IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Vibha Kankanwadi, Abhay S. Waghwase, JJ.
Ravindra Anna Domale - Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 348 of 2016
Decided On : 17-07-2023
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 302, 201, 404, 363 and 376(2)(i) – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – Section 4 – Offence of Murder – Rape – Challenged conviction – Held, In clear terms he is saying in examination-in-chief itself that he arrested accused saying that he was more suspicious about accused - When nobody had raised any suspicion over accused how his mobile alleged to have been put on surveillance, is a question - Those call details or what was transpired by obtaining the said CDR has not been proved by prosecution - Identification of dead body itself was based on wrong footing - Cause of death was not given by medical expert - Further link was not established beyond reasonable doubt - Learned trial Judge ought to have acquitted the accused from all charges - This is not a case where Appellate Court is taking second possible view, but interference is required, as trial Court failed to appreciate evidence properly and failed to consider basic legal principles in respect of circumstantial evidence - Appeal allowed
JUDGMENT :
VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.
1. Present appeal has been filed by the original accused challenging his conviction by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule in Sessions Case No.190/2014 on 29.04.2016 thereby convicting him for the offence punishable under Section 302, 201, 404, 363 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It will not be out of place to mention here that the learned trial Judge has acquitted the appellant from the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Though the original accused/appellant has been acquitted of the charges of sexual assault, her identity is not disclosed including that of her father informant to keep the dignity.
2. It is the prosecution story that deceased was 07 years old girl. Informant is her father. Informant was residing with his two daughters, one son and wife. The deceased victim was the second child. The elder daughter of the informant was aged 09 and son was aged 03 when the incident took place on 15.08.2014. Informant is an agriculturist. On 15.08.2014 the informant along with his wife and son had gone to medical practitioner at Sakri around 10.00 a.m., as he was suffering from Malaria. His elder daughter was taking education at Dhule by residing in hostel. Deceased girl with the grandmother (informant’s wife’s mother) was at home, which is a village in Sakri taluka. Around 2.00 p.m. he received phone call from his close relative that since he would be going to a Yatra he would take informant’s daughter (deceased), but deceased is not at home, as to whether she has come along with informant. Informant informed him (relative) that his wife and son are the only persons along with him and the deceased would at home. He should ask the grandmother, as to where she has gone, search her and he may take along with him to Yatra. Around 4.00 p.m. he got the treatment and, therefore, he along with his wife and son went to his house, till then also the deceased was not found. Informant made inquiry with his mother-in-law about the deceased. The mother-in-law told that deceased cleaned the utensils and thereafter she was behind the Palkhi (procession) of Davri Gosavi people in the village. Even the said close relative and his daughter also said the same thing, therefore, all the relatives and the informant started taking search of the girl. They could get the only information that she was behind the procession in the entire village. Therefore, they went to the place where those Davri Gosavi people had taken shelter. Prior to that on 15.08.2014 informant had lodged a missing report with Sakri Police Station. Thereafter he made inquiry with (1) Shyamrao Arjun Bhosale, R/o Wadegaon, Tq. Sangola, Dist. Solapur, (2) Shyamrao Bhimrao Ingole, R/o Sangola, Tq. Sangola, Dist. Solapur, (3) Vishwanath Mahadeo Bhosale, R/o Chikhmoddha, Tq. Sangola, Dist. Solapur and (4) Tanhubai Shyamrao Bhosale, R/o Wadegaon, Tq. Sangola, Dist. Solapur. Informant found that these four persons were giving evasive answers and, therefore, he went to the Police Station and lodged First Information Report expressing suspicion over those four named persons. He gave the further description of the girl. On the basis of his said First Information Report offence vide Crime No.135/2014 for the offence punishable under Section 363 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code came to be registered.
3. It appears to be the further prosecution story that search for the girl was undertaken by the Police Department also and till 05.09.2014 there was no clue to the Police Department. One Jibhau Haba Marnar got information on 05.09.2014 regarding a fact that one white bag is seen in the well of his agricultural land and the water of the well giving foul smell. He gave the said information to the police. The investigation squad went to the field with villagers and even Media persons. It was found that there was plenty of water in the well. The
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.
The burden of proof lies with the prosecution, and the accused's explanation, if consistent with the facts, can lead to acquittal.
The burden of proof shifts to the accused to explain what happened to the deceased when the prosecution establishes that the deceased and the accused had left the house together and soon thereafter t....
The prosecution must establish a chain of circumstances pointing towards the guilt of the accused, and the circumstances should be incapable of explanation on any hypothesis other than guilt.
Circumstantial evidence must establish a complete chain of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, with the prosecution bearing the burden of proof.
In criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances beyond reasonable doubt to secure a conviction.
A conviction for murder and robbery can be upheld based on credible eyewitness testimony and circumstantial evidence linking the accused to the crime.
(1) Purpose of cross-examination is not just to extract admissions by putting witness in confusion or by asking some misleading questions – Purpose of cross-examination is to give opportunity to defe....
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.