IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Revati Mohite Dere, V.G.Bisht, JJ.
Kisanpal Rampal Paswan – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 953 of 2013
Decided On : 06-06-2022
Criminal Law - Circumstantial Evidence - Indian Penal Code - Sec. 302 - [Criminal Law] - [Indian Penal Code, Sec. 302] - The judgment discusses the application of circumstantial evidence in a case of alleged murder under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The court analyzes the alleged extra judicial confessions, evidence of last seen, and failure of the accused to offer any explanation for the death of the victim. The court emphasizes the burden of proof on the prosecution to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt and the inadmissibility of confessions made to a police officer under Sec. 25 of the Evidence Act. The judgment highlights the principles governing cases based on circumstantial evidence and emphasizes the need for the circumstances to be fully established, consistent only with the guilt of the accused, of a conclusive nature, excluding every possible hypothesis except the guilt of the accused, and forming a complete chain of evidence.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly strangulating his wife. The prosecution's case relied on circumstantial evidence, including alleged extra judicial confessions, evidence of last seen, and failure of the accused to offer any explanation for the death of the victim.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the circumstances beyond reasonable doubt. The alleged extra judicial confessions were deemed inadmissible under Sec. 25 of the Evidence Act, and the evidence of last seen was considered shaky. The court emphasized the burden of proof on the prosecution and the need for a complete chain of evidence consistent only with the guilt of the accused.
Issues: The issues revolved around the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the admissibility of alleged extra judicial confessions, and the application of Sec. 106 of the Evidence Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The judgment emphasizes the principles governing cases based on circumstantial evidence, including the need for the circumstances to be fully established, consistent only with the guilt of the accused, of a conclusive nature, excluding every possible hypothesis except the guilt of the accused, and forming a complete chain of evidence. The court also highlighted the inadmissibility of confessions made to a police officer under Sec. 25 of the Evidence Act.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the judgment and order of conviction and sentencing were quashed and set aside. The appellant was acquitted of the offence and set at liberty forthwith. The fine amount, if paid, was to be refunded to the appellant.
JUDGMENT
REVATI MOHITE DERE,J. - By this appeal, the appellant has impugned the Judgment and Order dtd. 23/9/2011, passed by learned 2nd Additional Principal Judge, City Sessions Fast-Track Court, Sewree, Mumbai, in Sessions Case No.329 of 2011, convicting and sentencing him, as under:-
- for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000.00 in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one month.
2. A few facts as are necessary to decide the aforesaid appeal are set out hereinunder :-
On 8/1/2011, PW1 - Yeshwant Waman Shinde, S.H.O. attached to the Mankhurd Police Station received a telephonic message from ASI - Kadam informing him that one woman - Rupa Paswan had died in her house in Indira Nagar. Accordingly, PW1 - Yeshwant Shinde, rushed to the house of the deceased. When PW1 - Yeshwant Shinde, reached the house, a local doctor - Dr. Sanjay Musle was already present. Dr. Musle informed PW1 - Yeshwant Shinde, that the deceased had expired. Accordingly, PW1 - Yeshwant Shinde, obtained ADR number from the police station on phone i.e. ADR No.04 of 2011. Thereafter, PW1 - Yeshwant Shinde drew the inquest panchanama in the presence of two panchas. The said inquest panchanama is at Exhibit - 10. The appellant was present at the time of drawing of the said panchanama. The appellant disclosed to PW1 - Yeshwant Shinde that the deceased was his wife. According to PW1 - Yeshwant Shinde, the deceased was found lying on the mat on the floor and that blackish ligature marks were seen behind her neck. Accordingly, PW1 - Yeshwant Shinde took the custody of the dead body and sent it to Rajawadi Hospital for postmortem. Thereafter, the doctor who conducted the postmortem of the deceased, disclosed to PW1 - Yeshwant Shinde, that the victim's neck was pressed with a soft object, so as to cause her death. PW1 - Yeshwant Shinde again approached the doctor on the next day and discussed the matter regarding the death of the deceased and accordingly on 9/1/2011 lodged a complaint on behalf of the State, as no relative of the deceased had come forward to lodge a complaint. The FIR lodged by PW1 - Yeshwant Shinde is marked as Exhibit - 11. Thereafter, the appellant was arrested after registration of the said FIR. According to PW1 - Yeshwant Shinde, before the appellant's arrest, the appellant had disclosed to him that he had seen his wife (deceased) keeping illicit relations with one Mohd. Azad @ Chottu, a resident of the same locality. The appellant also disclosed that he had informed the same to his in-laws, who had asked him to bring the deceased to them. The appellant is further alleged to have disclosed that there was a quarrel between him and his wife (deceased), prior to the incident and that his wife (deceased) had told him that she would elope with one Mohd. Azad @ Chottu; and that his wife (deceased) suddenly tried to squeeze his testes, pursuant to which, he strangulated her.
According to PW1 - Yeshwant Shinde, PW8 - Venkatesh Hiraba Rane, P.I attached to the Mankhurd Police Station registered the complaint/FIR of PW1 - Yeshwant Shinde and conducted further investigation and after investigation filed charge-sheet.
During the course of investigation, the clothes of the deceased were seized vide panchanama on 9/1/2011 alongwith other articles.
PW1 - Yeshwant Shinde also recorded the statement of the witnesses during the course of investigation and on completion of the investigation, filed charge-sheet in the Court of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kurla, Mumbai. As the case was sessions triable, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.
The learned 2nd Additional Principal Judge, framed charge (Exhibit - 3), as against the appellant for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code, to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in support of its case examined 8 witn
State of Punjab Vs. Barkat Ram
Nagendra Sah Vs. State of Bihar
Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade Vs. State of Maharashtra
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra
Sahadevan and Another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Pawan Kumar Alias Monu Mittal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another
In murder cases based on circumstantial evidence, each link must be established beyond reasonable doubt, with all evidence consistently pointing to the guilt of the accused.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on circumstantial evidence, including bloodstains on the accused's clothing matching the victims' blood groups, to establish guilt in ....
It is a settled legal proposition that conviction of a person accused of committing an offence, is generally based solely on evidence that is either oral or documentary, but in exceptional circumstan....
The court held that mere suspicion is insufficient for a conviction; a complete chain of circumstantial evidence is required to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Circumstantial evidence requires complete unbroken chain conclusively proving guilt and excluding innocence hypothesis; failure of key links like last seen, extra-judicial confession, motive, recover....
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.
Extrajudicial confessions, if voluntary and corroborated by circumstantial evidence, can support a conviction for murder.
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.