inform as to what the situation was. On receiving information from PW-4 that suspicious things were going on, PW-7 reached there with his staff. According to PW-7, the last rites of the dead body of the deceased were being hurriedly carried out. According to him, when he wanted to inspect the dead body, the mob obstructed him. However, he convinced them and inspected the body and found that there was strangulation mark on the neck and injury on the backside of skull with blood oozing. The crowd, when informed that it was a case of murder, ran away. PW-8 -Swati Bhore also reached the spot and noticed the strangulation mark on the neck and injury on the head. The dead body was removed from the pyre and inquest was carried out. Postmortem was also performed that afternoon.
3. Since the area fell within the jurisdiction of Bardapur Police Station, PW-7 informed PW-9 -Sunil Srinavas Birla, Police Inspector. PW-7 also handed over the inquest panchnama, the letter given to medical officer for postmortem as well as the postmortem report to PW-9 who had also by then reached the spot. PW-9 came back to Bardapur Police Station and registered the FIR on 23.07.2010 at 00.45 hours. Investigation was carried out and chargesheet was laid against two accused – the appellant-Nilesh Baburao Gitte and the acquitted accused-Balasaheb Gangadhar Gitte.
4. At the trial, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses and marked a large number of Exhibits. The accused were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
5. The case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence. The Trial Court and the High Court, while convicting the accused, have relied on the following circumstances:-
5.1 That the evidence of PW-6 –Dr. Salunke Radhakishan Sarjerao who also conducted the postmortem, established that the deceased-Sunanda met with homicidal death.
5.2 That the appellant h
Murder – Document produced by prosecution as part of charge-sheet pursuant to investigation though not exhibited can be relied upon by defence.
In criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances leading to the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and suspicion alone cannot....
If a person is last seen with the deceased, in that case regarding the death of the deceased, he must offer an explanation which is probable and satisfactory. If he does so, then it will be held that....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on circumstantial evidence to establish the guilt of the accused under IPC Section 302.
Circumstantial evidence must establish a continuous chain linking the accused to the crime, and mere suspicion is insufficient for conviction.
(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....
The conviction was primarily based on circumstantial evidence, requiring the accused to provide a cogent explanation for the incriminating circumstances, which he failed to do.
The main legal point established is the requirement to fully establish circumstances in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the need for corroborating medical reports with other evidence, and the....
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
