Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH
Vinay Joshi, Vrushali V. Joshi, JJ.
Adina wd/o Subhash Rathod and ors. - Appellants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer, Police Station, Ghatanji - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 12 OF 2022
Decided On : 29-07-2024
Murder - Conviction - IPC Sections 302, 34; CrPC Section 374(2); Evidence Act Section 106, 27 - The court analyzed circumstantial evidence and the burden of proof, emphasizing the necessity of a complete chain of evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for the murder of Subhash Rathod, with evidence primarily based on circumstantial evidence, including the recovery of blood-stained weapons and clothing, and the absence of a satisfactory explanation from the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence necessary for conviction, particularly regarding the admissibility of recovery evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and the application of Section 106.
Issues: Whether the circumstantial evidence presented was sufficient to uphold the conviction of the accused under Section 302 of the IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of evidence that excludes all reasonable hypotheses of innocence.
Result: The appeal was allowed, and the conviction and sentence were quashed.
JUDGMENT :
VINAY JOSHI, J.
Appellants/ original accused nos. 1 and 2 who are convicted by judgment and order dated 29.11.2021 delivered by the Sessions Judge, Yavatmal in Sessions Case No.187/2019 and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, with payment of fine of Rs.500/- each, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month, have filed this Appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging their aforesaid conviction and sentence. The accused no.1 Adina was on bail during the trial, as well as her execution of sentence was suspended during the pendency of this Appeal. Accused no.2 Ankush is in jail till date.
2. The facts as are necessary for the decision of this appeal can be stated in brief as under :
Deceased Subhash Rathod was residing with his wife Adina (Accused No.1- A1) and daughter Sweety aged 6 years and son Kartik aged 5 years at Village Mowada, Taluq Ghatanji, District Yavatmal. PW 6 – Police Inspector Dineshchandra Shukla, who was attached to Ghatanji Police Station was on duty on 09.08.2019. At around 9 a.m. PW 2- Pawan Rathod – informant, who is nephew of the deceased Subhash, came to the police station and informed about Subhash being murdered at his residential house. PW 6 Police Inspector Shukla reduced the information in writing (Exh.26) and registered Crime No.437/2019 for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In pursuance of the directions issued by superiors, PW 6 Shukla handed over the investigation to PW 7 – Police Sub Inspector Kishore Bhujade.
3. On 09.08.2019 in wee hours around 4 a.m. one Dharma Chavhan, neighbour of deceased Subhash Rathod came to the house of the informant -PW 2 Pawan and informed that someone has snatched gold ornaments of his aunt (Adina – A1) and killed Subhash by means of a weapon. Immediately the informant rushed to the house of his uncle Subhash, who was found lying dead at his house. Subhash has sustained bleeding injuries at his head and face. Blood was spilled over the floor. The informant suspected a foul play by his aunt (Adina – A1), since the deceased was quarreling with her by suspecting her character. The informant Pawan rushed to the concerned police station and expressed his suspicion that his aunt (Adina – A1) might have killed the deceased Subhash with the aid of some one.
4. PW 7 – Investigating Officer PSI Kishore Bhujade visited the place of occurrence and drawn panchnama of the scene of offence (Exh.34). He has collected blood samples, seized mattress, pillow and hairs of the deceased. Photographer was summoned, who took several photographs of the place of occurrence (collectively marked as Exh.95). Inquest panchnama (Exh.35) was carried on the dead both of the deceased Subhash Rathod. It was followed by forwarding the dead body to Rural Hospital, Ghatanji for autopsy.
5. PSI Kishore Bhujade has arrested Adina (A1) and Ankush (accused no.2 – A2), by drawing arrest panchnama. On the very day, while Ankush (A2) was in police custody, he gave a statement in presence of panchas that he is ready to produce weapon, clothes and ornaments. Memorandum panchnama (Exh.51) was drawn. Ankush (A2) lead the policy party and panchas to his house at village Mohada, from where police seized an iron rod, blood stained clothes and some ornaments by drawing seizure panchnama (Exh.52).
6. On 09.08.2029 itself a lady constable has produced blood stained clothes of Adina (A1), which were seized by PW 6 under seizure panchnama (Exh.54). On 12.08.2019, while accused Adina (A1) was in police custody, she expressed her willingness to produce the weapon. Memorandum panchnama (Exh.30) was prepared in presence of panchas. Accused Adina (A1) led the police to her residence and from cattle shed produced one blood stained pestle, which was seized under panchnama (Exh.31). Seized articles were forward
The prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence to secure a conviction, and the burden of proof remains on the prosecution throughout.
In criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete and conclusive chain of evidence that excludes all reasonable hypotheses of innocence; mere suspicion is ....
Murder Charge - When a murder charge is to be proved solely on circumstantial evidence, as in this case, presumption of innocence of the accused must have a dominant role.
The court affirmed that in cases of circumstantial evidence, the accused's failure to explain facts within their knowledge can lead to a presumption of guilt under Section 106 of the Evidence Act.
(1) There should not be acquittal of guilty or conviction of innocent person.(2) Appeal against acquittal – It is only in rarest of rare cases, where High Court, on an absolutely wrong process of rea....
The prosecution failed to prove the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, leading to their acquittal under IPC and SC/ST Act.
Convictions based on circumstantial evidence must establish a reliable chain linking the accused to the crime beyond reasonable doubt.
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
