Case Note & Summary
The case involves an appeal against the conviction of Umesh Rajaram Samant (since deceased) under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) for the murder of his wife, Vaishali. The incident allegedly occurred on 16 February 2012 at their residence in Village Parule, Manjardewadi, District Sindhudurg. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, a conductor with M.S.R.T.C., suspected his wife of having an illicit relationship with his friend Mahesh Madhav, who had stayed at their house on 14 and 15 February 2012. On 16 February 2012, the appellant returned home from duty and allegedly assaulted his wife with a wooden stick, causing her death. The deceased was taken to the hospital where she succumbed to injuries. The trial court convicted the appellant based on circumstantial evidence, including a dying declaration and motive. The appellant died during the pendency of the appeal, and his legal representatives were brought on record to pursue the appeal. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances. The dying declaration was found unreliable as it was recorded without a doctor's certification of the deceased's fitness to make the statement, and there were material contradictions. The motive was also not proved. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Circumstantial Evidence - Section 302 IPC - Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain of circumstances pointing only to guilt - Held that prosecution failed to establish motive, and dying declaration was unreliable due to contradictions and lack of corroboration (Paras 10-14).
B) Evidence Law - Dying Declaration - Reliability - Section 32 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Dying declaration must be consistent and free from tutoring - Held that the dying declaration in this case was not reliable as it was recorded without certification of fitness and contained material contradictions (Paras 11-13).
C) Criminal Procedure - Appeal - Abatement - Section 394 Cr.P.C. - Appeal does not abate on death of accused if legal representatives seek to challenge conviction for cause of justice - Held that legal heirs were brought on record to pursue appeal (Para 3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) for the murder of his wife is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of conviction dated 12 March 2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sindhudurg at Oros in Sessions Case No. 18 of 2012 is set aside. The appellant/accused is acquitted of the offence under Section 302 IPC. The fine, if paid, be refunded to the legal representatives.
Law Points
- Murder
- Circumstantial Evidence
- Dying Declaration
- Motive
- Acquittal
Case Details
2021 LawText (BOM) (12) 54
Criminal Appeal No. 423 of 2013
S. S. Shinde, Surendra P. Tavade
Mr. Amit A. Mane a/w Mr. Sagar A. Mane i/b Mr. N. V. Bandiwadekar for the Appellants, Mr. S. S. Hulke, A.P.P for the Respondent-State
Late Umesh Rajaram Samant through his legal heirs Samruddhi Umesh Samant and Mayur Umesh Samant
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against conviction for murder
Remedy Sought
Appellants (legal heirs of deceased accused) sought acquittal by challenging the conviction under Section 302 IPC
Filing Reason
The appellant/accused was convicted for murder of his wife; he died during appeal, and legal heirs continued the appeal to challenge the conviction
Previous Decisions
The trial court (Additional Sessions Judge, Sindhudurg at Oros) convicted the appellant on 12 March 2013 in Sessions Case No. 18 of 2012
Issues
Whether the dying declaration is reliable and can form the basis of conviction?
Whether the prosecution has proved the motive and chain of circumstances beyond reasonable doubt?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the dying declaration was unreliable as it was not recorded in the presence of a doctor and contained contradictions.
Appellants argued that the prosecution failed to prove motive and the circumstantial evidence did not complete the chain pointing to guilt.
Respondent-State argued that the dying declaration was voluntary and truthful, and the circumstances sufficiently proved the appellant's guilt.
Ratio Decidendi
A conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires a complete chain of circumstances that excludes every hypothesis of innocence. The dying declaration, being a weak piece of evidence, must be reliable and free from tutoring. In this case, the dying declaration was not certified by a doctor regarding the deceased's fitness, and there were material contradictions, making it unreliable. The prosecution also failed to prove motive. Hence, the conviction was unsustainable.
Judgment Excerpts
In normal course, upon death of appellant/accused, appeal would abate, however, in the present case, pursuant to the order dated 16th November 2021, the legal representatives of the appellant/accused i.e. daughter and son of the appellant/accused are brought on record, to pursue the appeal for the cause of justice, by invoking provision to Section 394 of the Cr.P.C.
The dying declaration was not reliable as it was recorded without certification of fitness and contained material contradictions.
Procedural History
The appellant/accused was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sindhudurg at Oros on 12 March 2013 in Sessions Case No. 18 of 2012 for murder under Section 302 IPC. He filed an appeal before the Bombay High Court. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant died on 29 November 2020. On 16 November 2021, the court allowed his legal representatives (daughter and son) to be brought on record to pursue the appeal. The appeal was heard and decided on 23 December 2021.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 302
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.): 394
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872: 32
