IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Ravindra V Ghuge, B.U. Debadwar, JJ.
State Of Maharashtra - Appellant
Versus
Vishnu - Respondent
Criminal Confirmation No. 1 of 2020, 402 of 2020
Decided On : 11-02-2021
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction of the accused for pocso offenses. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. details of the victim's disappearance and discovery. (Para 3 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. arguments emphasizing circumstantial evidence. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 10) |
| 4. challenge to prosecution circumstantial evidence. (Para 9 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. court suggests re-evaluation of evidence. (Para 11 , 15 , 19) |
| 6. scrutiny of procedural shortcomings in evidence collection. (Para 16 , 17 , 21 , 24) |
| 7. principles of circumstantial evidence. (Para 18 , 22 , 25) |
| 8. discussion on applicable laws under ipc and pocso. (Para 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 9. requirement for tangible evidence links. (Para 81 , 82) |
| 10. final acquittal of the accused on benefit of the doubt. (Para 106 , 107) |
JUDGMENT
Ravindra V. Ghuge, J. - The accused in Special Case (POCSO) No. 02/2017, Shri. Vishnu Madan Gore, has been convicted for having committed the offence punishable u/s 376-A and Section 302 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE along with Sections 5 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as 'POCSO' Act). He has also been held guilty of committing the offence punishable u/s 201, 363 and 364 of the IPC. He has been awarded the sentence of hanging by the neck till he is dead u/s 354(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As such, the trial Court has forwarded the said case under Section 363 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for confirmation, to this Court. So also, the accused has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 402 of 2020 praying for quashing the impugned Judgment and, consequentially, for acquittal.
2. The case put forth by the prosecution against the accused, is as follows : -
[a] The informant is PW1 - Prabhakar Shamrao Gaiwal, who is the grandfather of the deceased minor victim girl, who was aged about 5 years. Her name is not set out in this order. The informant had three sons and three married daughters. His elder son Sham, who is the biological father of the deceased, died of a heart attack within eight years of his marriage. The deceased was the only daughter born from the said marriage. After the death of Sham, his wife remarried and left the deceased daughter with the informant.
[b] On 27.10.2016, at about 08:30 am, PW1, along with his wife (grandmother of the deceased), left for reaping Soyabean crop in the agricultural field belonging to a villager. The deceased and the minor biological son of PW1, i.e. PW3 Krishna, were in the house. When they returned back at about 04:00 pm, the deceased was found missing and hence, the grandparents started searching for her. Despite searching in the village and also in the neighbouring villages, the deceased was not found. Fearing for the worst, PW1 registered a missing complaint with the concerned Police Station on 29.10.2016. A crime came to be registered as C.R. No. 199 of 2016 and the investigation in the crime was handed over to the Investigating Officer.
[c] On 31.10.2016, during the course of investigation, the Police Patil of village Shelgaon informed the Police Station as regards a dead body of a minor girl having been found floating in a well in the agricultural field of Vishwambhar Ganpatrao Londhe, PW7. The Police arrived at the scene and prepared a spot panchanama (Exh.32), the inquest panchanama (Exh.25) and a letter (Exh. 80) was issued to the Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Gangakhed for conducting post-mortem of the said body. Statements of witnesses were recorded and on 02.11.2016 and the I.O. prepared a seizure panchanama vide Exh. 45, having found a quilt with reddish colour stains within the premises of the house of the accused.
[d] The I.O. sent the seized muddemal articles and blood samples for chemical analysis along with letters (Exh. 81 and 82). On 05.11.2016, he issued a letter Exh. 83 to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Santacruz, Mumbai for a DNA test. On 06.11.2016, letter (Exh. 64) was issued as a questionnaire. Under the directions of the Superintendent of Police, Parbhani, the investigation was handed o
Amit @ Ammu Versus State of Maharashtra
Bharat Laxman Bidwe vs. The State of Maharashtra
Bodhraj alias Bodha and others Versus State of Jammu & Kashmir
Ganpat Singh Versus State of Madhya Pradesh
Jaffer Husain Dastagir vs. The State of Maharashtra
Keshav Versus State of Maharashtra
Kunal Majumdar vs. State of Rajasthan
Machindra Versus Sajjan Galfa Rankhamb and others
Maharashtra Sunil Kashinath Chandanshiva vs. State of Maharashtra
Mayur Panabhai Shah Versus State of Gujarat
Mohan Ambadas Meshram vs. State of Maharashtra
Navaneethakrishnan Versus State by Inspector of Police
Nazir Pathyekhanvar vs. State of Goa
Rajvinder Singh vs. State of Haryana
Shanti Devi vs. State of Rajasthan
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra
Shivaji @ Dadya Shankar Alhat Versus State of Maharashtra
State of H.P. Versus Jai Lal and others
State of Uttar Pradesh Versus Satish
Swamy Shraddananda @ Murali Manohar Mishra Versus State of Karnataka
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.