Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Gorakh Vitthal Tadvi, was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for the murder of Dwarkabai, his relative, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Shahada, District Nandurbar, in Sessions Case No. 11 of 2017. The prosecution alleged that on 01.10.2016, around 9:00 a.m., the appellant came armed with a knife and assaulted Dwarkabai on the waist while she was working in a field. She was taken to a hospital in Akkalkuwa and declared dead. PW1 Shakilabai lodged an FIR, and after investigation, the appellant was charged and convicted. The appellant appealed to the Bombay High Court, challenging the conviction on grounds of delayed FIR, discrepancies in the spot of occurrence, inconsistency between ocular and medical evidence, and the weapon not matching the injuries. The High Court analyzed the evidence and found that the FIR was registered after inordinate delay and the copy to the Magistrate was sent two days later, raising suspicion of concoction. The ocular witnesses gave different versions of the spot of occurrence, and the medical evidence did not support the ocular account as the injury was not on the back as claimed. The weapon seized was double-edged, but the injuries did not match its dimensions. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the appeal was allowed, setting aside the conviction and acquitting the appellant.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Section 302 IPC - Conviction set aside - Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to inconsistencies in ocular and medical evidence, delay in FIR, and discrepancies in spot of occurrence - Held that the appeal is allowed and appellant is acquitted (Paras 1-20).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is sustainable in law based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges. Bail bonds cancelled. Fine, if paid, to be refunded.
Law Points
- Conviction can be set aside if prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt
- Inconsistency between ocular and medical evidence creates doubt
- Delay in FIR and sending copy to Magistrate raises suspicion of concoction
- Discrepancy in spot of occurrence weakens prosecution case
Case Details
2023 LawText (BOM) (11) 7
Criminal Appeal No. 788 of 2018
Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, Abhay S. Waghwase
Mr. Priteshkumar N. Jain for Appellant, Mr. S. D. Ghayal APP for Respondent
Gorakh S/o. Vitthal Tadvi
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 acquittal.
Filing Reason
Appellant was convicted by trial court for murder of Dwarkabai.
Previous Decisions
Trial court convicted appellant in Sessions Case No. 11 of 2017 on 01.10.2018.
Issues
Whether the conviction under Section 302 IPC is sustainable given the inconsistencies in evidence?
Whether the delay in FIR and sending copy to Magistrate vitiates the prosecution case?
Whether the discrepancy between ocular and medical evidence creates reasonable doubt?
Submissions/Arguments
FIR is a translated version and not original complaint.
FIR registered after inordinate delay and copy to Magistrate sent after two days, indicating concoction.
Prosecution failed to prove spot of occurrence firmly; witnesses gave different spots.
Ocular account differs from medical evidence; witnesses claimed assault on back but no injury there.
Weapon seized (double-edged knife) does not match injuries in size and nature.
Ratio Decidendi
Prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Inconsistencies in ocular and medical evidence, delay in FIR, and discrepancies in spot of occurrence create reasonable doubt, entitling the accused to acquittal.
Judgment Excerpts
Getting dissatisfied by the judgment and order of conviction dated 01.10.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shahada, District Nandurbar in Sessions Case No.11 of 2017, convict Gorakh Vitthal Tadavi by invoking section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) is questioning the legality, maintainability and sustainability of the conviction.
Relations between deceased Dwarkabai and appellant Gorakh were strained. Deceased objected drinking habits of Gorakh.
Procedural History
Trial court convicted appellant on 01.10.2018 in Sessions Case No. 11 of 2017. Appellant filed Criminal Appeal No. 788 of 2018 before Bombay High Court. Appeal reserved on 30.10.2023 and pronounced on 08.11.2023.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 302
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.): 374
