Back
2001 Supreme(Bom) 626
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(AURANGABAD BENCH)
Vishnu Sahai A.S. Bagga, JJ.
Sopan Punjaram Mule .... Appellant.
Versus
State of Maharashtra.... Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 390 of 1996, decided on 12-7-2001.
Advocates appeared :
Mrs. S.S. Jadhav for Mrs. C.E. Gaikwad Shivajirao Scindia, for appellant.
S.K. Tambe, A.P.P., for respondent.
The judgment emphasizes the need for conclusive evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases, highlighting the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty'.
Headnote:
Criminal Law - Murder - Indian Penal Code - Section 302, Section 201
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the murder of the deceased and for causing disappearance of evidence. The prosecution's case relied on circumstantial evidence, including last seen, motive, and recovery of the corpse.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that while the recovery of the corpse was established, the circumstantial evidence did not conclusively lead to the inference that the appellant committed the murder. The conviction for murder was not sustained, but the conviction for causing disappearance of evidence was upheld.
Issues: The key issue was whether the circumstantial evidence conclusively proved the appellant's guilt for murder.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for legal, reliable, and unimpeachable evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It found that while the recovery of the corpse was established, the circumstantial evidence did not conclusively establish the appellant's guilt for murder.
Final Decision: The appellant was acquitted for the offence of murder but was convicted for causing disappearance of evidence. The court directed the release of the appellant, considering the time already served.
(i) Under section 302 I.P.C. to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- i.d. to suffer 2 years R.I.; and
(ii) Under section 201 I.P.C. to suffer 4 years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- i.d. to undergo one year R.I.
The substantive sentences of the appellant were ordered to run concurrently.
It is pertinent to mention that alongwith the appellant, his two brothers namely; Dnyandeo Mule and Sakharam Mule and his wife Mirabai are also tried for the said offences but they have been acquitted through the impugned judgment and the State of Maharashtra has not assailed their acquittal by preferring a appeal under section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. Shortly stated, the prosecution case runs as under :
The deceased Narayan was son of Yashodabai w/o. Sheshrao Mule, P.W. 2 and the husband of Gangasagar Narayan Mule, P.W. 7. The marriage between the deceased and Gangasagar Mule took place about 15 days prior to the incident. At the time of the incident, the deceased Narayan alongwith Yashodabai Mule and Gangaram Mule was living in village Bachegaon, District Jalna. The appellant and the acquitted accused were living also in the said village.
Since there were illicit relations between the deceased Narayan and acquitted accused Mirabai. Appellant Sopan-husband of Mirabai nursed ill will against the deceased.
In this background, it is stated that on the night of 26-2-1992 at about 7 p.m., the appellant Sopan came to the house of Yashodabai. Thereafter, he and the deceased Narayan had food. Thereafter, the appellant told Yashodabai and her husband Sheshrao who died prior to the recording of the evidence that he and Narayan would sleep in the field of Narayan. Since Narayan had been recently married Yashodabai resisted but on the insistence of the appellant relented.
2-A. The evidence of Nivrathi Thombre, P.W. 3 shows that at about 10 p.m. on the said date he, Narayan and the appellant Sopan slept in the field of Narayan. He slept at a distance of about 50 ft. from where Narayan and Sopan were sleeping. At about 2 to 2.30 p.m. on the night of 26/27-2-1992 Nivrutti woke up hearing cries of deceased Narayan "save me, Nivrathi Mama". He rushed on the spot and saw an axe in the hands of appellant Sopan. He also saw acquitted accused Dnyandeo and Sakharam running away. When he shouted, the appellant threatened that he would kill him.
2-B. The evidence of Narayan Natha Mule, P.W. 8, shows that about six months prior to recovery of dead body, in the night of Mahashivratri at about 1 to 1.30 a.m. he saw the appellant bringing fodder in a bullock cart in the village.
2-C. The evidence of Rambhau Ranmale, P.W. 6, shows that on the next date of the incident (27-2-1992) at about 4 a.m. when he was going to answer call of nature, he saw the appellant coming from the land of deceased Narayan. He was carrying an axe in his hand. When he asked him, why he was coming at such a early time from the field, he replied that Narayan had gone out of the village as he was displeased with his parents and he was going to inform his parents.
2-D. The evidence of Gangasagar Mule, P.W. 7, shows that on the next day (27-2-1992) in the morning, the appellant came to the house where she was living alongwith her mother-in-law Yashodabai and enquired about the whereabouts of Narayan. At that time, he was weeping.
2-E. The evidence of Yeshodabai Sheshrao Mule, P.W. 2, shows that when Narayan did not return next morning, her husband Sheshrao went to see him in the field but did not find him there. Thereafter, she made inquiries with the appellant who told her that Narayan had gone to Alandi.
2-F. The evidence shows that when Narayan did not return, his father Sheshrao started searching
