Case Note & Summary
The appeal was filed before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad against the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar dated 28.02.2014 in Sessions Case No. 198 of 2011. The appellant was the wife of P.W.1 Dadasaheb, and the deceased Kamalbai was her mother-in-law. P.W.1 Dadasaheb resided at Pune for service, while his mother and wife resided together at Belwandi. They were looking after the construction of a house in field Gat No. 741. On 15.05.2011, P.W.1 received a call from the appellant using his mother's mobile; the appellant initially said Kamalbai had gone to the construction site, and later said both were at the site. At about 5.30 p.m., P.W.1 was informed by Rama Ladhane that Kamalbai had sustained a head injury. When P.W.1 reached the construction site at 7.30 p.m., he found his mother lying dead with severe head injury and brain visible. An FIR was initially lodged against an unknown person. On 21.05.2011, in a supplementary statement, P.W.1 disclosed the name of the appellant as assailant, stating that there used to be quarrels between the deceased and the appellant because the appellant wanted to shift to Pune but the deceased opposed. The police registered Crime No. I-52 of 2011 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Investigation was carried out by P.W.14 Police Inspector Madhukar Nikam. Panchnamas were drawn, blood-stained articles including a stone, scarf, bangle pieces, and earth were seized. A house search led to seizure of blood-stained clothes and a currency note of Rs.100. The appellant was arrested on 21.05.2011. A judicial confession under Section 164 CrPC was recorded by the Special Judicial Magistrate on 11.06.2011. Handwriting samples were obtained and a mobile handset was recovered pursuant to a disclosure statement. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. The trial court framed charge under Section 302 IPC, examined 15 prosecution witnesses, recorded the accused's statement under Section 313 CrPC, and convicted the appellant. She was sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000 with default rigorous imprisonment of two years. In appeal, the appellant's counsel contended that the case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence with no direct evidence and that the chain of circumstances was not established. The counsel argued that the motive was weak, the last seen witnesses were close relatives and interested, and the initial complaint was against an unknown person with suspicion only later expressed. The defence also alleged that the husband had extra-marital relations and obtained signatures on blank papers to falsely implicate the appellant. The available excerpt of the judgment ends before the appellate court's analysis and final decision.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Circumstantial Evidence - Chain of Circumstances - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 164 - Appeal against conviction for murder based on circumstantial evidence including last seen together, judicial confession under Section 164 CrPC and diary written by accused; appellant contended that prosecution failed to establish complete chain of circumstances excluding innocence. (Paras 3-4) B) Criminal Law - Motive - Weak Motive - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 - Appellant argued that alleged motive of quarrel over shifting to Pune was weak and insufficient to prove murder; court was to assess whether motive could corroborate other circumstances. (Para 4) C) Evidence Law - Witness Reliability - Interested Witnesses - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 164 - Appellant challenged last seen together evidence by alleging that witnesses were close relatives and interested; appellate court was to evaluate credibility. (Para 5) D) Criminal Procedure - Confession - Judicial Confession - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 164 - Prosecution relied on confession recorded by Special Judicial Magistrate on 11.06.2011; appellant challenged voluntariness and reliability; court was to consider admissibility. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the prosecution established the chain of circumstantial evidence to prove the appellant's guilt under Section 302 IPC beyond reasonable doubt; whether the circumstances of last seen together, judicial confession and diary are sufficient to sustain conviction; whether the alleged motive is credible; whether the evidence of interested witnesses can be relied upon.
Final Decision
Not mentioned in available text; trial court convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentenced life imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000 with default RI of two years.
Law Points
- Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain excluding innocence
- Last seen together evidence
- Judicial confession under Section 164 CrPC
- Motive in murder cases
- Interested witnesses
- Conviction under Section 302 IPC
- Appeal against conviction
- Chain of circumstances
- Reasonable doubt
