SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Bom) 1053

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Milind N. Jadhav, A. S. Gadkari, JJ.
Akshay @ Chhotya Kachar Jedgule - Appellant
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 706 OF 2017
Decided On : 08-09-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Pawan Mali
For the Respondent: Mr. S. S. Hulke

In cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances and prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Headnote:

Last Seen Theory - Criminal Law - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 235(2); Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 - [Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C., Section 302 of IPC] - The court discussed the 'last seen together' theory and its application in the case, emphasizing the need for clear, cogent, and unimpeachable evidence in cases based on circumstantial evidence. The court also highlighted the importance of examining the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and the burden of proof on the prosecution in cases of circumstantial evidence.

Fact of the Case:

The deceased was found dead with injuries, and the prosecution's case relied on the 'last seen together' theory. The accused explained that he had tried to help the deceased, who was in an inebriated state, and moved him to a safer place. The prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence, and the guilt of the accused was to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the chain of circumstances was incomplete, and the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court emphasized the need for clear, cogent, and unimpeachable evidence in cases based on circumstantial evidence.

Issues: The issues revolved around the application of the 'last seen together' theory, the burden of proof on the prosecution in cases of circumstantial evidence, and the need for a complete chain of circumstances to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of clear, cogent, and unimpeachable evidence in cases based on circumstantial evidence and highlighted the need for a complete chain of circumstances to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Final Decision: The impugned Judgment and Order dated 30.12.2016 was quashed and set aside, and the appellant (accused) was ordered to be released forthwith unless required to be imprisoned in any other offence.

JUDGEMENT :

Milind N. Jadhav, J.

1. This Appeal questions legality of Judgment and Order dated 30.12.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khed-Rajgurunagar, District Pune (for short, “Trial Court”) convicting the Appellant (original accused) under Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C.”) for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (for short, “IPC”) arising out of C.R. No. 320 of 2013 registered with Narayangaon Police Station and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 4 months.

2. The gist of facts which emerge for consideration are as under:-

    2.1. On 19.11.2013 at about 7:30 a.m., Vitthal Hadasare gave a phone call to complainant, Bhaskar Popat Kale and informed him that his father Popat Kale was lying dead behind Belheshwar School at Belhe. After receiving the information, the complainant along with his cousins Chandrakant Kale, Jaganath Kale, Ganesh Kale and Vitthal Hadasare rushed to the spot of incident at Belhe, Tal. Junnar at about 8:15 a.m. After arriving they identified the body of deceased Popat Kale lying in the field of Anil Shankar Gunjal behind the Belheshwar High School, Belhe. They saw injury on his head. One wooden baton and another piece of wood was lying next to him. They also saw one blood-stained stone lying next to his head with a bag of vegetables; his face was completely smashed. Offence was registered under Section 302 IPC vide C.R. No. 320 of 2013 at Narayangaon Police Station.

2.2. According to prosecution, on 17.11.2013 Kashinath Kale (uncle of first informant) gave a phone call to Popat Kale and informed him that he intended to sell his bullocks in the market at Belhe on the next day and called him to come to his house in the evening. At about 8:00 p.m. Popat Kale went to the house of Kashinath Kale.

2.3. According to prosecution, in the night of 18.11.2013, PW-2 - Raman Mutayya Devar and PW-3 - Irshad Mustak Ansari had last seen the accused and deceased together. Deceased was sleeping near Bipinkumar’s shop on that night when accused woke him up and took him towards Belheshwar School. Deceased was last seen together in the company of accused at about 9:00 p.m. by PW-2 and PW-3. According to prosecution, in the night of 18.11.2013 PW-2 and PW-3 both saw deceased sleeping near Bipinkumar’s shop and saw accused waking him up and taking him along with him.

2.4. Spot panchanama (Exh.29) was conducted by PW-8 on 19.11.2013. In the spot panchanama, 13 articles were recovered and seized from the spot of incident namely blood-stained soil, blood samples from stone, stone, shawl, two wooden battens, one pair of chappal, white cap, two bags, two pouches of tobacco and one empty cigarette packet. PW-8 prepared the inquest panchanama and sent the dead body for conducting autopsy and recorded statements of witnesses. On 20.11.2013, accused was arrested.

2.5. On 22.11.2013, at the instance of accused and in presence of panch witnesses (Exh.25) clothes i.e. jeans pant and shirt worn by accused were seized from his house. The seized articles were sent for chemical analysis/CA Report. After receiving post-mortem report and all relevant documents after completion of investigation, filed a charge-sheet before Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Junnar. Since the charge was under Section 302 IPC, the offence was triable exclusively by Court of Sessions, learned JMFC, Junnar committed the case to the Sessions Court for trial.

3. Prosecution’s case is based on circumstantial evidence. Prosecution has relied on the “last seen together” theory which has been upheld by the learned Trial Court in convicting the Appellant.

4. To bring home guilt of accused, prosecution examined 8 witnesses; viz. PW-1 Bhaskar Popat Kale complainant (Exh.8), PW-2 Raman Mutayya Devar (Exh.12), PW-3 Irshad Mustak Ansari (Exh.14), PW-4 Kashinath Baban Kale (Exh.17)

            Click Here to Read the rest of this document
            1
            2
            3
            4
            5
            6
            7
            8
            9
            10
            11
            SupremeToday Portrait Ad
            supreme today icon
            logo-black

            An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

            Please visit our Training & Support
            Center or Contact Us for assistance

            qr

            Scan Me!

            India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

            For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

            whatsapp-icon Back to top