Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra appealed against the acquittal of Rajendra Manohar Ghadigaonkar (respondent-accused) in Sessions Case No.16 of 2001 for the murder of a 7½-year-old boy, Ankush alias Aniket, under Section 302 read with 34 IPC. The prosecution case was that on 25 December 2000, the deceased left home and was last seen with the accused by his younger brother Sanket (PW11). The deceased's body was found the next day in a nullah with head and abdomen injuries. The motive alleged was that the deceased had seen his mother Radha (PW10) and the accused in a compromising position and threatened to disclose it to his father, leading the accused to kill him. The trial court acquitted the accused, finding the evidence insufficient. The High Court, in appeal, examined the circumstantial evidence. The court found that the last seen testimony of PW11 was unreliable due to his tender age and inconsistencies. The motive was not proved beyond doubt, and the recovery of a knife at the accused's instance was not credible as panch witnesses turned hostile. The court held that the chain of circumstances was incomplete and the trial court's acquittal was not perverse. The appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal was upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Circumstantial Evidence - Last Seen Theory - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 - The prosecution failed to prove that the accused was last seen with the deceased beyond reasonable doubt, as the sole eyewitness (PW11) was a child of tender age and his testimony was inconsistent and unreliable. Held that the last seen circumstance was not established (Paras 7-10). B) Criminal Law - Motive - Insufficiency of Motive - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 - The alleged motive of illicit relations and threat to disclose was not proved, and even if true, motive alone cannot form the basis of conviction when other links in the chain of circumstantial evidence are missing. Held that motive is not sufficient to convict (Paras 11-12). C) Criminal Law - Recovery of Weapon - Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - The recovery of a knife at the instance of the accused was not credible as the panch witnesses turned hostile and the recovery was not from a concealed place. Held that the recovery does not connect the accused to the crime (Paras 13-15). D) Criminal Law - Acquittal Appeal - Interference by High Court - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 378 - The High Court will not interfere with an acquittal unless the findings are perverse or unreasonable. Held that the trial court's acquittal was based on proper appreciation of evidence and no interference is warranted (Paras 16-18).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquittal of the respondent-accused for the murder of a 7½-year-old boy under Section 302 IPC is sustainable when the prosecution relies on circumstantial evidence including last seen, motive, and recovery of weapon.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal of the respondent-accused. The court found no perversity in the trial court's judgment and held that the prosecution failed to prove the chain of circumstances.
Law Points
- Circumstantial evidence
- last seen theory
- motive
- recovery of weapon
- Section 313 CrPC
- benefit of doubt
