Back
2020 Supreme(Bom) 371
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH
V.M. DESHPANDE, PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, JJ.
Sanjay Devaji Ramteke – Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 476 of 2016
Decided On : 09-03-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. A.C. Jaltare.
For the Respondent: Mr. V.A. Thakare.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to establish a complete chain of evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in cases based on circumstantial evidence.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code - Conviction under Section 302 and Section 449 - [Last seen theory, Recovery of blood stained clothes] - The court acquitted the appellant of the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 449 of the Indian Penal Code due to lack of evidence and incomplete chain of evidence.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 449. The prosecution's case was based on the appellant being last seen with the deceased and the recovery of blood stained clothes.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence presented by the prosecution was not sufficient to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The court highlighted the lack of eyewitness accounts and the reliance on circumstantial evidence.
Issues: The issues revolved around the sufficiency of evidence, including the credibility of witness testimony and the admissibility of scientific evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles laid down in Sharad Birdichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra to evaluate the evidence and concluded that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of evidence to prove the guilt of the appellant.
Final Decision: The court acquitted the appellant of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 449 of the Indian Penal Code and ordered his release from jail.
JUDGMENT :
V.M. DESHPANDE, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 09.12.2016 passed by learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur in Sessions Case No. 86/2015. By the impugned judgment and order of conviction, the appellant stands convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and is directed to suffer life imprisonment and also to pay a fine amount of Rs. 6,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he is directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. He is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 449 of the IPC and for that he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine amount of Rs. 6,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he is directed that he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. The sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2. The prosecution case, as it is disclosed during the course of trial is narrated as under:
(i) Purushottam Undirwade (PW-1) and appellant reside in the same locality. They were having good family relations. This prosecution witness obtained hand loan of Rs. 2,000/- from the appellant and also purchased sand for an amount of Rs. 1200/- on credit. Thus, he was to repay an amount of Rs. 3200/- to appellant. On 30.04.2015, the appellant came to the house of Purushottam and demanded money. Upon that, he was told that the amount will be repaid after a period of one week.
(ii) On 02.05.2015, Purushottam (PW-1), in the morning at 09.00 O’clock went to Bhadrawati for his work. That time, his daughter Pratiksha (PW-2) and wife Kunda, the deceased were present in home. Purushottam received a phone call of Pratiksha (PW-2) at 10.15 a.m. and it was disclosed to him by Pratiksha that her mother has suffered injuries on her head. It was also informed to him that her maternal uncle Bandu Nimgade took her to the Government hospital. Therefore, he returned to Chandrapur and proceeded directly to the hospital to notice that his wife sustained injuries on her nose, face and was about to be taken to Nagpur for treatment. He, therefore, went to the house for bringing clothes. Thereafter, they started proceeding in an ambulance to Nagpur. However, during journey, she died. Therefore, they returned to the hospital and he went to Police Station and lodged the report.
(iii) When Purushottam (PW-1) had been to Police Station to lodge report, that time API Nirmala Kinnake (PW-3) was discharging duties. She registered the offence vide Crime No. 217/2015 with Police Station, Ram Nagar, Chandrapur against appellant for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC.
(iv) As per report (Exh.8), when Purushottam reached to hospital, on getting information on phone from Pratiksha (PW-2), he noticed that his wife was admitted in an injured condition and treatment was going on and she was not in a position to speak. Since the injured was referred for further treatment at Medical College, Nagpur, Purushottam (PW-1) went to his house for bringing the clothes. That time, Pratiksha (PW-2) disclosed that when Purushottam went for his work, the appellant came to his house at 09.30 and gave Rs. 50/- for purchasing kharra (mixture of tobacco and beetle nut). When she was returning after purchasing kharra, she found that the house was closed from outside and when she opened the door, she noticed that her mother was lying in an injured condition and weapon Wasla was lying there. These are the material statements in the FIR.
(v) After registration of crime, API Nirmala Kinnake (PW-3) went to spot of incident and prepared spot panchanama (Exh.18). Inquest was done over the dead body vide inquest panchanama (Exh.19). Body was sent for post mortem and after post mortem, it was handed over to the relatives. The weapon was seized from the spot itself. API Nirmala PW-3) handed over investigation to API Sohansingh Parmar (PW-4).
(vi) API Parmar (PW-4) received the investigation papers of Crime No. 217/2015 on 03.0
