Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
V.K. Jadhav, Sandip Kumar Chandrabhan More, JJ.
Vijay – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 629 of 2014
Decided On : 06-01-2022
MURDER - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - IPC 302, 498A, 323 - The judgment discusses the prosecution's case against the appellant-accused Vijay for the murder of his wife, Aruna. The court analyzes the evidence, including the circumstances of the incident, the injuries sustained by the deceased, and the appellant's defense. The court finds that the prosecution failed to establish a conclusive chain of circumstantial evidence and that the circumstances are consistent with the innocence of the accused. The court applies legal principles from various cases to conclude that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt and acquits him of the offense under IPC 302.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased, Aruna, was found dead on the road, and the appellant-accused was crying near her body. The prosecution alleged that the appellant-accused murdered Aruna due to suspicion about her character. The defense claimed that three thieves attacked them, leading to Aruna's death. The prosecution presented circumstantial evidence, including the deceased's injuries and blood stains on the appellant's shirt.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish a conclusive chain of circumstantial evidence and that the circumstances are consistent with the innocence of the accused. The court applied legal principles to conclude that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt and acquitted him of the offense under IPC 302.
Issues: The main issue was whether the prosecution's circumstantial evidence conclusively proved the guilt of the accused for the murder of his wife.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied legal principles from various cases to conclude that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt and acquitted him of the offense under IPC 302.
Final Decision: The court acquitted the appellant-accused Vijay of the offense under IPC 302 and ordered his release from jail. The fine amount, if deposited, was to be refunded to him, and he was required to execute a bail bond for appearance before the higher court if necessary.
JUDGMENT
V.K. Jadhav, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment & order of conviction passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kopargaon dated 22nd August, 2014 in Sessions Case No. 4 of 2013.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the prosecution case, are as under:-
Deceased-Aruna was the wife of appellant-accused. Accused was working as Watchman with D. Pharmacy College, Mahodarigaon, Tq. Sinnar, Dist. Nashik. Deceased-Aruna was working with Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation as ST Bus Conductor at Mandangad Depo, Dist. Ratnagiri. The marriage between the appellant-accused Vijay and the deceased-Aruna was solemnized on 11th March, 2012 at Rankhamb, Tq. Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar. Incident had taken place on 28th June, 2012 between 08:00 to 08:30 pm. It is the case of the prosecution that from 26th June 2012 to 29th June, 2012 the deceased was assigned with the duty of conductor of ST bus having route from Mandangad to Shirdi. On 28th June, 2012 at about 01:30 pm, the said bus left for Pune and reached Shirdi at 07:00 pm. PW3 - Chandrakant Ashok Jawale was the driver of the said ST bus and deceased-Aruna was the conductor. Appellant-accused Vijay had been to Shirdi to fetch deceased-Aruna. From Shirdi, deceased-Aruna went along with the appellant-accused on his motorcycle as a pillion rider to her matrimonial home situated at village Gogalgaon, Tq. Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar. PW1-Dnyandeo Ghorpade, who happened to be the Sarpanch of Pimpri Nirmal then, received a call on his phone between 08:00 to 08:30 pm intimating him that on Pimpri Nirmal to Gogalgaon road, one lady is lying on the bund and one person is crying thereon on the road. Said Dnyandeo Ghorpade had thus immediately rushed towards the spot. On reaching there, he found one lady lying naked on bandh (embankment) and one person crying for water. He had immediately given information to the Loni Police Station. The said woman was found dead. It was a dead body of deceased-Aruna and the person found crying there on the spot was the appellant-accused.
3. According to the prosecution, deceased-Aruna had informed her brother PW2-Dagadu that the appellant-accused was suspecting about her character and further threatened her to kill on that count. It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant-accused Vijay had committed the murder of deceased-Aruna by constricting her neck whereas; it is the defence story that while proceeding by the road three thieves riding on motorcycle chased the appellant-accused and deceased-Aruna, stopped them, extended beating to both of them, taken away forcibly the cash and other articles in possession of accused and deceased. The prosecution claims that the deceased-Aruna died due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation. Deceased-Aruna met with homicidal death. The appellant-accused has failed to give any explanation about her homicidal death.
4. Initially, on the basis of the report (Exh. 15) submitted by PW1-Dnyandeo Ghorpade, Sarpanch of the village Pimpri Nirmal, Tq. Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar, the A.D. was registered on 28th June, 2012 and during the course of the enquiry of the A.D., PW2-Dagdu Gulve, the brother of the deceased-Aruna, had lodged the complaint (Exh. 17) on 29.06.2012. On the basis of his complaint, Crime No. 92/2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 498A, 323 came to be registered at Loni Police Station against the appellant-accused.
5. PSI-Shirke was assigned with the investigation, however, before the trial was commenced, PSI-Shirke died. Police Naik-Deepak Barde had drawn the inquest panchanama on the dead body as directed to him by PSI-Shirke. He has also taken into custody the clothes of the deceased and those articles were scarf, petticoat, nicker and saree. The said inquest panchanama was carried out at mortuary of the hospital (Exh. 31). At about 07:30 pm in the evening, PSI had called two panch witnesses and accordingly, the seizure memo was prepared for seizure of those articles. PW14
The prosecution must establish a conclusive chain of circumstantial evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The benefit of doubt must be given to the accused when the evidence does not concl....
The judgment emphasizes the high standard of proof required for convictions based on circumstantial evidence and the need for voluntary and credible extra-judicial confessions.
The judgment establishes that in criminal cases, particularly those relying on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution bears the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and any reasonable....
The court emphasized that circumstantial evidence must form a complete and unbroken chain to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of principles for the appreciation of circumstantial evidence and the need for a complete chain of evidence to establish guilt beyo....
In a murder conviction based on circumstantial evidence, multiple corroborative factors, including the last seen theory and absence of alternative explanations, can establish guilt beyond reasonable ....
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
