Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Azizkhan S/o Mohammad Khan Pathan, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Biloli, for the murder and robbery of Vimalabai, an elderly woman, under Sections 302 and 392 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced to life imprisonment and rigorous imprisonment for ten years respectively. The incident occurred on 06.03.2011 when the deceased was harvesting pulse in her field. Her son, informant Tukaram (PW1), was informed by Prakash Jadhav that something had happened to his mother. He rushed to the field and found her lying dead with ornaments missing. An FIR was lodged against unknown persons, and after investigation, the appellant was arrested. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses, including three witnesses (PW4, PW5, PW6) who claimed to have seen the appellant near the field on the day of the incident. The trial court convicted the appellant based on circumstantial evidence, primarily the last seen theory and recovery of ornaments. On appeal, the High Court examined the evidence and found that the testimony of the last seen witnesses was inconsistent and unreliable. PW4 and PW5 gave contradictory statements regarding the time and place of seeing the appellant. PW6's testimony was also not credible. The recovery of ornaments was not properly linked to the appellant as the panch witnesses turned hostile. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the chain of circumstances beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted. The court directed his release unless required in any other case.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder and Robbery - Sections 302, 392 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Circumstantial Evidence - Appeal against conviction for murder and robbery of an elderly woman in her field - Prosecution relied on last seen evidence and recovery of ornaments - Held that the evidence of last seen witnesses was inconsistent and unreliable, and the recovery of ornaments was not properly linked to the accused - Conviction set aside and appellant acquitted (Paras 1-13).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 302 and 392 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges. He be set at liberty unless required in any other case.
Law Points
- Circumstantial evidence
- Last seen theory
- Identification of accused
- Benefit of doubt
- Section 302 IPC
- Section 392 IPC
Case Details
2023 LawText (BOM) (01) 48
Criminal Appeal No.706 of 2015 with Application No.3666/2022
Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, Abhay S. Waghwase
Mr. Sunil B. Jadhav (Appointed Through Legal Aid) for Appellant, Mrs. P.V. Diggikar (APP) for Respondent State
Azizkhan S/o Mohammad Khan Pathan
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against conviction for murder and robbery
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought acquittal by challenging the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Biloli
Filing Reason
Appellant was convicted under Sections 302 and 392 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment and rigorous imprisonment for ten years respectively
Previous Decisions
Trial court convicted the appellant based on circumstantial evidence including last seen theory and recovery of ornaments
Issues
Whether the conviction under Sections 302 and 392 IPC is sustainable based on the evidence on record
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and that the evidence of last seen witnesses was unreliable
Respondent State argued that the conviction was based on credible circumstantial evidence and should be upheld
Ratio Decidendi
In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove the chain of circumstances beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence of last seen witnesses must be reliable and consistent. Here, the testimony of the last seen witnesses was contradictory and unreliable, and the recovery of ornaments was not properly linked to the accused. Hence, the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt.
Judgment Excerpts
Appellant, a convict has invoked jurisdiction of this Court by filing instant appeal, thereby challenging judgment and order of conviction passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Biloli, Dist. Nanded for commission of offence under section 302 and 392 of Indian Penal Code and thereby sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years, respectively, for each of the above offence.
Deceased Vimalabai was harvesting pulse(Tur) in her own field on 06.03.2011.
Procedural History
FIR lodged on 06.03.2011 at Ramtirth Police Station. Investigation led to charge-sheet. Case committed to Additional Sessions Judge, Biloli. Trial concluded with conviction on 30.06.2015. Appellant filed Criminal Appeal No.706 of 2015 before the High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad. Judgment delivered on 20.01.2023 allowing the appeal and acquitting the appellant.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 302, 392
