Back
2017 Supreme(Bom) 1095
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
S.S. Shinde, K.K. Sonawane, JJ.
Radha – Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 213 of 2015
Decided On : 13-01-2017
For the Appellants : N.R. Thorat and S.G. Kawade.
For the Respondent: P.G. Borade.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to establish a complete chain of incriminating circumstances beyond reasonable doubt, emphasizing the need for corroborative evidence and the unreliability of circumstantial evidence alone.
Headnote:
IPC - Conviction under sections 302 and 201 - [302, 201] - The court discussed the last seen theory, extra-judicial confession, recovery of clothes of deceased, and motive. The judgment acquitted the accused due to lack of convincing evidence and benefit of doubt.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the offence under sections 302 and 201 of the IPC for the death of a three-year-old girl. The prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence, including the last seen theory, extra-judicial confession, recovery of clothes of the deceased, and motive.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of incriminating circumstances pointing to the guilt of the accused. The evidence of last seen theory, extra-judicial confession, and recovery of clothes of the deceased was deemed unreliable and not credible. The motive propounded by the prosecution was considered slender and not sufficient to draw adverse inference against the accused.
Issues: The issues revolved around the reliability of circumstantial evidence, including the last seen theory, extra-judicial confession, recovery of clothes of the deceased, and motive. The court also considered the sufficiency of evidence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The judgment emphasized that the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is drawn must be cogently and firmly established, creating a chain of circumstances leading to an inescapable inference of guilt. The court highlighted the need for corroborative evidence and the importance of proving extra-judicial confession, recovery of evidence, and motive.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the accused was acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC. The court extended the benefit of doubt to the accused and ordered her release from jail, setting aside the impugned judgment and order of the trial court.
K.K. Sonawane, J.
1. Being aggrieved by conviction for the offence punishable under sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC") and resultant sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- (Rupees Two Thousand), i/d. six months simple imprisonment, for the offence punishable under section 302 of the IPC and rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 1000/- (Rupees One Thousand), i/d. four months simple imprisonment, for the offence punishable under section 201 of the IPC, imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai, District Beed, in Sessions Case No. 101 of 2011, the appellant-original accused has preferred present appeal to redress her grievance.
The facts, which led to the prosecution case are as under:
2. That, ill-fated victim Payal, three years old was daughter of complainant-Smt. Soni Karan (Tuusam) Thakur resident of Latur. According to prosecution, there were marital discord in between the complainant-Smt. Soni and her husband Kapil Subrao Sonawane and thereafter, she was staying with one Karan son of Chetansing Thakur as his wife. The complainant-Smt. Soni also begotten a daughter namely Payal from paramour Shri Karan Thakur. But, since last three months of the incident, complainant-Smt. Soni started residing with her parents following quarrel with paramour Karan. It has been alleged that prior to eight days of the incident, the complainant-Smt. Soni had been to Bazar for purchasing vegetables and at that time she met with friend Soni Waghmare and her sister Hema Gupta. After conversation, the trio along with minor Payal went to the house of friend Soni Waghmare. The lady, namely, Hema sister of friend Soni Waghmare made enquiry about labour work done by the complainant - Smt. Soni. The lady Hema asked the complainant-Smt. Soni to accompany with her to Delhi and she will provide her job. Thereafter, the complainant-Smt. Son, her minor daughter victim-Payal came to Delhi with Hema, the sister of friend Soni Waghmare. At Delhi, Hema made arrangement for job as maid servant at two houses for the complainant-Smt. Soni. But, the minor daughter Payal used to cry and did not allow the mother-Smt. Soni to do the job as maid servant. She was creating hurdles for doing the work as maid servant. Eventually, mother-Complainant Smt. Soni decided to send daughter victim Payal to her parents house at Latur. The lady, Hema advised that her friend accused Radha is going to her village and she will carry minor daughter Payal at Latur for taking her to parents' home of the complainant-Smt. Soni. Accordingly, the complainant-Smt. Soni sent her minor daughter with accused Radha to take her to the house of parents of complainant at Latur. She had also given phone number of her sister to accused Radha to call her parents for taking minor victim Payal.
Unfortunately, minor victim Payal did not reach to the parents home of the complainant- Smt. Soni. The lady Hema rushed to Latur in search of victim-Payal. The Complainant- Smt. Soni also came to Latur. They took search of missing minor daughter Payal. Police of Bardapur Police Station called the complainant-Smt. Soni, her parents to Police Station on 09-09-2011. Both, Hema and accused Radha were in the Police Station. On enquiry, they disclosed to the complainant that minor victim Payala was giving trouble to accused Radha, and therefore, she killed her by pressing neck. The complainant-Smt. Soni lodged First Information Report (for short "FIR") at Bardapur Police Station. Pursuant to the FIR, the Police of Bardapur Police Station registered crime No. 50 of 2011 under section 302 and 201 of the IPC and set the penal law in motion.
3. Prior to registration of FIR, the Police of Bardapur Police Station received information about dead body of minor child in the dilapidated house (Wada). Accordingly, Accidental Death (AD) No. 27 of 2011 came to be registered and police swung into action. Investigating Officer visited t
