Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Sadhana S.Jadhav, Milind N.Jadhav, JJ.
Roshan Anant Sawant – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 99 of 2014
Decided On : 10-06-2022
Indian Penal Code - Conviction under sec. 302, 460, 392 and 201 - The judgment discusses the recovery of stolen articles, blood-stained clothes, and the accused's involvement in the murder. The court found the evidence insufficient to establish the guilt of the accused and acquitted him.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for various offences under the Indian Penal Code related to the murder of Alkamai. The prosecution presented evidence including witness testimonies, recovery of stolen ornaments, and blood-stained clothes.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence presented by the prosecution, including the recovery of stolen articles and blood-stained clothes, was insufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The court also highlighted misleading questions put to the accused during the trial.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the sufficiency of evidence to establish the guilt of the accused, the recovery of stolen articles, and the accuracy of the questions posed to the accused during the trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the recovery of stolen articles and blood-stained clothes, by itself, was not sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused. The court also highlighted the importance of fair and specific questioning during the trial.
Final Decision: The appellant was acquitted of all charges, and the conviction and sentence imposed by the Sessions Judge were quashed and set aside. The appellant was ordered to be released forthwith if not required in any other offence, and the fine amount, if paid, was to be refunded.
JUDGMENT
SADHANA S.JADHAV, J. - The appellant is convicted for the offence punishable under sec. 302, 460, 392 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code by the Sessions Judge, Sindhudurg-Oros vide Judgment and Order dtd. 21/12/2013 in Sessions Case No. 20 of 2013. The appellant is sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.500.00 in default to suffer R.I. for one month, for the offence punishable under sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant is sentenced to suffer R.I. of five years and to pay fine of Rs.500.00 in default to suffer R.I. for one month, for the offence punishable under sec. 460 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant is further sentenced to suffer R.I. for five years and to pay fine of Rs.500.00 in default to suffer R.I. for one month, for the offence punishable under sec. 392 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant is also sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500.00, in default to suffer R.I. for one month, for the offence punishable under sec. 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, these appeals.
2. Such of the facts necessary for the decision of this appeal are as follows:
(i) On 7/2/2013 Arun Jogale lodged the report at Kankavali Police Station alleging therein that his wife Manisha happens to be the daughter of Alakamai Atmaram Sawant. That Alkamai was a mother of 4 daughters. That his mother-in-law Alkamai resides alone at village Kasvan, Sawantwadi. That he and his wife used to regularly enquire about her welfare. They had met her on 3/2/2013 and enquired about her well-being.
(ii) That on 7/2/2013 he received a phone call from Satyawan Sawant informing him that Alkamai was lying alone in injured condition in her residential house and probably she is no more. He passed on the said information to his co-brothers. He saw that there are marks of strangulation on her neck. There was bleeding form her mouth, her face was swollen and there was an injury on her eyebrow. She had injuries on pinna of both the ears. and it appeared that she was assaulted by someone. The ornaments adorned by her were missing.
(iii) Some unknown person had passed on the said information to the police. The police arrived at the spot and after conducting inquest panchanama, the body was sent for autopsy. He suspected that his mother-in-law had met a homicidal death at the hands of some thieves who had snatched away the ornaments. According to him, the incident had occurred during the period between 8.30 p.m. of 6/2/2013 and 9.15 a.m. of 7/2/2013.
(iv) Ghanshyam Rane had lodged a report about the sudden death of his mother in law on the basis of which A.D. enquiry was registered as A.D. No. 21/2013.
(v) On the basis of the said information Crime No. 16 of 2013 was registered against unknown person for the offence punishable under sec. 302 and 460 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused were arrested on suspicion.
(vi) On 8/2/2013 at about 9.30 a.m. accused Roshan Sawant was arrested. Two more accused were also arrested by the investigating machinery. On 11/2/2013 the golden ornaments allegedly belonging to the deceased had been recovered at the instance of the accused. Charge-sheet was filed against the accused on 17/6/2013. At the trial the prosecution examined 14 witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused.
3. P.W. 1 Arun Jogale has proved the contents of FIR which is marked as Exh. 14. He has also identified the ornaments adorned by the deceased. It is elicited in the cross examination that his mother in law the deceased Alkamai was residing at a distance of 6 to 7 km. from his house. Her source of income was from the agricultural yield and pension amount received by her under the scheme "Sanjay Gandhi Niradhar Yojana ". The construction work of the house of the deceased was in progress. After the demise of Alkamai, the construction work was stalled. According to him, he had given the weight and value of the golden ornaments as he had seen the said ornaments on the person of Alkamai.
4. P.W.3 S
The judgment emphasizes the importance of fair and specific questioning during the trial and highlights that the recovery of stolen articles and blood-stained clothes, by itself, is not sufficient to....
The identification of stolen property, presence of human blood on the accused's clothes, and lack of explanation for incriminating circumstances can establish guilt.
The necessity for the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in cases relying on circumstantial evidence, and the importance of establishing a clear connection between the accused and the....
The court emphasized the necessity of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, finding insufficient evidence to uphold convictions for murder and robbery.
Circumstantial evidence must establish a complete and unbroken chain pointing to the guilt of the accused, with no plausible alternative explanations.
Minor discrepancies and shortcomings in statements made by witnesses after passage of a few years would necessarily have to be discounted.
Circumstantial evidence must form an unbroken chain pointing solely to the guilt of the accused; confessions made in police custody are inadmissible unless they lead to the discovery of facts.
The judgment emphasizes the requirement for a complete chain of evidence in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the inadmissibility of confessions, and the need to connect recovered material obje....
In criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and any reasonable doubt must benefit the accused.
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
