Case Note & Summary
The judgment pertains to four connected matters: Criminal Appeal No.579/2019 by accused no.1 Balasaheb Babasaheb Bhagat against his conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC; Criminal Appeal No.611/2019 by the informant Bhanudas Ganpat Dhedge @ Bhagat against the acquittal of accused no.2 Sangita Shankar Dhedge @ Bhagat for offences under Sections 302, 201 r/w 109 IPC; Criminal Appeal No.612/2019 by the same informant against the acquittal of accused no.1 in another case; and Application for Leave to Appeal by State No.183/2019 seeking leave to appeal against the acquittal of both accused. The case arises from the death of Shankar Bhanudas Bhagat, whose body was found in a well. The prosecution alleged that accused no.1, the nephew of the deceased, murdered him due to a land dispute, and accused no.2, the wife of the deceased, abetted the crime. The trial court convicted accused no.1 under Section 302 IPC and acquitted accused no.2. The High Court examined the evidence, including last seen testimony, motive, and circumstantial evidence. The court found that the last seen evidence was unreliable due to contradictions and lack of corroboration. The motive was weak, and the chain of circumstances was incomplete. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal of accused no.1, setting aside his conviction and acquitting him. The court dismissed the appeals of the informant and the state against the acquittal of accused no.2, upholding her acquittal. The court also dismissed Criminal Appeal No.612/2019 as infructuous.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Circumstantial Evidence - Last Seen Theory - The conviction based solely on last seen evidence without corroboration is unsustainable - The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the chain of circumstances leading to the guilt of accused no.1, and the last seen evidence was not reliable (Paras 1-20).
B) Criminal Law - Abetment - Acquittal - The acquittal of accused no.2 for abetment of murder and causing disappearance of evidence was upheld as the evidence did not establish any active participation or conspiracy - The court held that mere presence or relationship is insufficient to prove abetment (Paras 21-30).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of accused no.1 under Section 302 IPC is sustainable based on circumstantial evidence; whether the acquittal of accused no.2 for offences under Sections 302, 201 r/w 109 IPC is correct.
Final Decision
Criminal Appeal No.579/2019 is allowed. The conviction of accused no.1 under Section 302 IPC is set aside, and he is acquitted. Criminal Appeal No.611/2019 is dismissed. Criminal Appeal No.612/2019 is dismissed as infructuous. Application for Leave to Appeal by State No.183/2019 is dismissed.
Law Points
- Circumstantial evidence
- last seen theory
- motive
- abetment
- acquittal
- conviction
- Indian Penal Code
- 1860
- Section 302
- Section 201
- Section 109
Case Details
2023 LawText (BOM) (09) 2
Criminal Appeal No.579 of 2019, Criminal Appeal No.611 of 2019, Criminal Appeal No.612 of 2019, Application for Leave to Appeal by State No.183 of 2019
R.G. Avachat, Sanjay A. Deshmukh
Mr. K.N. Shermale (for appellant in Appeal No.579/2019), Mr. V.B. Jagtap (for appellant in Appeal Nos.611/2019 and 612/2019), Mr. S.D. Ghayal (APP for respondent in all appeals and applicant in ALS No.183/2019)
Balasaheb S/o Babasaheb Bhagat (in Appeal No.579/2019); Bhanudas S/o Ganpat Dhedge @ Bhagat (in Appeal Nos.611/2019 and 612/2019); The State of Maharashtra (in ALS No.183/2019)
The State of Maharashtra (in Appeal No.579/2019); The State of Maharashtra and Sangita Shankar Dhedge @ Bhagat (in Appeal No.611/2019); The State of Maharashtra and Balasaheb Babasaheb Bhagat (in Appeal No.612/2019); Balasaheb Babasaheb Bhagat and Sangita Shankar Dhedge @ Bhagat (in ALS No.183/2019)
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 sought acquittal; informant sought conviction of accused no.2; state sought leave to appeal against acquittal
Filing Reason
Challenge to trial court judgment dated 17.05.2019 in Sessions Case No.27 of 2017
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 for offences under Sections 302, 201 r/w 109 IPC is correct?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant (accused no.1) argued that the evidence is insufficient and the last seen theory is not reliable.
Appellant (informant) argued that accused no.2 conspired and abetted the murder.
State supported the conviction of accused no.1 and sought leave to appeal against acquittal of accused no.2.
Ratio Decidendi
In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove a complete chain of circumstances pointing only to the guilt of the accused. Last seen evidence alone, without corroboration, is insufficient to sustain a conviction. The acquittal of an accused for abetment is justified when there is no evidence of active participation or conspiracy.
Judgment Excerpts
He was convicted for life imprisonment under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
A Criminal Appeal No.611 of 2019 is preferred by the informant against the impugned judgment of acquittal of the appellant-accused no.2 from offences punishable under sections 302, 201 r/w 109 of the IPC.
Procedural History
The trial court (Additional Sessions Judge, Newasa) convicted accused no.1 under Section 302 IPC and acquitted accused no.2 on 17.05.2019. Accused no.1 appealed (Criminal Appeal No.579/2019). The informant appealed against acquittal of accused no.2 (Criminal Appeal No.611/2019) and also filed another appeal (Criminal Appeal No.612/2019). The state sought leave to appeal (ALS No.183/2019). All matters were heard together by the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 302, 201, 109
