Bombay High Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Due to Lack of Circumstantial Evidence and Unreliable Witnesses. Conviction Based on Circumstantial Evidence Set Aside as Chain of Circumstances Incomplete and Motive Not Established.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: AURANGABAD In Favour of Accused
  • 2
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case pertains to the murder of Anand Sadashiv Kamble, whose dead body was found floating in a well with hands and legs tied. The appellants, Sardar Bashirkhan Pathan (A1) and Gopal Narayan Jadhav (A2), were convicted under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 IPC by the Additional Sessions Judge, Latur. The prosecution case was based on circumstantial evidence including last seen theory, extra-judicial confession, and recovery of a weapon. The High Court analyzed the evidence and found that the chain of circumstances was incomplete. The motive was not established, the last seen witnesses were unreliable, the extra-judicial confession was not proved, and the recovery of weapon was doubtful. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted both appellants.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Murder - Circumstantial Evidence - Sections 302, 201, 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain of circumstances pointing only to guilt of accused - Court held that prosecution failed to establish motive, last seen theory, and recovery of weapon beyond reasonable doubt - Acquittal ordered (Paras 1-30).

B) Evidence Law - Extra-Judicial Confession - Reliability - Extra-judicial confession must be voluntary, truthful, and corroborated - Court found that alleged extra-judicial confession was not proved as witnesses turned hostile and no independent corroboration - Held that extra-judicial confession cannot be sole basis for conviction (Paras 15-20).

C) Criminal Law - Last Seen Theory - Burden of Proof - Last seen theory requires proximity in time and place - Court held that evidence of last seen was weak and not supported by reliable witnesses - Accused cannot be convicted solely on last seen without other links (Paras 21-25).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the conviction of the appellants under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code based on circumstantial evidence is sustainable.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Both appeals are allowed. The judgment and order of conviction dated 17.03.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Latur in Sessions Case No.110 of 2013 is quashed and set aside. The appellants are acquitted of all charges. Their bail bonds stand cancelled.

Law Points

  • Circumstantial evidence
  • chain of circumstances
  • motive
  • last seen theory
  • extra-judicial confession
  • recovery of weapon
  • Section 302 IPC
  • Section 201 IPC
  • Section 34 IPC
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2023 LawText (BOM) (08) 37

Criminal Appeal No.284 of 2016 and Criminal Appeal No.442 of 2016

2023-08-11

Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, Abhay S. Waghwase

2023:BHC-AUG:17181-DB

Mr. S. J. Salunke, Mr. Satej S. Jadhav, Mrs. V. S. Choudhari

Sardar Bashirkhan Pathan and Gopal s/o Narayan Jadhav

The State of Maharashtra

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeals against conviction for murder and destruction of evidence.

Remedy Sought

Appellants sought acquittal from conviction under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 IPC.

Filing Reason

Appellants were convicted by the trial court and appealed against the conviction.

Previous Decisions

Trial court convicted appellants on 17.03.2016 in Sessions Case No.110 of 2013.

Issues

Whether the circumstantial evidence is sufficient to sustain conviction for murder. Whether the extra-judicial confession is reliable. Whether the last seen theory is established.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellants argued that the prosecution failed to prove motive, last seen, and recovery beyond reasonable doubt. Prosecution argued that the chain of circumstances was complete and pointed to guilt of appellants.

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. Motive, last seen theory, and extra-judicial confession must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Failure to do so entitles the accused to acquittal.

Judgment Excerpts

Both the appeals are arising out of the same judgment, hence, we propose to dispose of these appeals by this common judgment. The prosecution story in short is that P.W.2 Sunil Dande, who was the then Police Patil of village Selu, gave information to Ausa Police Station around 2.30 p.m. on 28.05.2013 that dead body of one unknown male person is floating on the water in the well in the field of one Sunil Bajaj.

Procedural History

The appellants were tried in Sessions Case No.110 of 2013 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Latur, convicted on 17.03.2016, and appealed to the High Court.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Penal Code, 1860: 302, 201, 34
  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 174
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Due to Lack of Circumstantial Evidence and Unreliable Witnesses. Conviction Based on Circumstantial Evidence Set Aside as Chain of Circumstances Incomplete and Motive Not Established.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Acquits Accused in POCSO Case Due to Inconsistent Testimony and Lack of Corroboration. Consent of Minor Victim Not Valid, but Prosecution Failed to Prove Penetrative Sexual Assault Beyond Reasonable Doubt.