Back
2014 Supreme(Bom) 1236
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
V.K. TAHILRAMANI & A.S. GADKARI, JJ.
SAVITA NAMDEV DETHE – Appellant (Origi.Accused No.1)
Vs.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA - Respondent
WITH
NAMDEV SADASHIV DETHE – Appellant (Origi.Accused No.2)
Vs.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 673 OF 2007, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 714 OF 2007
Decided on: 25 June 2014
Mr. Vijay Hiremath, Advocate for Appellant in Cri. Appeal No. 714/2007.
Mr. Ganesh Gole, Advocate for Appellant in Cri. Appeal No.673/2007.
Smt. V.R. Bhonsale, A.P.P. for the Respondent-State.
The sufficiency and legal sanctity of circumstantial evidence in establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code - Murder - Section 302, Section 34, Section 201 - The judgment discusses the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution, including confessional statements, recovery of the dead body, recovery of a battery torch, and the motive for the murder. The court evaluates the legal sanctity of each circumstance and concludes that the evidence is shrouded with legal infirmities, leading to the benefit of doubt in favor of the appellants.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of Vijaya. The deceased was married to accused no.2 and subsequently accused no.1, leading to a motive for the murder. The prosecution presented circumstantial evidence, including confessional statements, recovery of the dead body, recovery of a battery torch, and the motive for the murder.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence presented by the prosecution was shrouded with legal infirmities, leading to the benefit of doubt in favor of the appellants. The chain of circumstances was deemed incomplete and insufficient to draw an irresistible inference that the appellants committed the crime. As a result, the appellants were acquitted of the charges and the impugned judgment was quashed and set aside.
Issues: The issues revolved around the sufficiency and legal sanctity of the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution, including confessional statements, recovery of the dead body, recovery of a battery torch, and the motive for the murder.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that in a case of circumstantial evidence, the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution must be consistent with the sole hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. It was noted that the circumstances should form a complete chain, exclude every hypothesis of the innocence of the accused, and point unquestionably towards the guilt of the accused. The court concluded that the evidence presented did not comply with the test of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: The Criminal Appeals were allowed, and the impugned judgment and order were quashed and set aside. The conviction and sentence of the appellants were also quashed and set aside, leading to the acquittal of the appellants. Any fines paid by the appellants were ordered to be refunded, and the appellants were to be released from jail forthwith if not required in any other case.
(Per A.S. GADKARI, J.):
1. The appellants are the original accused nos.1 and 2 respectively. The learned Sessions Judge, Pandharpur by its impugned judgment and order dated 19th May 2007 in Sessions Case No.101 of 2006 convicted the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1000/each, in default of the same to suffer RI for one month. The appellants have been further convicted under Section 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and are sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.500/, in default of the same to suffer RI for one month. The learned Trial Court has directed that both sentences to run concurrently. The appellants have questioned the correctness of their conviction by the present appeal.
2. The appellants were original accused nos.1 and 2 before the leaned Trial Court and therefore they are described hereinafter as accused nos.1 and 2 respectively for the sake brevity and clarity in the matter.
3. The facts which can be enumerated from the record, may briefly be stated thus:
(i) The accused no.2 was married to Vijaya, seven to eight years prior to the incident. As Vijaya did not conceive, accused no.2 stealthy married with the accused no.1, and out of the said wedlock of accused nos.1 and 2 two children i.e. one son and one daughter have begotten. It further appears from the record that subsequent to the birth of the children from accused nos.1 and 2, Vijaya i.e. the first wife of accused no.2 conceived. However, as the accused nos.1 and 2 were against the conceivement of Vijaya as her progeny would claim interest/share in the property of the accused no.2.
(ii) PW-9 Bapu Laxman Bhosale is the brother of the deceased Vijaya. PW-9 Bapu Laxman Bhosale was at Shende Chinch on 1.7.2006 when Dattu Sadashiv Dethe, the brother of accused no.2 came there and he informed PW-9 Bapu that Vijaya had left the house of accused no.2 early in the morning. Thereafter, PW-9 Bapu tried to search Vijaya at Dhondewadi, but she could not be traced and therefore he went to the police station and lodged missing report. The said missing report is at Exhibit 36. The record further discloses that contemporaneously the accused no.2 had also filed a written application with the police thereby stating that Vijaya was missing prior to one day and was not traceable. The said application was scribed by PW4 Mohan Tukaram Dongare a friend of accused no.2 and is at Exhibit 27 as per the record.
(iii) PW-10 Somnath Krishna Hegadkar was then attached to Pandharpur Taluka Police station. On 1.7.2006, PW-9 Bapu came to the police station and gave a missing report of his sister Vijaya Namdev Dethe. PW-10 Somnath recorded the said report as per the narration of PW-9 Bapu Bhosale. A missing complaint no.21 of 2006 was registered. The said missing complaint no.21 of 2006 is at Exhibit 36. In pursuance of the missing complaint, PW10 Somnath Hegadkar conducted enquiry and recorded statements of the accused no.1 Savita and others on 2.7.2006. He subsequently gave charge of the said enquiry to Police Head Constable Shri Haridas Yashwant Wagaj.
(iv) PW-11 Shri Haridas Wagaj was then attached to Pandharpur Taluka Police Station. As PW10 went for training, the enquiry of missing complaint no.21 of 2006 was entrusted to PW-11. PW-11 perused the missing report and statements of witnesses. On 10.7.2006, he again made enquiry with the appellants and on the basis of the enquiry made with the appellants he lodged the first information report on 10.7.2006, which is at Exhibit 43. On the basis of the said first information report, CR No.141 of 2006 under Section 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code came to be registered. Further investigation was handed over to A.P.I. Shri Karam.
(v) The record further discloses that during the course of investigation of CR no.141 of 2006 registered at Pandharpur Talukar Police St
