Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Vibha Kankanwadi, Abhay S.Waghwase, JJ.
Maroti - Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 380 of 2017
Decided On : 05-09-2023
MURDER - Conviction under IPC Section 302 - Indian Penal Code, Sec. 302; Code of Criminal Procedure, Sec. 313; Indian Evidence Act, Sec. 154 - The court discussed the legal provisions regarding murder under IPC Sec. 302, emphasizing the necessity of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It highlighted the importance of proper examination under Sec. 313 of the CrPC, which mandates that all incriminating circumstances must be put to the accused. The court also addressed the application of Sec. 154 of the Evidence Act, noting that the discretion to declare a witness hostile must be judiciously exercised. The failure to adhere to these legal standards contributed to the decision to overturn the conviction.
Fact of the Case:
The accused was convicted for the murder of his three-month-old daughter, Shivkanya, based on the testimony of his wife, Annapurna, who reported the incident after returning home to find the child unresponsive. The prosecution alleged that the accused strangled the child, while the defense claimed the child fell from the cot. The trial court found the accused guilty based on circumstantial evidence and the testimony of witnesses, despite some witnesses turning hostile.
Finding of the Court:
The appellate court found that the trial court failed to properly consider the evidence, particularly the hostile testimonies of key witnesses. It noted that the prosecution did not conclusively prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and significant procedural errors occurred during the trial, particularly regarding the examination of witnesses and the accused's rights under Sec. 313 of the CrPC.
Issues: Whether the prosecution proved the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt; whether the trial court properly applied the legal standards regarding hostile witnesses and the accused's examination under Sec. 313 of the CrPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The appellate court emphasized that the prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and any failure to properly examine the accused on incriminating evidence undermines the validity of the conviction. The court reiterated that the declaration of a witness as hostile does not automatically invalidate their testimony, but the trial court must carefully assess the credibility of such witnesses.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the conviction under Sec. 302 of the IPC was quashed, and the accused was acquitted of all charges.
JUDGMENT/ORDER
VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. - Present appeal has been filed by the original accused challenging his conviction by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kandhar, District Nanded on 11/7/2017 after holding him guilty of committing offence punishable under Sec. 302 of Indian Penal Code in Sessions Case No.06 of 2016. The accused has been convicted for allegedly committing murder of his own daughter aged three months.
2. It is not in dispute that P.W.1 Annapurna is the wife of accused. They were blessed with son Shyam and daughter Shivkanya. Accused was an agriculturist. They were resident of village Marshivni, Taluka Kandhar, District, Nanded.
3. The prosecution has come with the case that P.W.1 Annapurna lodged report with police on 22/11/2015 stating that she had returned from her parents house on 13/11/2015 with daughter Shivkanya, who was then aged three months. On 20/11/2015 around 10.00 a.m., she had made Shivkanya to sleep on cot in the house (locally called as Baaj ). Accused was at home. He told her that she should go to field and bring firewood. Therefore, she went to field. She came back around 11.30 a.m. The girl was groaning and therefore, she tried to take the girl, but accused was resisting her. She tried to breastfeed the girl, but the girl was not taking the milk. Therefore, she untied the cap tied to the neck of the girl (the cap is locally called as Kunchi/Kulai/Topda). Then she realized that there was scar like strangulating the neck. Thereupon she asked husband as to why he has done it, at that time, he told that the girl fell down from the cot (Baaj) and he has not strangulated her. Annapurna then raised shouts, as a result of which nephew came, then she herself, nephew and accused took the girl in Jeep for treatment at Dr. Jadhav's hospital, at Kandhar, however, he had not admitted the girl and, therefore, they went to Government Hospital, Vishnupuri, Nanded. After the Doctor examined Shivkanya, it was told that as the strangulation has been done, she is unable to breathe and, therefore, she was admitted, however, she expired at about 8.15 a.m. on 22/11/2015. On the basis of said FIR, offence vide Crime No.141 of 2015 was registered for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of Indian Penal Code with Kandhar Police Station and further investigation was taken up.
4. It appears that on the basis of Medico Legal Certificate, inquest panchanama was executed with the help of two panchas and the dead body was sent for postmortem. After the registration of the offence, panchanama of the spot was got executed and statements of witnesses were recorded. Accused came to be arrested. After the completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed. The accused was not released on bail.
5. After the committal of the case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kandhar has framed charge at Exhibit-04. The prosecution has in all examined eight witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused, after the accused pleaded not guilty. Taking into consideration the incriminating circumstances, the statement under Sec. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been recorded. The defence of the accused is of total denial. After hearing both sides and perusing the evidence on record, the learned Trial Judge has held that the prosecution has proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, the accused has been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000.00, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for four months for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of Indian Penal Code. Set off has been granted under Sec. 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This is the order challenged in the present appeal.
6. Heard learned Advocate Mr. A. M. Gaikwad for the appellant and learned APP Mr. S. J. Salgare for the respondent - State.
7. It has been vehemently submitted on behalf of the appellant that the learned Trial Judge has not appreciated the evidence properly. Though the prosecution had come with the ca
The prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence beyond reasonable doubt for a conviction under Section 302 IPC.
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....
The court determined that inadequate compliance with Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. during trial prejudiced the accused, necessitating a remand for reconsideration under proper procedural safeguards.
(1) Murder – Postmortem report by itself cannot be treated as a piece of substantive evidence.(2) Hostile Witness – As evidence of a hostile witness can be used for convicting accused, such evidence ....
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.
Circumstantial evidence must establish a conclusive chain consistent with the accused's guilt; suspicion cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal convictions.
The prosecution must prove the case for murder beyond reasonable doubt, and lack of supporting evidence can lead to the benefit of doubt for the accused.
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
