Case Note & Summary
The case involves two appeals filed by Ritesh @ Rajan Janaji Bhalerao and Deepak Chhaganrao Jadhav against the judgment and order dated 17/12/2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Nashik in Sessions Case No. 286 of 2015, convicting them for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and sentencing them to life imprisonment. The prosecution case was that the appellants, along with one Rahul Bhalerao (who was acquitted), murdered the deceased by assaulting him with a knife and then disposed of the body. The case was based on circumstantial evidence, including last seen evidence, recovery of the weapon, and motive. The appellants challenged the conviction on the grounds that the evidence was unreliable, witnesses turned hostile, and the chain of circumstances was incomplete. The State supported the conviction. The High Court analyzed the evidence and found that the last seen evidence was not credible as the witnesses either turned hostile or gave contradictory statements, and the time gap between the last seen and the death was not established. The recovery of the weapon was not witnessed by independent persons and was not linked to the crime by forensic evidence. The motive was weak and not proved. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and that the appellants were entitled to the benefit of doubt. The appeals were allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellants were ordered to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.
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 - In the present case, the prosecution relied on last seen evidence, recovery of weapon, and motive, but the evidence was found unreliable and contradictory - Held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and the appellants are entitled to acquittal (Paras 1-23). B) Criminal Law - Last Seen Theory - Section 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - The last seen evidence must be credible and proximate in time and place to the occurrence - In this case, the witnesses turned hostile or gave contradictory statements, and the time gap between last seen and death was not established - Held that the last seen theory cannot form the basis of conviction (Paras 12-16). C) Criminal Law - Recovery of Weapon - Section 27 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Recovery of weapon at the instance of accused is admissible only if it leads to discovery of fact - Here, the recovery was not witnessed by independent witnesses and the weapon was not linked to the crime by forensic evidence - Held that such recovery is not sufficient to sustain conviction (Paras 17-19).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 based on circumstantial evidence is sustainable.
Final Decision
Both appeals are allowed. The impugned Judgment and Order dated 17/12/2019 is quashed and set aside. The appellants are acquitted of all charges. They shall be released forthwith unless required in any other case.
Law Points
- Circumstantial evidence
- chain of circumstances must be complete
- benefit of doubt
- last seen theory
- recovery of weapon
- motive
- Section 302 IPC
- Section 201 IPC
- Section 34 IPC
