Back
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
V.M. Deshpande and Amit B. Borkar, JJ.
Laxman – Appellant
versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.110 of 2018
Decided on 18.8.2021
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Shri A.K. Bhangde, Advocate
For the Respondent: Shri V.A. Thakare, APP
IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) In a case resting on circumstantial evidence, all circumstances brought out by prosecution must inevitably and exclusively point to guilt of accused and there should be no circumstance which may reasonably be considered consistent with innocence of accused.
(2) Murder – Circumstances of recovery of weapon and blood of deceased on clothes of accused cannot form basis of conviction without substantive evidence.
Headnote:
(A) Criminal Law – Circumstantial evidence – In a case resting on circumstantial evidence, all circumstances brought out by prosecution must inevitably and exclusively point to guilt of accused and there should be no circumstance which may reasonably be considered consistent with innocence of accused – Even in case of circumstantial evidence, Court requires to bear in mind cumulative effect of all circumstances in a given case and weigh them as an integrated whole – All proved circumstances must provide chain, no link of which must be missing, and they must unequivocally point to guilt of accused and exclude any hypothesis consistent with his innocence. (Para 9)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Murder – Life sentence – Circumstantial evidence – There is no eye-witness to alleged incident – Prosecution has failed to prove strong motive with impelled accused to commit murder of deceased – Circumstances of recovery of weapon and blood of deceased on clothes of accused cannot form basis of conviction without substantive evidence, as they may arose strong suspicion against appellant to show that prosecution case may be true, but it may not take place of proof – Prosecution has failed to prove its case against appellant beyond reasonable doubt – Maximum it can be said in favour of prosecution is that a strong suspicion has been created against appellant and prosecution case may be true but strong suspicion and ‘may be true’ are not enough to record finding of guilt in a criminal case – Conviction of appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained – Judgment and order of conviction quashed and set aside and appellant acquitted of offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code by giving him benefit of doubt. (Paras 9, 12, 16, 17 and 18)
Result: Appeal allowed. Appellant acquitted.
JUDGMENT
Amit B. Borkar, J.—The appellant – accused has challenged the impugned judgment dated 06/01/2018 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur in Sessions Case No. 24/2016 by which the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months.
2. The case of the prosecution, in short, is as under:-
Deceased – Amarsingh alias Guddu was the son of Informant – Subedarsingh. The deceased had three sisters and was working in Shubh Laxmi Video Parlour, Bangali Camp, Chandrapur. On 25/10/2015, the deceased – Amarsingh returned from his work. He left his house on the pretext of giving keys but thereafter did not return. The informant, around 12.00 hours in the midnight got up and saw the vehicle of the deceased parked inside the compound of the house. The informant searched but the deceased was not found. Therefore, the informant came home and slept. On the next day i.e. 26/10/2015 in the morning around 6:00 a.m. when the informant got up and was brooming, he saw the dead body of his son in supine condition in front of the road of his house. The informant went and tried to wake the deceased up but his son was dead. The informant noticed injuries on the back and neck of the deceased with sharp weapons and he was lying in a pool of blood. The informant therefore filed report with Police Station Chandrapur City (Exhibit 16).
3. On the basis of the report, offence came to be registered vide Crime No. 239/2015 (Exhibit 17) against unknown person and investigation started. The Investigating Officer Vivek Deshmukh (PW13) arrested the accused, drawn inquest panchanama and spot panchanama. The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the witnesses. The blood stained knife was recovered at the instance of the accused as per the memorandum. The Investigating Officer filed chargesheet with the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandrapur. Since the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate committed the case for trial to the Sessions Court under Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
4. The learned Sessions Judge framed charge against the accused which was explained to him in vernacular to which the accused pleaded not guilty. During the trial, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses. The prosecution led circumstantial evidence against the appellant. The learned Sessions Judge believed the circumstances and convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner as stated in para no. 1 above.
5. We have heard learned advocate for the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State. We have meticulously gone through the deposition of witnesses. We have perused the various exhibits proved by the prosecution to substantiate their case.
6. The contentions on behalf of the appellant stated briefly are that the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence, the chain of events and the circumstances is not at all complete. The prosecution has failed to prove the motive. The incriminating circumstances were put to the appellant while recording his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The recovery of knife was not proved according to Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The prosecution has failed to prove that the clothes and knife remained in sealed condition till they were handed over to the chemical analysis. Therefore, it is submitted that the judgment of conviction of the appellant is unsustainable in law.
7. Learned APP for the respondent/State pointed out that the evidence of the circumstances, which according to him, proved complicity of the appellant in the murder. According to the learned APP, the prosecution has successfully proved beyond dou
