Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Vibha Kankanwadi, Abhay S. Waghwase, JJ.
Ganesh Mahadeo Yadav, R/o Jadid Javla - Appellant
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.459 Of 2017
Decided On : 10-11-2023
MURDER - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973, INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 - Section 374 - Section 302 - [1, 374] - The judgment discusses the conviction of the accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for committing the murder of his brother-in-law. The court analyzed the evidence, including the prosecution's case, the circumstantial evidence, the extra judicial confession, the surrender of the accused, and the conduct of the accused, and concluded that the prosecution had proved the accused as the perpetrator of the crime.
Fact of the Case:
The accused was convicted for the murder of his brother-in-law based on the prosecution's case, circumstantial evidence, extra judicial confession, surrender of the accused, and the conduct of the accused. The accused challenged the conviction, arguing that the evidence was not properly appreciated and that the chain of circumstances had not been established.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had proved the accused as the perpetrator of the crime and upheld the conviction.
Issues: The issues involved the appreciation of evidence, the establishment of the chain of circumstances, the admissibility of the extra judicial confession, and the conduct of the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The burden of proof shifted to the accused to explain what happened to the deceased, as the prosecution had established that the deceased and the accused had left the house together and soon thereafter the death of the deceased had taken place. The court applied the principles in Sharad Sarda and Digambar to conclude that the prosecution had proved the accused as the perpetrator of the crime.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction of the accused for the murder of his brother-in-law was upheld.
JUDGMENT :
Vibha Kankanwadi, J.
1. The original accused is challenging his conviction by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Majalgaon, Dist. Beed on 11.04.2017 in Sessions Case No.37/2015 by filing this appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, whereby he has been held guilty and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for committing murder of his brother-in-law.
2. PW 7 Vasant Devidas Raut, r/o Kanadi Mali, Tq. Kaij, Dist. Beed is the informant. Deceased Ravikiran, aged 16 was his son. Present accused is son-in-law of PW 7 Vasant. Present accused got married to PW 9 Manjusha, whose name appears to have been given as ‘Manjushri’ in First Information Report, about five years prior to 13.04.2015. It is also revealed from the record that accused is the son of real sister of PW 7 Vasant. Further, it is not in dispute that on the date of First Information Report accused and PW 9 Manjusha were having daughter aged 3 and she was pregnant on the second occasion and at the time of her deposition it has come on record that the second child is also a daughter. Accused is resident of Jadid Jawla, Tq. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed.
3. With above said admitted facts it is the prosecution case that PW 7 Vasant lodged First Information Report on 13.04.2015 with Majalgaon Rural Police Station stating that he has three daughters and one son. His second daughter Swati’s marriage was fixed after about three years after marriage between Manjusha and accused. Since then the accused started saying that in fact he wanted to marry Swati. He told said fact to his wife as well as wife of PW 7 Vasant. However, nobody took it seriously and then gave advise to accused. Thereafter, Swati’s marriage took place, but accused was angry with the said act. He used to tell Manjusha that his marriage has not been performed with Swati and, therefore, either he would kill Manjushri or Ravikiran and he would also commit suicide. Thereafter the engagement ceremony of third daughter of PW 7 Vasant was arranged on 09.04.2015 at Kanadi Mali and, therefore, all the near relatives were called. After the ceremony on the next day morning accused told that he wants to go to his sister’s place at Mochi Pimpalgaon, Tq. Beed and, therefore, Ravikiran should be sent along with Manjusha to Jadid Jawala. He then left. Therefore, Manjushri @ Manjusha was sent along with deceased Ravikiran on 12.04.2015. Around 8.00 p.m. informant received message from Jadid Jawla that Ravikiran and Manjushri had reached there and Ravikiran would go back on the next day. On the next day i.e. on 13.04.2015 informant and his cousin brother Namdeo were in their field. Around 4.00 p.m. Namdeo received phone call from accused stating that he has murdered Ravikiran to whom they were calling as ‘Bhaiyya’ and after murdering him, he has thrown him on the road near field. He is proceeding to surrender before Police at Beed and, therefore, they should not wait for Bhaiyya to come. Namdeo then made a phone call to their relative Shivaji Yadav from Jadid Jawla to confirm the fact. Shivaji confirmed the fact and then the informant went along with his relatives to the spot. They found the dead body of Ravikiran and thereafter informant lodged the First Information Report.
4. After the registration of the offence vide Crime No.49/2015 the investigation was started. The inquest panchnama was prepared and dead body was referred for postmortem. The panchnama of the spot was carried out. It is also the prosecution story that accused had gone to Shivaji Nagar Police Station, Beed around 5.30 p.m. on 13.04.2015 and surrendered himself before PW 17 ASI Mr. Ramesh Gaikwad, who was Police Station Officer on duty. PW 17 had then confirmed the information that was given by the accused which was confessional in nature and when it was confirmed that a murder has taken place within the jurisdiction of Majalgaon Rural Police Station, PW 17 Mr. Ramesh Gaikwad took accused in
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 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 sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, the need for conclusive proof, and the requirement to prove motive beyond reasonable doubt in cases based on circumstantial evidence.
In cases of circumstantial evidence, the totality of circumstances should unerringly point to the guilt of the accused, and the absence of a clear motive does not undermine the prosecution's case if ....
The judgment emphasizes the requirement for complete and unimpeachable evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in a case of circumstantial evidence.
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....
In criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, all circumstances must be proven beyond reasonable doubt to establish guilt, and inconsistencies in witness testimonies can lead to acquittal.
The burden of proof lies with the prosecution, and the accused's explanation, if consistent with the facts, can lead to acquittal.
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
