Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Mrs. Amita Bhomkar, was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for the murder of her husband, Tatu @ Nilesh Bhomkar, by the Sessions Court, North Goa, sitting at Ponda, vide judgment and order dated 19.08.2019 and 31.08.2019 in Sessions Case No. 6/2016. She was sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of ₹1,000, with default rigorous imprisonment for two years. The prosecution alleged that on 27.10.2015, at around 13:30 hours, the appellant assaulted her husband with a wooden danda (log) on the first floor of an under-construction building at Marcel market, causing injuries to his head and other parts, leading to his death. The case was based entirely on circumstantial evidence, as there was no eye witness. The appellant appealed to the High Court of Bombay at Goa, challenging her conviction. The main grounds of appeal were that the trial court failed to appreciate the circumstantial evidence properly, that the CCTV footage relied upon was not provided to the accused initially, and that the statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 did not put material evidence to the accused, particularly the deposition of PW-17 who recovered the CCTV footage. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the prosecution had not established a complete chain of circumstances pointing only to the guilt of the appellant. The CCTV footage was unclear and the face of the lady seen was not identifiable. The recovery of the weapon and other circumstances were not convincingly linked to the appellant. The court also noted that the failure to provide the CCTV footage to the accused and the omission in the Section 313 statement caused prejudice. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant, giving her the benefit of doubt.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Circumstantial Evidence - Section 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain of circumstances pointing only to guilt of accused - Prosecution failed to establish that appellant was present at scene or that she caused fatal injuries - CCTV footage unclear and not provided to accused - Held that conviction cannot be sustained (Paras 2-10).
B) Criminal Procedure - Fair Trial - Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Omission to put material evidence to accused during examination under Section 313 CrPC vitiates trial - No questions put regarding deposition of PW-17 who recovered CCTV footage - Held that such omission caused prejudice to accused (Paras 5-6).
C) Evidence - Circumstantial Evidence - Standard of Proof - Chain of Circumstances - Prosecution must prove each circumstance beyond reasonable doubt and chain must be complete - In present case, evidence of last seen, recovery of weapon, and motive not established - Held that benefit of doubt must be given to accused (Paras 7-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC based on circumstantial evidence is sustainable when the prosecution failed to prove the chain of circumstances and the CCTV footage was unclear and not provided to the accused.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 302 IPC.
Law Points
- Circumstantial evidence
- chain of circumstances
- proof beyond reasonable doubt
- failure to provide CCTV footage
- Section 313 CrPC omissions
Case Details
2020 LawText (BOM) (03) 22
Criminal Appeal No. 58 of 2019
M.S. Sonak, Smt. M.S. Jawalkar
Mr. S. Pinto with Ms. D. Tulkar for the Appellant, Mr. S.R. Rivankar, Public Prosecutor for the Respondents
State, represented by the Officer in Charge, Ponda Police Station, Ponda, Goa and The Public Prosecutor, High Court Building, Altinho, Panaji, Goa
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought acquittal by challenging the conviction and sentence imposed by the Sessions Court.
Filing Reason
Appellant was convicted for murder of her husband based on circumstantial evidence; she appealed on grounds that evidence was insufficient and procedural irregularities occurred.
Previous Decisions
Sessions Court convicted appellant under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment and fine of ₹1,000 vide judgment dated 19.08.2019 and order dated 31.08.2019 in Sessions Case No. 6/2016.
Issues
Whether the conviction based on circumstantial evidence is sustainable when the chain of circumstances is incomplete.
Whether the failure to provide CCTV footage to the accused and omission in Section 313 CrPC statement vitiates the trial.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence and the trial court failed to appreciate it properly; CCTV footage was not provided to the accused; no questions were put regarding PW-17's deposition in Section 313 statement.
Respondent/State argued in support of the conviction, relying on the evidence adduced.
Ratio Decidendi
In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances that points only to the guilt of the accused and excludes every other hypothesis. Failure to provide material evidence like CCTV footage to the accused and omission to put material evidence during Section 313 CrPC examination can vitiate the trial. Here, the evidence was insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Judgment Excerpts
The prosecution story in brief is that on 27.10.2015, the accused allegedly assaulted her husband Mr. Tatu alias Nilesh Bhomkar with a wooden danda (wooden log) at around 13:30 hours on the first floor of an under construction building at Marcel market, thereby causing injuries on his head and other parts of the body and he succumbed to injuries.
The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence and the Sessions Judge failed to appreciate the same in its proper perspective.
Our attention is drawn by the learned Counsel for the appellant to the deposition of PW-6, who is the panch witness to the recovery of CCTV footage from the Gram Panchayat, Marcela. At the end of the said deposition, it is clearly mentioned that after the examination in chief was over, at the request of the accused, the CCTV footage was provided to the Advocate for the accused.
Procedural History
Charge sheet was filed and the matter was committed to the Sessions Court. Charge was framed on 21.03.2016. Trial commenced, prosecution examined 22 witnesses. Statement of accused recorded under Section 313 CrPC. Sessions Court convicted appellant under Section 302 IPC on 19.08.2019 and sentenced on 31.08.2019. Appellant filed Criminal Appeal No. 58 of 2019 before the High Court of Bombay at Goa, which was reserved on 03.03.2020 and pronounced on 09.03.2020.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 302
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 313
