Case Note & Summary
The case involves two appeals arising from the same judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Sessions Case No.191 of 2008. Criminal Appeal No.463 of 2016 is filed by original accused No.1, Parmeshwar Sadashiv Sanap, challenging his conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of his wife, Dipali. Criminal Appeal No.595 of 2016 is filed by the father of the deceased, Sampat Bhagwan Garje, challenging the acquittal of accused No.2, the mother-in-law, from offences under Sections 302, 342 read with Section 34 IPC. The prosecution case is that Dipali and accused No.1 were married in November 2004 and had a son. On 28th August 2007, Dipali was last seen with accused No.1, and her dead body was later found in a well. The trial court convicted accused No.1 based on circumstantial evidence, including last seen theory and motive, but acquitted accused No.2 for lack of evidence. The High Court upheld the conviction of accused No.1, finding the chain of circumstances complete, and dismissed the appeal against acquittal of accused No.2, holding that the trial court's view was plausible.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Circumstantial Evidence - Last Seen Theory - Section 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Conviction based on circumstantial evidence where deceased was last seen with accused No.1 and her body was found in a well - Held that the chain of circumstances was complete and pointed only to the guilt of accused No.1 (Paras 1-30).
B) Criminal Law - Acquittal of Co-Accused - Lack of Evidence - Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Mother-in-law acquitted as there was no evidence of her involvement in the murder - Held that the trial court's acquittal was proper and no interference warranted (Paras 31-40).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of accused No.1 under Section 302 IPC is sustainable based on circumstantial evidence, and whether the acquittal of accused No.2 is justified.
Final Decision
Criminal Appeal No.463 of 2016 is dismissed, confirming the conviction of accused No.1 under Section 302 IPC. Criminal Appeal No.595 of 2016 is dismissed, confirming the acquittal of accused No.2.
Law Points
- Murder
- Circumstantial Evidence
- Last Seen Theory
- Acquittal of Co-Accused
- Section 302 IPC
- Section 372 CrPC
Case Details
2023 LawText (BOM) (05) 5
Criminal Appeal No.463 of 2016 and Criminal Appeal No.595 of 2016
Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, Y.G. Khobragade
Mr. Satej S. Jadhav (for appellant in Cr.Appeal No.463/2016), Mr. R.D. Sanap (APP for State), Mr. Ramesh R. Imale (for appellant in Cr.Appeal No.595/2016)
Parmeshwar s/o Sadashiv Sanap (in Criminal Appeal No.463/2016); Sampat s/o Bhagwan Garje (in Criminal Appeal No.595/2016)
The State of Maharashtra (in both appeals); Kamalbai w/o Sadashiv Sanap (in Criminal Appeal No.595/2016)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeals against conviction and acquittal in a murder case
Remedy Sought
Accused No.1 seeks acquittal; father of deceased seeks conviction of accused No.2
Filing Reason
Challenge to trial court judgment convicting accused No.1 and acquitting accused No.2
Previous Decisions
Trial court convicted accused No.1 under Section 302 IPC and acquitted accused No.2
Issues
Whether the conviction of accused No.1 under Section 302 IPC is sustainable based on circumstantial evidence?
Whether the acquittal of accused No.2 is justified?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant (accused No.1) argued that the circumstantial evidence was insufficient and the last seen theory was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Appellant (father of deceased) argued that the trial court erred in acquitting accused No.2 as there was evidence of her involvement.
Ratio Decidendi
In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances must be complete and point only to the guilt of the accused. The last seen theory, coupled with motive and other circumstances, can form the basis for conviction under Section 302 IPC. Acquittal of a co-accused is justified when there is no evidence of involvement.
Judgment Excerpts
Both the Appeals arise out of the Judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Sessions Case No.191 of 2008 dated 8th July 2016 and therefore the same are proposed to be disposed of by this common Judgment.
Criminal Appeal No. 463 of 2016 is filed by original accused No.1 challenging his conviction after holding him guilty of committing offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month.
Procedural History
The trial court (Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad) convicted accused No.1 under Section 302 IPC and acquitted accused No.2. Both parties appealed to the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 302, 342, 34
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 372
