Back
2024 Supreme(Bom) 1205
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
R.G. AVACHAT, NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ.
Sahebrao Pralhad Ingole - Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer, Kalamb Police Station and Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No.107 of 2021 With Criminal Appeal No.130 of 2021 With Criminal Appeal No.131 of 2021 With Criminal Appeal No.180 Of 2021 With Criminal Appeal No.307 of 2021
Decided On : 12-11-2024
For the Appellant :Mr. S.J. Salunke, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. S.J. Salgare, A.P.P., Mr. S.B. Bhapkar, Advocate holding for Mr. S.S. Bhise.
Circumstantial evidence must exclude all reasonable doubt for conviction; insufficient evidence led to the acquittal of the appellants.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 235(2); Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 363, 364, 120-B r.w. Section 34; Maharashtra Prevention and Eradication of Human Sacrifice and other Inhuman, Evil and Aghori Practices and Black Magic Act, 2013 - Conviction under various sections challenged - The trial court found the appellants guilty of murder and kidnapping but the evidence was largely circumstantial, lacking in direct connection to the crime - Key issues included the meaning of circumstantial evidence, the lack of strong witness testimonies, and the unreliability of the evidence - The appeals were allowed, and the conviction was set aside due to insufficient evidence. (Paras 12, 16, 47)
Facts of the case:
A crime was registered for the kidnapping and subsequent murder of a young boy, with a group of appellants accused. The prosecution's case rested on circumstantial evidence including last seen testimony and alleged confessions that were not proven. (Paras 1, 4, 5)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the prosecution's circumstantial evidence did not firmly establish the guilt of the appellants. The trial court's reliance on certain witness testimonies and recovery of items was deemed flawed. (Para 47)
Issues: The key issues revolved around the adequacy of circumstantial evidence, credibility of witness testimonies, and the sufficiency of the prosecution case to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated the principle that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, all circumstances must unerringly point to the guilt of the accused without leaving room for reasonable doubt. The prosecution's failure to establish a definite timeline and the reliability of witnesses was critical in overturning the conviction.
Result: The Criminal Appeals are allowed. Conviction of the appellants is set aside and they are acquitted of all charges.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction details and sentencing. (Para 2) |
| 2. prosecution's case and background of the appellants. (Para 3 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. circumstances of the kidnapping and murder. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. trial court's evaluation of evidence. (Para 11 , 18) |
| 5. arguments by appellants’ advocates. (Para 12 , 13 , 16) |
| 6. prosecution's reliance on evidence. (Para 14 , 15) |
| 7. homicidal death and circumstantial evidence. (Para 17 , 19 , 22 , 25) |
| 8. injuries on krishna and medical evidence. (Para 20 , 21) |
| 9. inconsistent witness testimonies. (Para 24 , 26 , 29) |
| 10. problems with disclosure statements. (Para 30 , 31 , 34) |
| 11. context of motives and creations. (Para 36 , 37 , 38) |
| 12. evidence of witchcraft and relevant articles. (Para 39 , 40 , 42) |
| 13. (Para 41 , 44 , 46 , 48) |
JUDGMENT :
R.G. AVACHAT, J.
This group of five appeals is taken up together for decision since the challenge therein is to the judgment and order dated 23 October 2020, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad (Trial Court) in Sessions Case, No.31/2017. The appellants in all these appeals were the accused in the said Sessions Case. The material part of the operative order of conviction and consequential sentence impugned in all these appeals, reads thus :
(1) Uttam Bhivaji Ingole (A1), Sow. Urmila Uttam Ingole (A2), Rahul @ Lakhan Shrirang Chudavakar (A3), Dropadi @ Laxmi Babu Poul (A4), Sahebrao Pralhad Ingole (A5) and Sow. Suvarna Dipak Bhadale (A6) are convicted under Sec.235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for having committed offences punishable under Ss. 302, 363, 364, 120-B all r.w. Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sec.3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention and Eradication of Human Sacrifice and other Inhuman, Evil and Aghori Practices and Black Magic Act, 2013.
(2) Accused No.1 to 6 are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and everyone of them shall pay fine Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand only), in default thereof they shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for further Three (3) months, for having committed an offence punishable under Sec. 302 r.w S.34 I.P. Code.
(3) Accused No.1 to 6 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven (7) years and everyone of them shall pay fine Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only), in default thereof they shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for further Two (2) months, for having committed an offence punishable under Sec.363 r.w. Sec.34 I.P.Code.
(4) Accused No.1 to 6 are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and everyone of them shall pay fine Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand only), in default thereof they shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for further Three (3) months, for having committed an offence punishable under Sec.364 r.w. Sec.34 I.P. Code.
(5) Accused No.1 to 6 are sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for Seven (7) years and everyone of them shall pay fine Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only), in default thereof they shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for further Two (2) months, for having committed an offence punishable under Sec. 3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention and Eradication of Human Sacrifice and other Inhuman, Evil and Aghjori practices and Black Magic Act, 2013.
(6) All the sentences in respect of Accused No.1 to 6 shall run concurrently.
2. For the sake of convenience, the appellants in all these appeals would be referred to as per their Serial Number in the Charge. They would, however, be described as the appellants.
3. The long and short of the prosecution case before the Trial Court was as follows :
Pimpalgaon (Dola) is the village in Kallam Taluka, District Osmanabad. Appellant Uttam Ingole is the husband of appellant Urmila. Appellant Dropadi @ Laxmi Poul is the sister of appellant Uttam Ingole. Appellant Sahebrao Ingole is Uttam’s cousin. While appellants Rahul @ Lakhan and Sow. Suvarna Bhadale were Gondhalis by profession. They were no way related to the other appellants. They were permanent residents of Pune.
4. A crime vide C.R. No.25/2017 was registered for offence punishab
