Case Note & Summary
The appeal arises from the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule in Sessions Case No. 27 of 2016, convicting the appellants Barku Baburao Kolape and Ranjana Vijay Sardar for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The prosecution case was that on 05.01.2016, the informant Rohidas (PW1) saw a dead body of an unknown male on the Nagpur-Surat highway. Investigation revealed that the deceased was troubling accused no.2-Ranjana over money, and she along with accused no.1-Barku took the deceased, made him consume liquor, assaulted him, and caused his death. The trial court accepted the prosecution case as proved beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced both appellants to life imprisonment. Aggrieved, the appellants preferred this appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). The appellants' counsel argued that the prosecution failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt, as there was no direct evidence and the circumstantial evidence was not firmly proved. The court examined the submissions and found that the prosecution had not established the chain of circumstances required for a conviction based on circumstantial evidence. The court noted that there was no evidence to show that the appellants were in the company of the deceased, and the motive was not proved. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellants.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Circumstantial Evidence - Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC - Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain of circumstances pointing only to guilt of accused - Prosecution failed to prove last seen theory and motive - Held that conviction cannot be sustained when circumstances are not firmly established (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC based on circumstantial evidence is sustainable.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellants acquitted of all charges.
Law Points
- Circumstantial evidence
- chain of circumstances must be complete
- last seen theory
- motive
- reasonable doubt
- acquittal
Case Details
2023 LawText (BOM) (10) 30
Criminal Appeal No. 126 of 2017
Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, Abhay S. Waghwase
Mr. Deepak D. Chaudhari for Appellants, Mrs. V. S. Choudhari APP for Respondent
Barku Baburao Kolape and Ranjana Vijay Sardar
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against conviction for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought acquittal by setting aside the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment.
Filing Reason
Appellants were convicted by the trial court for murder based on circumstantial evidence, which they challenged as not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Previous Decisions
Trial court convicted appellants in Sessions Case No. 27 of 2016 on 27.01.2017, sentencing them to life imprisonment.
Issues
Whether the conviction based on circumstantial evidence is sustainable when the chain of circumstances is incomplete.
Whether the prosecution proved the last seen theory and motive beyond reasonable doubt.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants' counsel argued that prosecution failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt, as there was no direct evidence and the circumstantial evidence was not firmly proved.
Appellants' counsel submitted that there was no evidence to show that appellants were in the company of the deceased.
Ratio Decidendi
In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances must be complete and must point only to the guilt of the accused. The prosecution failed to prove the last seen theory and motive, and therefore the conviction cannot be sustained.
Judgment Excerpts
Instant appeal arises out of judgment and order of conviction passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule in Sessions Case No. 27 of 2016, holding appellants Barku and Ranjana guilty of committing offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Learned counsel for appellants would submit that prosecution has miserably failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt.
Procedural History
The trial court convicted the appellants on 27.01.2017. The appellants filed this appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. on grounds that the conviction was based on insufficient circumstantial evidence. The appeal was reserved on 15.09.2023 and pronounced on 03.10.2023.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 302, 34
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.): 374
