Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Smt. Pratima Naik, was convicted by the Sessions Court, Margao in Sessions Case No. 21/2015 for the murder of her two daughters, Uma and Neha Naik, by administering stupefying drugs and then strangulating and smothering them, and for theft of gold jewellery. The prosecution examined 18 witnesses. The appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC, three years under Section 380 IPC, and three years under Section 328 IPC, with fines. The appellant appealed on the ground that charges were not properly framed under Sections 211 to 224 CrPC and that the approver's testimony was not properly considered. The High Court of Bombay at Goa dismissed the appeal, holding that the circumstantial evidence, including motive, last seen, recovery of stolen jewellery, and false explanation, was sufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Circumstantial Evidence - Sections 302, 380, 328 IPC - Conviction based on motive, last seen, recovery of stolen jewellery, and false explanation upheld - Held that the chain of circumstances was complete and pointed only to the guilt of the appellant (Paras 5-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 302, 380, and 328 IPC based on circumstantial evidence is sustainable.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentences awarded by the Sessions Court.
Law Points
- Circumstantial evidence
- motive
- last seen theory
- recovery of stolen property
- false explanation
- approver testimony
- charge framing
- Section 313 CrPC
- Section 302 IPC
- Section 380 IPC
- Section 328 IPC
Case Details
2021 LawText (BOM) (04) 44
Criminal Appeal No. 62 of 2018
Dama Seshadri Naidu, M.S. Jawalkar
Mr. C.A. Ferreira, Ms. Prithvi Bandekar (for Appellant), Mr. Sagar Dhargalkar (for Respondents)
State of Goa, Through Vasco Police Station, Vasco, Goa; Public Prosecutor, High Court, Goa
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against conviction for murder and theft.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought acquittal from conviction under Sections 302, 380, and 328 IPC.
Filing Reason
Appellant challenged the judgment and order dated 29.03.2017 of the Sessions Court, Margao convicting her.
Previous Decisions
Sessions Court, Margao convicted the appellant on 29.03.2017 in Sessions Case No. 21/2015.
Issues
Whether the charges were properly framed under Sections 211 to 224 CrPC.
Whether the conviction based on circumstantial evidence is sustainable.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that charges were not framed properly as per Sections 211 to 224 CrPC.
Appellant argued that the approver's confessional statement should not be looked into and its only purpose is corroboration.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the circumstantial evidence, including motive, last seen, recovery of stolen jewellery, and false explanation, formed a complete chain pointing only to the guilt of the appellant, and the charges were properly framed.
Judgment Excerpts
This Appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated 29.03.2017, by which, the appellant stands convicted by the Sessions Court, Margao in Sessions Case No. 21/2015 for offences under Section 302, 380 and 328 of IPC.
The main ground in appeal is that while framing charges, they were not framed properly as per provisions under Section 211 to 224 of Cr.P.C.
Procedural History
The appellant was convicted by the Sessions Court, Margao on 29.03.2017 in Sessions Case No. 21/2015. She filed Criminal Appeal No. 62 of 2018 before the High Court of Bombay at Goa. The appeal was reserved on 15.04.2021 and pronounced on 29.04.2021.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 302, 380, 328
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 313
