Back
2017 Supreme(Bom) 931
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
S.S. SHINDE & S.M. GAVHANE, JJ.
Balasaheb s/o. Namdeo Bhale – Appellant
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.94 OF 2001
Decided On : 17-07-2017
For the Appellant :Mr. Satej S. Jadhav, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. S.D. Ghayal, APP
Headnote:
Electric Shock - Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code Section 302 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the evidence and interpretation of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, focusing on the medical evidence, circumstantial evidence, and the burden of proof. The judgment highlighted the principles of criminal law, burden of proof, and the requirement for the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly giving electric shock to his wife, resulting in her death. The prosecution's case was based on medical evidence and circumstantial evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant gave electric shock to his wife and was responsible for her death. The court highlighted the mismatch between the medical evidence and the evidence of the deceased's mother, creating serious doubt about the truthfulness of the prosecution's case.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the cause of death, the delay in lodging the FIR, the mismatch between the medical evidence and witness testimony, and the absence of a chain of circumstances to sustain the conviction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that suspicion, by itself, is not sufficient to establish guilt, and the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The judgment highlighted the principles of criminal law, burden of proof, and the requirement for the prosecution to establish guilt based on the strength of its own evidence.
Final Decision: The criminal appeal was allowed, the appellant was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and the impugned judgment and order were quashed and set aside.
S.S. Shinde, J.
1. This Appeal is filed by the appellant-accused, challenging the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai, dated 15th February, 2001, in Sessions Case No.118/1999, thereby convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one month.
2. The prosecution case in nutshell is as under:
Sumanbai w/o. Vishwanath Rupnar, the informant, is residing at Kauthali, Taluka Parali. A daughter of the informant, namely Ashabai [deceased], was married with Balasaheb Namdeo Bhale i.e. the accused, sometime in the year 1991.
3. Since 1996, the accused along with his wife Ashabai [deceased], came to reside in the house of the informant at Kauthali. The house of the informant was comprised of two rooms. The accused and the deceased were residing in front room, and the informant was residing in rear room. Since the accused and the deceased started residing at Kauthali, the accused was making allegation against the deceased that she has illicit relations with others, and he used to ill-treat her, and used to give threat that he will kill her by giving electric shock.
4. On 30th November, 1999, at about 8.00 p.m., the accused came to the house after consuming liquor. The accused made allegation against the informant and the deceased about their illicit relations and started giving abuses. The accused also beat the deceased by means of fist blows and slaps. At midnight also, the accused beat the deceased, the neighbours were gathered for intervention. The accused enquired with them, whether they have illicit relations with the deceased, and that’s why they came to intervene, hence the neighbours returned to their house.
5. On 1st October, 1999, at about 5.00 a.m. Ashabai [deceased] shouted for help hence the informant went in the room of the deceased. The deceased in coherent speech told that the electric shock was given to her, and with the help of hand showed the place where the shock was given. At that time the accused, by throwing wire from his hand in the room, ran away. The informant by lifting saree of the deceased saw that there was injury on the left buttock of the deceased.
6. The informant carried the deceased in rickshaw for taking her to the Hospital at Parali. However, on the way the death occurred, hence returned to Kauthali.
7. The brother of the informant, namely Vishnu Hake, filed the A.D. report. Then the A.D. was registered as A.D. No.37/1999. The Police visited the spot. The inquest panchnama and spot panchnama were recorded. The dead body was sent for the postmortem. The informant lodged the complaint. On the basis of said complaint, crime was registered as Crime No.175/1999 for the offence under Section 302 of the I.P. Code against the accused. The accused was arrested. During investigation, the statements of witnesses were recorded. The provisional certificate of cause of death and postmortem report were collected. The electric wires were discovered at the instance of the accused. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the accused under Section 302 of the I.P. Code in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Parali.
8. The learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Session as the offence punishable under Section 302 of the I.P. Code is exclusively triable by the Court of Session. The Sessions Court framed the charge against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the I.P. Code. The charge was read over and explained to the accused in vernacular. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
9. After full-fledged trial, the trial Court convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. Hence this Appeal filed by the appellant– accused.
10. Heard the learned coun
