Back
2017 Supreme(Bom) 801
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
S.S. SHINDE & S.M. GAVHANE, JJ.
Milind s/o Sahebrao Lahane and Others – Appellants
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra, Through G.P., High Court of Judicature of Bombay High Court, at Aurangabad – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.81, 106 OF 1999
Decided On : 29-06-2017
For the Appellant :Mr. A.K. Bhosale Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. P.G. Borade, A.P.P.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for strong and corroborated evidence, especially in cases based on circumstantial evidence and extra-judicial confessions.
Headnote:
Extra Judicial Confession - Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code - Section 302, Section 34 - The court discussed the prosecution's reliance on circumstantial evidence, extra-judicial confessions, and the identification of the deceased. The judgment highlighted the weakness of the extra-judicial confessions and the lack of corroboration, leading to the benefit of doubt for the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence, extra-judicial confessions, and the identification of the deceased. The accused were convicted for the murder of Prakash Lahane based on the prosecution's evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the extra-judicial confessions were weak and lacked corroboration. The identification of the deceased was also doubtful. As a result, the court concluded that the accused were entitled to the benefit of doubt.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the strength of the extra-judicial confessions, the reliability of the identification of the deceased, and the sufficiency of the circumstantial evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the weakness of the extra-judicial confessions and the lack of corroboration, leading to the benefit of doubt for the accused.
Final Decision: Both the accused were acquitted of all charges, and the impugned judgment and order were quashed and set aside. The fine amount was ordered to be refunded, and the bail bonds were cancelled.
S.S. SHINDE, J.
1. As both these Criminal Appeals are arising out of one and the same Judgment and order passed by the trial Court, both the Appeals are being decided by this common Judgment.
2. Both these Appeals are directed against the Judgment and order dated 4th December, 1999, passed by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Sessions Case No.246 of 1997 thereby convicting accused No.1 Milind s/o Sahebrao Lahane and accused No.2 Sumanbai @ Kalpana w/o Prakash Lahane for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "I.P. Code") and sentencing them to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each, and in default, to suffer further imprisonment for six months.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is as under :
(A) On 29th January, 1996, P.S.I. Mahendra Deshmukh was present in police chowki of Begampura, Aurangabad. At about 11.00 a.m. he received information through anonymous telephonic call that, one dead body was lying near "Hanuman Tekdi". To verify the said information, he sent two police constables in the area of "Hanuman Tekdi". Two constables went near "Hanuman Tekdi". They found that the dead body of one male person was lying there. Accordingly, they gave information to P.S.I. Deshmukh City Chowk police station, Aurangabad. Constable Gawali filed written report in police station, on the basis of which A.D. No.3 of 1996 was registered, under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(B) Inquiry of A.D. No.3 of 1996 was handed over to head constable Nikalje. P.S.I. Deshmukh and head constable Nikalje visited the spot of incident. They observed that the dead body of male was lying on the ground. It was decomposed. There was no identification mark on the dead body. There was one black thread around the neck of the dead body. Said thread was having knot on the back-side of the neck. Head constable Nikalje effected spot panchnama on the spot in presence of panchas. He did inquest panchnama in presence of the panchas. At the time of preparing spot panchnama, they observed that one pair of slipper was lying on the spot. On 29th January, 1996 police observed that there was a white shirt and pant of white colour on the person of the dead body. There was one banian of white colour and underwear of blue colour. Police seized those clothes of the deceased, black thread (Kardoda) and pair of slipper under seizure panchnama in presence of panchas. Head constable Nikalje sent the dead body for postmortem examination to Government Hospital, Ghati at Aurangabad.
(C) On 30th January, 1996 head constable Nikalje made inquiry from the medical officer about the cause of death. The medical officer directed the head constable to send the dead body to the department of Anatomy to ascertain the cause of death of the deceased. Viscera was preserved for Chemical Analysis. Medical officer opined that "due to strangulation, death can be caused".
(D) P.S.I. Deshmukh found that murder of unknown person was committed. He also found that to destroy proof, the dead body was thrown near "Hanuman Tekdi". Hence he filed report in City Chowk police station on 31st January, 1996 as per Exhibit 37. On the basis of his report, Crime No. I-21 of 1996 was registered under Section 302 of the I.P. Code. Further investigation was handed over to P.I. Lokhande (PW-20).
(E) P.I. Lokhanded (PW-20) obtained document of inquiry of A.D. No.3 of 1996, which was done by head constable Nikalje. He found that head constable Nikalje had seized hair and soil mixed with blood from the spot. P.I. Lokhande received seized articles in his custody.
(F) On 31st January, 1996 medical officer did not give exact cause of death of the deceased, as the dead body was decomposed. At the same time, medical officer did not deny the possibility of strangulation. P.I. Lokhande tried to find out relatives of the deceased. He tried to identify the name of the dead person. He took photographs of the dead body with the he
