Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Harischandra Damu Baldhye, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai, for the murder of his daughter Nikita under Section 302 IPC. The prosecution case was that on 10 July 2015, the appellant, frustrated by his wife's refusal to return, took his children Nikita and Sunil from his father PW3 Damu, and later that night manually strangulated Nikita to death. PW3 Damu lodged a report, and the police registered a crime. The trial court convicted the appellant based on circumstantial evidence, including the testimony of PW3 and PW4 (Sunil, the son). The appellant appealed under Section 374(2) CrPC. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the prosecution failed to prove motive, the last seen theory was not reliable as PW3's testimony was inconsistent, and PW4's testimony was not credible due to his young age and tutoring. The court held that the chain of circumstances was incomplete and the conviction could not be sustained. The appeal was allowed, the conviction set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Circumstantial Evidence - Section 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain of circumstances pointing only to guilt of accused - In present case, prosecution failed to establish motive, last seen theory, and credible witnesses - Held that conviction cannot be sustained and accused is entitled to acquittal (Paras 1-20).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC based on circumstantial evidence is sustainable.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction set aside. Appellant acquitted of offence under Section 302 IPC.
Law Points
- Circumstantial evidence
- motive
- last seen theory
- credibility of witnesses
- benefit of doubt
Case Details
2023 LawText (BOM) (08) 24
Criminal Appeal No. 296 of 2017
Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, Abhay S. Waghwase
Mr. S. A. Gaikwad (for Appellant), Mr. S. D. Ghayal (APP for Respondent)
Harischandra s/o. Damu Baldhye
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 acquittal by setting aside the conviction and sentence.
Filing Reason
Appellant was convicted for murder of his daughter based on circumstantial evidence.
Previous Decisions
Trial court convicted appellant on 02.11.2016 in Sessions Case No.72 of 2015.
Issues
Whether the conviction based on circumstantial evidence is sustainable.
Whether the prosecution proved motive and last seen theory beyond reasonable doubt.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that the evidence is insufficient and witnesses are not credible.
Respondent argued that the chain of circumstances is complete and conviction is correct.
Ratio Decidendi
In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances that points only to the guilt of the accused. Failure to prove motive and reliance on unreliable witnesses leads to acquittal.
Judgment Excerpts
Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction dated 02.11.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai, Dist Beed in Sessions Case No.72 of 2015, thereby holding appellant guilty for offence under section 302 of Indian Penal Code (IPC), accused has filed instant appeal by invoking section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).
Procedural History
Trial court convicted appellant on 02.11.2016. Appellant filed appeal under Section 374(2) CrPC on 21.08.2023.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 302
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 374(2)
