IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Vibha Kankanwadi, Abhay S.Waghwase, JJ.
Datta - Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 111 of 2017
Decided On : 14-09-2023
KEYWORD - SUBJECT - ACT SECTION LIST - SUMMARY
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the murder of Mahadu, following an incident where he allegedly assaulted Mahadu, leading to his death. The prosecution's case was based on the testimony of Rukhminbai and Sangita, who claimed to be eyewitnesses to the assault. The incident occurred on 10/5/2014, and the FIR was lodged on 12/5/2014 after the family initially concealed the cause of death.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that Mahadu's death was homicidal. The testimonies of the key witnesses were deemed unreliable, and the absence of a postmortem examination further weakened the prosecution's case.
Issues: Whether the evidence presented was sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly in the absence of a postmortem report and with conflicting witness testimonies.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for credible evidence in criminal cases, particularly in homicide. The lack of independent corroboration for the eyewitness accounts and the inconsistencies in their statements led to the conclusion that the prosecution had not met its burden of proof.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges under Sections 302, 201, 176, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
JUDGMENT/ORDER
VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. - Present appeal has been filed by the original accused challenging his conviction by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Udgir, District Latur on 18/2/2017, thereby holding him guilty of committing offence punishable under Ss. 302, 201, 176, 504, 506 of Indian Penal Code.
2. The prosecution story in short is that P.W.1 Rukhminbai Mahadu Devnale resident of Shiv Nagar, S. T. Colony, Udgir lodged report with Udgir Rural Police Station on 12/5/2014. She informed that she has two daughteRs. and no son. Both the daughteRs. are married and since she has no son her daughter Sangita resides with her husband and two sons and two daughteRs. with herself and her husband Mahadu. Her husband Mahadu, son-in-law i.e. appellant and daughter Sangita were at home on 10/5/2014, which was Saturday. Her husband had returned after labour work around 8.00 p.m. After taking tea, he was chewing tobacco and chitchatting. Mahadu was telling Rukhminbai where she had gone in the morning and she had not given him tiffin. He was required to starve and rather was required to go to hotel to take lunch. Sangita was preparing food in the kitchen. Accused came around 10.00 p.m. in the house where Rukhminbai and Mahadu were sitting. He started saying Mahadu that he is sitting idle and whether he was bringing minimum ten rupees in the house (vk;Rs. cl qu [kk;yk ckikph i saM vkg s dk dk sBqu ngk #i; s deo qu vk.kykl dk) by abusing so, accused slapped Mahadu. At that time, Mahadu told accused that whether the house belongs to his father and by staying in his house, why he is slapping him. Thereupon, accused abused Mahadu and by holding Mahadu's shouldeRs. with his both hands banged him on the wall, as a result of which, Mahadu sustained severe injury to his head, which was bleeding. He fell down and at that time accused caught hold of his both legs and pulled and then kicked on his chest. Blood was oozing out of the nose and mouth of Mahadu. When Rukhminbai tried to separate, she was pushed. When Mahadu became unconscious, accused started saying as to why he is making drama and then brought water in a big pot and poured it on Mahadu's face, at that time, Rukhminbai called Sangita by saying that her husband has assaulted the old man. Sangita came running from kitchen and started calling deceased. They tried to wake him up, but he was unconscious. As the blood was oozing out of the head, they filled the injury with turmeric. Accused was then asked to bring auto rickshaw. After he brought auto rickshaw, Rukhminbai took Mahadu to Government Hospital, however, when they were in front of the hospital, Mahadu expired and as she had no desire to have a postmortem, she brought the dead body back to house. They kept the dead body in the house for whole night, at that time, accused threatened Rukhminbai as well as Sangita that they should not disclose the incident to anybody otherwise they would be stabbed and done to death. They got frightened and therefore told that Mahadu expired due to fall from the wall. Their relatives gathered on 11/5/2014. To them also, the same reason was conveyed and then the funeral was performed at Malkapur cemetery around 11.00 a.m. on 11/5/2014. But then as aforesaid, she lodged the FIR on 12/5/2014.
3. After the FIR was lodged spot panchanama was carried out, statements of witnesses were recorded. Accused came to be arrested. After the investigation, charge-sheet was filed.
4. After the committal of the case, charge was framed. Prosecution has examined in all five witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused. After considering the evidence on record and hearing both sides, the learned Trial Judge has hold the accused guilty and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.10,000.00 in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months for committing offence punishable under Sec. 302 of Indian Penal Code. Further, he has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month and fine o
In criminal law, the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and reliance on uncorroborated and inconsistent witness testimony can lead to acquittal.
The prosecution must fully establish the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn and exclude every possible hypothesis except the guilt of the accused in cases based on circumstanti....
Homicidal death of deceased - Witnesses turned hostile - three successive blows were given on the back side of the head of deceased, having knowledge that death was likely to be caused on the part of....
The court established that a single credible witness's testimony can suffice for conviction, emphasizing the importance of assessing the accused's intention in distinguishing between murder and culpa....
The court reaffirmed the principle that in domestic homicide cases, the accused must explain injuries found on the deceased, or their silence may imply guilt.
The principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, especially in cases involving serious charges such as murder, was reaffirmed.
The court established that inconsistencies in witness testimonies can create reasonable doubt in murder cases, while credible evidence of an assault can sustain a conviction for attempted murder even....
The judgment underscores the principle that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a clear and unbroken chain of evidence that excludes all reasonable hypotheses of....
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.