Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Rajeshwar Marotrao Biradar, was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of his wife, Ujwala, and sentenced to life imprisonment by the Additional Sessions Judge, Biloli, in Sessions Case No. 24 of 2014. The prosecution's case was that Ujwala was initially taken to Dhanvantari Hospital, Degloor, and then to Godavari Hospital, Nanded, on 18 August 2011 with a history of convulsions and a fall from bed. She died during treatment. Initially, an accidental death report was registered, but later, based on the autopsy doctor's opinion that death was due to smothering and manual strangulation, a murder case was registered. The trial court relied on circumstantial evidence and invoked Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act to hold the appellant guilty. On appeal, the Bombay High Court examined the evidence, including the testimony of nine prosecution witnesses and medical records. The court found that the medical evidence was inconsistent and inconclusive: the autopsy doctor initially could not ascertain the cause of death and later gave an opinion of smothering and strangulation, but other medical experts disagreed. The court noted that there was no direct evidence, no proof of motive, and the chain of circumstances was incomplete. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove homicidal death beyond reasonable doubt, and the trial court's reliance on Section 106 was misplaced. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Circumstantial Evidence - Section 302 IPC - Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires prosecution to prove homicidal death and complete chain of circumstances - In the present case, medical evidence was inconsistent and inconclusive regarding cause of death, and there was no proof of motive - Held that conviction cannot be sustained when medical opinions are contradictory and prosecution fails to establish homicidal death (Paras 1-14).
B) Evidence Act - Burden of Proof - Section 106 Indian Evidence Act - Section 106 does not relieve prosecution of proving its case beyond reasonable doubt - It only applies when facts are especially within the knowledge of the accused - In this case, mere presence of accused with deceased is insufficient to invoke Section 106 without establishing homicidal death (Paras 4, 14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC based on circumstantial evidence and medical opinion is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of the charge under Section 302 IPC. Bail bonds cancelled.
Law Points
- Circumstantial evidence
- Homicidal death
- Medical evidence
- Section 106 Indian Evidence Act
- Motive
- Benefit of doubt
Case Details
2023 LawText (BOM) (06) 27
Criminal Appeal No. 549 of 2016
Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, Abhay S. Waghwase
Mr. Satej S. Jadhav (for Appellant), Mr. R. D. Sanap (APP for Respondent-State)
Rajeshwar Marotrao Biradar
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought setting aside of conviction and sentence of life imprisonment.
Filing Reason
Appellant challenged the judgment and order dated 10.08.2016 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Biloli in Sessions Case No. 24 of 2014 convicting him under Section 302 IPC.
Previous Decisions
Trial court convicted appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment.
Issues
Whether the prosecution proved homicidal death beyond reasonable doubt?
Whether the circumstantial evidence and medical evidence were sufficient to sustain conviction?
Whether Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act was correctly invoked?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that there was no direct evidence, medical evidence was inconsistent, no motive was proved, and the trial court erred in invoking Section 106 of the Evidence Act.
Respondent-State supported the trial court's judgment, arguing that the medical evidence and circumstances pointed to the appellant's guilt.
Ratio Decidendi
In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove homicidal death and complete the chain of circumstances pointing to the accused's guilt. Inconsistent medical evidence and lack of motive create reasonable doubt. Section 106 of the Evidence Act cannot be used to shift the burden of proof unless the prosecution first establishes a prima facie case.
Judgment Excerpts
Appellant, a convict for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code [IPC], is hereby challenging the judgment and order dated 10.08.2016 passed in Sessions Case No. 24 of 2014 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Biloli, by which he was held guilty for the charge under Section 302 IPC and accordingly sentenced to imprisonment for life.
In such factual background, it was incumbent upon the prosecution to first establish death of Ujwala to be nothing but homicidal.
Medical evidence adduced by investigating machinery is not clear and cogent about mode of death.
There is no iota of evidence regarding motive and learned trial Judge has given finding to that extent on the basis of conjectures and surmises.
Procedural History
The appellant was chargesheeted by Degloor Police Station for murder of his wife. After trial, the Additional Sessions Judge, Biloli convicted him under Section 302 IPC on 10.08.2016. The appellant filed Criminal Appeal No. 549 of 2016 before the Bombay High Court, which was heard and decided on 09.06.2023.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 302
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872: 106
