Case Note & Summary
The appellants, Amol Ambadas Bankar and Amol Bhagwan Shende, were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Malshiras, in Sessions Case No. 22 of 2010 for the kidnapping and murder of Shahaji Sadhu Mote. The prosecution case was that Shahaji left his residence on 22 January 2010 and did not return. His father lodged a missing report on 25 January 2010. During investigation, it was revealed that Punam (PW-20), Shahaji's wife, had a love affair with appellant No. 1 prior to her marriage. The prosecution alleged that appellant No. 1, with the help of appellant No. 2, kidnapped and murdered Shahaji. The trial court convicted the appellants under Sections 364, 302, 120(B), and 201 read with 34 IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment. The appellants appealed to the Bombay High Court. The High Court examined the evidence, including the last seen theory, extra-judicial confession, and motive. The court found that the last seen evidence was weak as the deceased was last seen at 10:00 a.m. but the body was recovered later, and there was no evidence linking the appellants to the murder. The extra-judicial confession was not corroborated. The court held that the chain of circumstances was incomplete and the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted. The court directed their release unless required in any other case.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Circumstantial Evidence - Sections 302, 364, 201 read with 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Appeal against conviction - Appellants convicted for kidnapping and murder of deceased based on love affair motive and last seen evidence - Held that the chain of circumstances was incomplete and the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt - Conviction set aside and appellants acquitted (Paras 1-17). B) Criminal Law - Extra-judicial Confession - Corroboration - Section 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Extra-judicial confession allegedly made by accused to witness - Held that extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and requires corroboration - In the absence of any corroboration, it cannot be relied upon (Para 14). C) Criminal Law - Last Seen Theory - Proximity - Section 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Deceased last seen with accused at 10:00 a.m. but body recovered later - Held that last seen theory requires close proximity in time and place - In this case, the time gap and lack of evidence linking accused to murder breaks the chain (Para 15). D) Criminal Law - Motive - Weak Evidence - Section 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Prosecution alleged love affair motive - Held that motive alone is not sufficient to convict in the absence of strong circumstantial evidence (Para 16).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Sections 302, 364, 201 read with 34 IPC based on circumstantial evidence is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellants acquitted. Directed to be released unless required in any other case.
Law Points
- Circumstantial evidence must be complete and point only to guilt
- Benefit of doubt when chain of circumstances is broken
- Section 313 CrPC statement cannot be sole basis for conviction
- Extra-judicial confession requires corroboration
- Last seen theory requires proximity in time and place
