Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Krushnmurti @ Deelip s/o Gokul Chaudhari, was convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhusawal on 25-08-2015 in Sessions Case No.226 of 2014 for the murder of his wife Archana under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000. The prosecution case was that the appellant suspected his wife's character, leading to strained relations and separate residences. On 27-05-2012, the appellant visited Archana's rented premises in Unta Mohalla, Bhusawal, quarreled with her, and stabbed her multiple times. Neighbors summoned the police, and Archana's father lodged a complaint. The trial court relied on a dying declaration (Exh. 28) allegedly made by Archana to a police officer (PW-8) and the testimony of an eyewitness (PW-1), the deceased's brother. The appellant appealed against the conviction. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the dying declaration was not recorded in question-answer form and was not attested by a doctor, making it unreliable. The eyewitness (PW-1) was not present at the scene as his testimony contradicted other evidence. The circumstantial evidence did not form a complete chain pointing to the appellant's guilt. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the trial court's conviction was based on conjectures and surmises. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Section 302 IPC - Conviction set aside - Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt - Dying declaration (Exh. 28) was not reliable as it was not recorded in question-answer form and was not attested by doctor - Eyewitness (PW-1) was not present at the scene - Circumstantial evidence did not form complete chain - Held that the trial court's conviction was based on conjectures and surmises (Paras 1-30). B) Evidence Law - Dying Declaration - Reliability - Dying declaration must be recorded in question-answer form and must be attested by a doctor to be considered reliable - In this case, the dying declaration was not recorded in question-answer form and was not attested by a doctor, making it unreliable - Held that such a dying declaration cannot be the sole basis for conviction (Paras 15-20). C) Criminal Law - Motive - Section 302 IPC - Motive is not essential but relevant - Prosecution failed to establish motive for murder - Accused and deceased were living separately, and there was no evidence of recent harassment - Held that absence of motive weakens the prosecution case (Paras 10-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for the murder of his wife Archana is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. The judgment and order of conviction dated 25-08-2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhusawal in Sessions Case No.226 of 2014 is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charge under Section 302 of IPC. His bail bonds stand cancelled.
Law Points
- Conviction under Section 302 IPC requires proof beyond reasonable doubt
- Dying declaration must be reliable and voluntary
- Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain
- Motive is relevant but not essential
- Benefit of doubt must be given to accused
