Back
2020 Supreme(Bom) 972
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Prasanna B Varale, V.G. Bisht, JJ.
Gopal Shankarappa Rathod - Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 474 of 2016
Decided On : 22-09-2020
Payoshi Roy, Advocate, Yug Chaudhary, Advocate, V.B. Konde Deshmukh, Advocate
The judgment establishes the principle that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must fully and conclusively establish circumstances that exclude every hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. It also emphasizes the duty of the court to rule out possibilities allowing the presumption of innocence.
Headnote:
Criminal Appeal - Conviction under Section 302 IPC - [DELAYED FIR DISPATCH] - [LAST SEEN THEORY, MOTIVE, DISCLOSURE STATEMENT] - [The judgment discusses the delayed dispatch of the FIR, inconsistencies in the last seen theory, lack of credible motive, and the questionable disclosure statement. The court finds that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and acquits the accused of all charges.]
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC for the murder of his wife. The prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence, including the delayed forwarding of the FIR and the last seen theory. The appellant's counsel argued that the circumstances relied on by the prosecution were not sufficiently established, and the trial court misdirected itself in appreciating the circumstances. The prosecution's evidence included witness testimonies, medical reports, and a disclosure statement by the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delayed dispatch of the FIR, inconsistencies in the last seen theory, lack of credible motive, and the questionable disclosure statement raised serious doubts about the prosecution's case. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
Issues: The issues revolved around the sufficiency of the circumstantial evidence, including the delayed dispatch of the FIR, the last seen theory, the motive, and the disclosure statement. The court also considered the reliability of witness testimonies and the medical evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of establishing circumstances fully and conclusively in cases based on circumstantial evidence. It highlighted the need to exclude every hypothesis except the guilt of the accused and the duty of the court to rule out possibilities that allow the presumption of innocence. The court also scrutinized the credibility of witness testimonies and the statutory obligation of promptly dispatching the FIR to the Magistrate.
Final Decision: The court allowed the criminal appeal, quashed the judgment and order of conviction, and acquitted the appellant-accused of all charges. The court ordered the appellant's immediate release and the refund of any fine paid.
JUDGMENT
V. G. Bisht, J. - This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kolhapur, in Sessions Case No.49 of 2014 on 22nd April 2015 convicting the appellant-accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only), in default, to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month.
2. In short, the prosecution case runs as under :-
(a) Tarasing Narayan Powar, Informant, at the relevant time was working on a stone crusher belonging to one Adinath Bharmappa Mahajan of Village Madilge Budruk, Taluka Bhudargad, District Kolhapur. Gopal Shankarappa Rathod (accused), his wife Smt.Savita Gopal Rathod (deceased), Pundlik Bhinglu Chavan, Smt.Vidyabai Pundlik Chavan and their family members were also employed with said Adinath Bharmappa Mahajan. The deceased was informant's cousin.
(b) According to the prosecution, the accused is addicted to liquor and used to beat the deceased by suspecting her infidelity and was of the view that she was having physical relations with his brother Jayram. The informant and one Baliram, Mukadam used to persuade him.
(c) On 6th November 2013, there was a weekly market of Village Gargoti. The informant and others started at about 11.30 a.m. and even asked the accused to accompany them for the weekly market. The accused, according to the prosecution, told them that he had stock of necessities and therefore, would not accompany them. At about 4.30 p.m., the informant found the seven months old son of the appellant-accused crying and therefore, he enquired with the boys of the area. The boys told him that after he (informant and others) left for market, the accused and his wife went to a forest which was near the stone crusher for collecting firewood and did not return. The informant and others started searching for them. At about 6 p.m., they found the deceased in a rivulet of Gairan Pathar forest within the limits of Madilge Budruk village, having sustained injuries on head and near ear and in a pool of blood. However, the accused was found nowhere. The deceased was taken to the government hospital of Village Gargoti where the doctor declared her dead.
(d) The informant, on the ground of suspicion, lodged the report against the appellant-accused alleging therein that the appellant-accused might have committed murder of the deceased on the ground of her infidelity.
(e) The First Information Report (FIR) was registered vide C.R.No.93 of 2013 by Bhudargad Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. Investigation was taken up by PW9 Rohidas Sukhdev Powar. He visited the place of occurrence, prepared Inquest Panchnama and Spot Panchnama. He also prepared Seizure Panchnama of the various articles found on the spot, collected advance cause of Death certificate, seized clothes of deceased and that of accused, recorded statements of five prosecution witnesses, sent the seized articles to the Forensic Science Laboratory and after collecting the Chemical Analyzer's Report and on completion of investigation, forwarded the charge against the appellant-accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, Kolhapur.
(f) To substantiate the Charge against the appellant-accused, the prosecution has examined as many as nine witnesses and exhibited number of documents. The accused was questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) about the incriminating evidence and circumstances and the appellant-accused denied all of them as false and pleaded that he has been falsely implicated in the case. Upon appreciation of the oral evidence and the circumstances, the trial Court convicted the appellant-accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him in the manner stated hereinabove
