Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Mahavir Raghunathrao Hulungare, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai, for the murder of his wife Lata under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. The prosecution case was based on circumstantial evidence. On 30.04.2012, the appellant approached the Bhandup Police Station and recorded a statement (Exh.32) confessing to killing his wife after a quarrel over her illicit relations. Based on this, FIR No.174/2012 was registered. The appellant later retracted his confession and claimed that he had intervened to save his wife from an attack by one Mohmmad Shaik and sustained minor injuries. The trial court convicted the appellant relying on the extra-judicial confession, last seen evidence, recovery of the knife, and motive. The High Court, in appeal, examined the evidence and found that the extra-judicial confession was made to a police officer and was not voluntary; the last seen theory was not proved as the appellant and deceased were husband and wife living together; the recovery of the knife was not credible; and the medical evidence did not support the prosecution case. The court also noted that the trial court failed to properly put incriminating circumstances to the accused under Section 313 CrPC. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Circumstantial Evidence - Section 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - The appeal challenged conviction for murder of wife based on circumstantial evidence. The court held that the prosecution must prove each circumstance beyond reasonable doubt and the chain must be complete, pointing only to the guilt of the accused. The court found that the alleged extra-judicial confession was not voluntary and true, the last seen theory was not established, and the recovery of weapon was doubtful. The appeal was allowed and conviction set aside. (Paras 1-27) B) Evidence Law - Confession - Extra-judicial Confession - Section 24 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - The court held that an extra-judicial confession must be voluntary and true, and if it is made to a police officer, it is inadmissible. The alleged confession to the SHO was recorded as a statement under Section 154 CrPC and was not a voluntary confession. (Paras 10-12) C) Criminal Procedure - Examination of Accused - Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - The court held that the trial court failed to properly put incriminating circumstances to the accused, causing prejudice. The answers of the accused were not considered in the proper perspective. (Paras 20-21)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant for murder under Section 302 IPC based on circumstantial evidence is sustainable when the prosecution has failed to prove the complete chain of circumstances pointing only to the guilt of the accused.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. The judgment and order dated 08.04.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai in Sessions Case No. 534 of 2012 is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the offence under Section 302 IPC. The appellant shall be released forthwith unless required in any other case.
Law Points
- Circumstantial evidence
- Confession
- Burden of proof
- Last seen theory
- Motive
- Recovery of weapon
- Medical evidence
- Section 302 IPC
- Section 313 CrPC
