Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Babu Vansha Gangad, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Palghar on 04.09.2015 for the murder of his sister-in-law Jethibai under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. The incident occurred on 23.04.2003 at about 8:00 p.m. when the first informant, Zinya Gangad (elder brother of the accused), heard Jethibai scream that the accused had assaulted her. He saw the accused running away with a weapon. Jethibai sustained a serious injury on the right side of her neck and was taken to hospital where she died. The FIR was lodged at Talasari Police Station. The prosecution examined 11 witnesses including the first informant (PW1), the mother (PW2), and the doctor (PW5). The trial court convicted the accused based on last seen evidence, hearsay dying declaration, and motive. The High Court analyzed the evidence and found several inconsistencies: PW1's testimony about the time of incident varied, PW2 (mother) did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile, the alleged dying declaration was hearsay and not corroborated, and the motive was weak. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the chain of circumstances beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal was allowed, conviction set aside, and the accused was ordered to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.
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 the present case, prosecution relied on last seen theory, hearsay evidence and alleged dying declaration but failed to prove motive and establish chain of circumstances - Held that conviction cannot be sustained and accused is entitled to acquittal (Paras 1-21). B) Evidence Law - Dying Declaration - Hearsay - Section 32 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Alleged oral dying declaration made by deceased to first informant and others is hearsay and not admissible as deceased was not examined in court - Held that such hearsay evidence cannot form basis of conviction (Paras 14-16). C) Criminal Law - Last Seen Theory - Circumstantial Evidence - Last seen theory requires proximity of time and place and corroboration - In this case, last seen evidence was inconsistent and not reliable - Held that last seen theory alone without corroboration is insufficient to convict (Paras 17-18).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges. Ordered to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.
Law Points
- Circumstantial evidence
- Last seen theory
- Hearsay evidence
- Dying declaration
- Motive
- Inconsistencies in prosecution case
- Benefit of doubt
