IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY AURANGABAD BENCH
VIBHA KANKANWADI, ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, JJ.
Sardar Bashirkhan Pathan – Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 284, 442 of 2016
Decided On : 11-08-2023
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302, 201, 34 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 27 - Murder offence – Appeal against conviction - PW-2 who was then Police Patil of village gave information that dead body of one unknown male person is floating on water in well in field –Motive behind committing said crime has also not been proved by prosecution - Para 14.
Finding of the Court: Investigating officer has not stated as to what was motive to commit murder - In case based on circumstantial evidence, prosecution has to establish motive - He has not added any other Section than Section 302, 201 of Indian Penal Code - When it was revealed to him that car was having fake number plate, yet he has not added any other Section - It is also not case that deceased was robbed of any amount or article and evidence to that effect has not been adduced - Then what was motive behind committing crime has also not been proved by prosecution - Scrutiny of evidence would show that evidence adduced by prosecution in this case has not established guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt - When there is penal liability, strict proof is required - All these aspects were not considered by learned Trial Judge and, therefore, interference is required - Conviction awarded to accused Nos.1 and 2 i.e. present appellants in Sessions Case by learned Additional Sessions Judge stands set aside.
Result: Criminal appeals allowed.
JUDGMENT :
VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.
1. Both the appeals are arising out of the same judgment, hence, we propose to dispose of these appeals by this common judgment. Both the appellants are original accused Nos.1 and 2 respectively, who faced trial in Sessions Case No. 110 of 2013 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Latur for the offence punishable under Section 302, 201 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and they have been held guilt under those Sections by judgment and order dated 17.03.2016.
2. The prosecution story in short is that PW-2 Sunil Dande, who was the then Police Patil of village Selu, gave information to Ausa Police Station around 2.30 p.m. on 28.05.2013 that dead body of one unknown male person is floating on the water in the well in the field of one Sunil Bajaj. The said A.D. was recorded as A.D.R. No. 28 of 2013 under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and further inquiry was conducted by PW-9 PHC Mohan Kamble. He went to the spot along with panch witnesses and photographer. The dead body was taken out of the well with the help of people. Photographs were taken. It was found that the hands and legs of the dead person were tied with long handkerchief locally called as Gamja. Panchanama of the spot as well as inquest panchanama was carried out and then the dead body was sent for the postmortem. Provisional death certificate was given disclosing that the cause of death is due to “head injuries” and, therefore, FIR was lodged by PW-9 PHC Mohan Kamble on 29.05.2013 stating that unknown person has committed murder of unidentified youth. News was published by him making appeal to the public to identify the dead body. It is the further prosecution story that PW-6 Dadasaheb Kamble along with some persons from Beed district went to Ausa police station on 30.05.2013 and they identified the dead body on the basis of tatto “Jaibheem” on the chest and the clothes on the person of the deceased. It was identified that the dead person is his elder brother Anand Sadashiv Kamble. Statement of said Dadasaheb was recorded after the last rites were over. The investigation was carried out by PW-17 API Pujari. It was revealed that Anand was using two mobile numbers. The call details from both the sim cards were gathered. He found the IMEI number in respect of the handset and it was put on surveillance. PW-4 Datta Kawle was found to be possessing the mobile handset of the said IMEI number. He disclosed that he has purchased the said mobile from accused No. 2 Gopal. The said handset was then seized. After the arrest of accused No. 2, names of other accused persons were revealed. They made certain discoveries in respect of the weapon that was used in the commission of the crime, vehicles those were used. It was further revealed that Anand was serving as a driver with one Vilas Jogdand. The accused persons posed themselves to be the customers who are in need of the vehicle on hire and after they had taken the vehicle, they had gone beyond Naldurg and then they went near Ausa. Thereupon, Anand was murdered and he was dumped in the well. Test Identification parade was arranged and then accused persons were identified by said Vilas Jogdand and another person who was serving with him as driver on another vehicle belonging to him. After the completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed.
3. After the committal of the case, charge was framed originally against three accused persons i.e. present appellants and one Vijay Uttam Narange for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. It can be seen that prosecution has examined in all eighteen witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused. After considering the evidence on record and hearing both sides, the learned Trial Judge has held accused Nos.1 and 2 guilty of committing offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. They have been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.
Chunthuram vs. State of Chattisgarh
Nizam and Another vs. State of Rajasthan
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases, especially when relying on circumstantial evidence, which requires stringent adherence to established evidentiary standards....
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 ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the 'last seen together theory' and the reliance on circumstantial evidence, medical evidence, and recovery evidence to establis....
The burden of proof lies with the prosecution, and the accused's explanation, if consistent with the facts, can lead to acquittal.
The sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, the need for conclusive proof, and the requirement to prove motive beyond reasonable doubt in cases based on circumstantial evidence.
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.