2020 Supreme(Bom) 753
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT AURANGABAD BENCH
T.V. Nalawade, Mangesh S Patil, JJ.
Rama - Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 78 of 2016
Decided On : 18-08-2020
R.S. Mubashir Ali, Advocate, S.G. Karlekar, Advocate
The judgment established the principle that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, there must be a complete chain of evidence to exclude all reasonable hypotheses of innocence and establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code - Conviction under Section 302 - [POISONING] - [IPC Section 302] - The court discussed the evidence and circumstances surrounding the alleged poisoning, including the conduct of the accused, the statements of witnesses, and the lack of conclusive evidence. The court highlighted the need for a complete chain of circumstantial evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The judgment emphasized the importance of careful analysis of circumstantial evidence and the exclusion of all reasonable hypotheses of innocence.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant-accused was convicted for the offence of poisoning his son, but the court found that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubts. The delay in filing the FIR, lack of corroboration, and inconsistencies in the evidence raised doubts about the guilt of the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The delay in filing the FIR and lack of corroboration created doubts about the case against the accused.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the sufficiency of evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the reliability of witness testimony, and the application of Section 106 of the Evidence Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The judgment emphasized the need for a complete chain of circumstantial evidence to exclude all reasonable hypotheses of innocence. It highlighted the importance of careful analysis of circumstantial evidence and the limitations of using Section 106 of the Evidence Act in cases based on circumstantial evidence.
Final Decision: The appellant-accused was acquitted of the offence charged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and the court ordered his release from jail.
JUDGMENT
T. V. Nalawade, J. - This appeal is filed against the Judgment and order dated 19-08-2015, passed in Sessions Case No. 14 of 2014, which was pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Billoli, District Nanded. The trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant-accused for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The sentence of imprisonment of life is given, but no fine was imposed.
2. Both sides are heard.
3. In short, facts leading to the institution of appeal can be stated as follows :
The First Information Report (FIR) was given by Vithabai Rama Ghongde. She is mother of deceased Ashutosh and wife of appellant-accused. She was living with appellant, deceased - Ashutosh and another son Anirudha in village Khanapur, Tahsil Degloor, District Nanded. Their family had purchased land at village Khanapur.
4. The appellant-accused was addicted to liquor and he was not doing work for livelihood. When the informant was insisting the accused that he should do some work like labour work, there were frequently quarrels in between informant and the appellant. During quarrel, the appellant used to threat that one day he would give poison to them and he will also consume poison.
5. The incident-in-question took place on 18-12-2013. On that day also, in the morning there was quarrel as usual between informant and appellant. After quarrel, two sons Ashutosh and Anirudha went to the School and informant went to the field of one Hanmant Pulkanthe for labour work. After some time, the appellant gave phone call to informant and said that he wanted to finish all members of his family. Her younger son Anirudha also made phone call to her and told that the appellant would finish them and she should return to home. The informant returned to home at about 12.30 noon. After that, there was quarrel between informant and appellant. This quarrel was witnessed by neighbourers like Rajanna Bakanwar, Raju Chainpure, Sidram Yanalwar and others. They somehow separated quarrel between the informant and the appellant. Thereafter, the informant went to the house of a neighbour. The appellant then left the home with Ashutosh. The age of deceased was around 14 years.
6. After half an hour of aforesaid incident, Rajanna Bakanwar was informed by the appellant on phone that Ashutosh had consumed insecticides. After receiving this message, informant, Rajanna Bakanwar and Kapil Bakanwar went to the spot, which is situated on Khanapur to Khanapur Phata road, near the field of one Bolse. They noticed that fluid was coming from the mouth of Ashutosh. Informant Vithabai (PW-1) also noticed that the deceased had passed stool and it was cleaned by her. Then, the informant took her son Ashutosh along with neibhourers in one auto-rickshaw towards Civil Hospital Degloor. Due to some mechanical defect, auto rickshaw was stopped at Khanapur Phata. From there, Ashutosh was shifted to Civil Hospital, at Degloor on motorcycle of Kapil. Doctors from Civil Hospital, Degloor referred Ashutosh to Civil Hospital, Nanded, for further treatment. Some treatment was given to Ashutosh in Civil Hospital at Nanded, but he died at about 18.30 hours on 18-12-2013. The dead body of Ashutosh was handed over to Vithabai and funeral was completed on 19-12-2013. She gave report to the Police on 20-12-2013 at about 23.05 hours. A crime came to be registered against the appellant under Section 302 of IPC.
7. During the investigation, appellant came to be arrested. On the basis of statement given by appellant-accused, one bottle of insecticides came to be recovered by the Police. Statements of aforesaid witnesses came to be recorded by the Police. Statements of some persons, like Kushalrao Bhure and Rajanna Bakanwar, came to be recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) through Special Judicial Magistrate. Viscera of the dead body and bottle of insecticides came to be sent to the CA office for chemical analysis. A