Bombay High Court Dismisses State Appeal Against Acquittal in Murder Case — Benefit of Doubt Given to Accused. Extra-judicial confession and circumstantial evidence found insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt under Section 302 IPC.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Accused
  • 3
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The State of Maharashtra appealed against the judgment of the Special Judge (Atrocities on women) and 3rd Additional Sessions Judge dated 28.10.1999 in Sessions Case No. 357 of 1998, which acquitted the accused Raju Mahipat Sakate of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The prosecution case was that the accused married Kalpana on 16.04.1989. The accused suspected that Kalpana had illicit relations with Sanjay Awale (PW 3), the husband of her sister Vimal. On 15.05.1998, the accused asked Kalpana to stitch his torn underwear; she refused. The accused, already suspicious, caused her to fall down and throttled her to death. He then locked the house and went to Kapurbawadi police station, where he informed PSI Jafar (PW 1) that he had murdered his wife. The accused reiterated this before panch witnesses and led the police to his house, where the body was found. The trial court acquitted the accused, giving him the benefit of doubt. The High Court, in appeal, examined the evidence. The court noted that the extra-judicial confession made to PSI Jafar was not corroborated by any independent witness. The panch witness Ramesh Hande (PW 7) did not support the prosecution version. The medical evidence did not conclusively prove throttling. The circumstances did not form a complete chain to exclude the possibility of innocence. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal was upheld.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Murder - Section 302 IPC - Benefit of Doubt - Acquittal upheld - The prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt as the extra-judicial confession was not corroborated by independent evidence and the circumstances did not form a complete chain pointing to the guilt of the accused - Held that the trial court's acquittal was proper (Paras 1-18).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities on women) and 3rd Additional Sessions Judge on 28.10.1999 in Sessions Case No. 357 of 1998 is upheld.

Law Points

  • Benefit of doubt
  • Circumstantial evidence
  • Extra-judicial confession
  • Section 302 IPC
  • Acquittal upheld
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2020 LawText (BOM) (01) 41

Criminal Appeal No. 140 of 2000

2020-01-07

S. S. Shinde, N. B. Suryawanshi

Mrs. M.M. Deshmukh, APP for Appellant. None for Respondent.

The State of Maharashtra

Raju Mahipat Sakate

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeal against acquittal in a murder case

Remedy Sought

The State of Maharashtra sought conviction of the accused for murder under Section 302 IPC.

Filing Reason

The State appealed against the trial court's acquittal of the accused for the murder of his wife.

Previous Decisions

The Special Judge (Atrocities on women) and 3rd Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the accused on 28.10.1999 in Sessions Case No. 357 of 1998.

Issues

Whether the extra-judicial confession made by the accused to the police officer was voluntary and reliable. Whether the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Submissions/Arguments

The appellant (State) argued that the accused made a voluntary extra-judicial confession to PSI Jafar and panch witnesses, and the circumstances pointed to his guilt. The respondent (accused) did not appear or argue.

Ratio Decidendi

The prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The extra-judicial confession was not corroborated by independent evidence, and the circumstances did not form a complete chain pointing to the guilt of the accused. Hence, the benefit of doubt was rightly given.

Judgment Excerpts

This appeal takes an exception to the judgment and order passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities on women) and 3rd Additional Sessions Judge on 28.10.1999 in Sessions Case No. 357 of 1998, thereby acquitting the accused from the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code.

Procedural History

The trial court acquitted the accused on 28.10.1999. The State appealed to the High Court on 14.01.2020 (uploaded). The High Court heard the appeal and dismissed it on 07.01.2020.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Penal Code, 1860: 302
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses State Appeal Against Acquittal in Murder Case — Benefit of Doubt Given to Accused. Extra-judicial confession and circumstantial evidence found insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt under Section 302 IPC.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Revenue Appeal in Fringe Benefit Tax Case on Free Medical Samples. Free medical samples distributed to doctors are not fringe benefits under Section 115WB of the Income Tax Act, 1961.