IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Rohit B.Deo, Urmila Joshi Phalke, JJ.
Dinesh Devidasrao Tatte – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 773 of 2019
Decided On : 10-02-2023
Criminal Appeal - Circumstantial Evidence - Indian Penal Code - Sec. 498-A, 306, 304B read with Sec. 34 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the evidence and legal principles related to the Indian Penal Code, specifically Sec. 498-A, 306, 304B, and Sec. 34. The court analyzed the circumstances and medical evidence to establish the guilt of the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased was allegedly ill-treated and harassed by the accused and his parents, leading to her death. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence to prove the charge against the accused. The defense claimed that the deceased committed suicide, but the evidence did not support this claim.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the death of the deceased was caused by strangulation and that the accused failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the circumstances of the death. The court concluded that the appeal had no merits and was liable to be dismissed.
Issues: The main issues included proving the charge against the accused based on circumstantial evidence, establishing the cause of death, and determining the guilt of the accused in the absence of direct evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles of burden of proof, Sec. 106 of the Evidence Act, and the use of circumstantial evidence to establish the guilt of the accused. The court also considered the accused's failure to provide a satisfactory explanation for the circumstances of the death as an additional link in the chain of circumstances.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed based on the court's findings that the death of the deceased was caused by strangulation and that the accused failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the circumstances of the death.
JUDGMENT
URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J. - Heard finally with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties.
2. By way of this appeal, the appellant had challenged the judgment and order of sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati in Sessions Trial No.226/2012 dtd. 25/09/2019 by which present appellant-accused No.1 is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5000.00 in default of payment of fine accused to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year.
3. Facts of the prosecution case in brief are as under :
A] On 15/07/2012, the brother of the deceased namely Sudhir Pandurangji Bele had lodged the report contending that the deceased Surekha is his sister. Her marriage was solemnized with the accused/appellant and from the said wedlock she begotten two sons. It is further alleged that the present appellant/accused along with acquitted accused, his parents demanded Rs.50, 000.00 from the parents of the deceased and on that count she was ill-treated and harassed by assaulting her. Prior to 5 - 6 months of incident, appellant/accused has beaten deceased Surekha due to which she was hospitalized in the Dr. Punjabrao Deshmukh Medical College and Hospital, Amravati.
4. On 13/07/2017 at about 6.00 p.m. he received a telephonic call from deceased Surekha and she disclosed that present appellant/accused and his parents demanding from her, her ornaments for selling it. But she refused to deliver the same and on that count all the three accused assaulted her and she was being harassed by accused persons on that count from last 2-3 days. She had also raised the apprehension of insecurity in the house. On getting such information from the deceased he consoled her by assuring her that they all are coming at Morshi to attend marriage on 15/07/2012, at that time they would convince her husband and in-laws.
5. However, on 14/07/2012 at about 5.00 p.m. he received a telephonic call from father of the appellant/accused on his mobile phone and informed that deceased Surekha had committed suicide by hanging herself in the bedroom of their house. She was admitted to the hospital but she succumbed to the death. On receipt of such information he along with his parents, wife and other relatives reached at Morshi Sub-District Hospital. He saw dead body which was kept in a mortuary. None of the accused were present in the hospital. On receiving such information, he approached to the police and lodged the report. On the basis of said report, police have registered the offence vide Crime No.137/2012 at Morshi police station under Sec. 498-A, 306, 304B read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC' for short).
6. Initially, the report was registered as an accidental death. During the inquiry under Sec. 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Investigating Officer has visited alleged spot of incident and drawn the spot panchnama, inquest panchnama. The dead body of the deceased was forwarded to post-mortem examination. The cloths of the deceased are seized. The investigating Officer has also seized one dupatta and one black colour mobile phone at the time of spot panchnama. After registration of the crime, the accused along with his parents was arrested by drawing arrest panchnama. The incriminating articles are forwarded to chemical analysis. After completion of investigation, the investigating officer has filed charge-sheet against the accused.
7. After filing of the charge-sheet learned Magistrate has committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial. The Sessions Court has framed the charge against the accused vide Exhibit 15. The contents of the charge are read over and explained to the accused. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To substantiate the charge, prosecution examined in all five witnesses as follows :
(i) PW-1 - Sudhir Pandurangji Bele (Exhibit 43) - Informant
(ii) PW-2 - Pushpa Gajananrao Wankhade (Exhibit 59)
(iii) PW-3 - Dr. Manisha Swarupsingh Chavan
Satish Nirankari vs. State of Rajasthan
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; circumstantial evidence must negate the innocence of the accused, which was not established in this case.
In the absence of any corroborating evidence, it would be highly unsafe to the award conviction for committing murder solely on the basis of medical evidence.
In cases of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of events excluding all hypotheses of innocence. Section 106 of the Evidence Act does not shift the burden of proo....
The court established that circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain leading to the only conclusion of guilt, with the prosecution bearing the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
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.