Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
A.S. Gadkari, Milind N. Jadhav, JJ.
Mahavir Raghunathrao Hulungare – Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra, Through Sr. PI of Bhandup Police Station – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 668 of 2017
Decided On : 21-09-2022
Criminal Procedure Code - Murder - Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C. - Section 302 of IPC - [Section 235(2), Section 302] - The court discussed the legality of the Judgment and Order dated 08.04.2014 convicting the Appellant for the murder of his wife Lata. The prosecution case was based on circumstantial evidence, and the Appellant's defense was that he saw another person attacking his wife and intervened to protect her. The court analyzed the confessional statement of the Appellant, the admissibility of evidence, and the sufficiency of the evidence to convict the Appellant. The court found that the confessional statement was inadmissible under Sections 24 to 27 of the Evidence Act, and the remaining evidence was insufficient to prove the Appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court quashed the judgment and acquitted the Appellant of the charge under Section 302 IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution case was based on circumstantial evidence, and the Appellant's defense was that he saw another person attacking his wife and intervened to protect her. The court found that the confessional statement was inadmissible under Sections 24 to 27 of the Evidence Act, and the remaining evidence was insufficient to prove the Appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court quashed the judgment and acquitted the Appellant of the charge under Section 302 IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the confessional statement was inadmissible under Sections 24 to 27 of the Evidence Act, and the remaining evidence was insufficient to prove the Appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court quashed the judgment and acquitted the Appellant of the charge under Section 302 IPC.
Issues: The admissibility of the confessional statement of the Appellant, the sufficiency of the evidence to convict the Appellant, and the application of Sections 24 to 27 of the Evidence Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The confessional statement of the Appellant was inadmissible under Sections 24 to 27 of the Evidence Act, and the remaining evidence was insufficient to prove the Appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: The court quashed the judgment and acquitted the Appellant of the charge under Section 302 IPC.
JUDGMENT :
Milind N. Jadhav, J.
This Appeal challenges the legality of Judgment and Order dated 08.04.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai in Session case no. 534 of 2012, convicting Appellant for offence under Section 235(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) for committing offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”) and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-and in default thereof to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months.
2. Prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence Appellant is convicted for the murder of his wife Lata (deceased) on 30.04.2012. Defence raised by Appellant before the trial court is that, Lata was maintaining illicit relations with one Mohmmad Shaik; Appellant saw Mohmmad Shaik attacking Lata with a knife at around 4:00 p.m. in room No.115, Mane chawl, Khindipada, Bhandup (West) and intervened to protect her from the attack; in the process Appellant suffered three minor injuries on his palms below the fingers.
3. Facts of the prosecution case which emerge from the record are as under:
3.1. Appellant, Lata, PW-2 (daughter) and one son resided in room No.115, Mane chawl.
3.2. On 30.04.2012, at about 04:30 p.m. Appellant approached SHO of Bhandup Police Station and recorded his statement that, at around 04:00 p.m. he killed his wife Lata with a knife after a quarrel between them, when he told Lata to stop continuing with illicit relations since their children had grown up. Exh.32 is the statement of Appellant recorded by SHO, Bhandup Police Station. This statement dated 30.04.2012 is signed by Appellant in presence of SHO, Bhandup Police Station. On the basis of this statement Crime No.174 of 2012 was lodged by SHO; proforma FIR was also prepared/filled in and criminal law was set into motion.
3.3. PW-11 SHO thereafter visited spot of incident alongwith Appellant; in presence of pancha witnesses PW-4 and PW-5 opened the locked door of room No.115 by taking key from Appellant and they saw Lata lying dead in a pool of blood with multiple injuries on her hand, face, neck and stomach. PW-9 photographer and one doctor were called immediately. Dr. Singh examined Lata and declared her dead. Spot panchanama was carried out in the presence of PW-7 pancha witness vide Exh.23; one blood stained white pant, one baniyan, and one knife (weapon), mat stained with blood, ornaments of Lata viz. earrings, mangalsutra and anklets were recovered from the spot and seized vide Exh.24; PW-11 SHO prepared ADR form after sending Lata’s dead body for postmortem. Appellant was arrested, clothes worn by Appellant were seized; on taking personal search of Appellant it was noticed that he had three injuries on both his hands, hence he was referred for Medical Examination to PW-13 -Dr. Manisha Andruew Bhosale; she examined Appellant and issued injury certificate vide Exh.44. PW-1 – Dr. Sanjay Wathore conducted postmortem on the dead body of Lata and issued the postmortem (PM.) report (Exh.13).
3.4. PW-12 -is the Investigating Officer (for short “I.O.”); he collected PM report, recorded statements of witnesses and sent the seized articles for chemical analysis. He has proved the C.A. Report Exh.41 in respect of clothes, weapon and articles. After completing investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate, 53rd Court, Mulund, Mumbai. Since the offence under section 302 IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, case was committed to the Sessions Court for trial. Charge was framed against Appellant below Exh.4. It was read over and explained to him in vernacular; Appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. His defence was of total denial. To bring home the guilt of Appellant, prosecution examined 13 witnesses.
4. PW-1 is the Doctor who conducted postmortem on the dead body of Lata and proved PM report (Exh.13), which notified the following 16 externa
The confessional statement of the Appellant was inadmissible under Sections 24 to 27 of the Evidence Act, and the remaining evidence was insufficient to prove the Appellant's guilt beyond reasonable ....
The court ruled that a confession made to a police officer is inadmissible as evidence, and the conviction for murder was reduced to culpable homicide due to lack of premeditation.
It is well settled that in case based on circumstantial evidence, circumstances from which an inference of guilt sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established, and that those circumstanc....
Point of Law : Provision of Section 313 Cr.P.C. are to bring substance of accusation to accused so that he can explain every circumstance appearing against him during course of evidence and it is man....
In cases of circumstantial evidence, the totality of circumstances should unerringly point to the guilt of the accused, and the absence of a clear motive does not undermine the prosecution's case if ....
The court held that acts committed under grave and sudden provocation may reduce the charge from murder to culpable homicide, emphasizing the absence of malicious intent.
Provisions of Section 106 of Evidence Act itself are unambiguous and categoric in laying down that when any fact is especially within knowledge of a person, burden of proving that fact is upon him.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
