Case Note & Summary
The appellants, Shrinivas @ Shenu Shirsappa Ayyappa Swami and Vyankatesh @ Vyankati Narsimallu Sagar, were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay on 20th February 2015 in Sessions Case No.336 of 2012 for the murder of an unknown male, sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The case was based entirely on circumstantial evidence, including last seen theory, extra-judicial confession, recovery of a weapon, and motive. The prosecution alleged that on 9th January 2012, the dead body of a male was found in Swaminarayan Nagar, Hiranandani Street, Chandan Sharma Tekdi Compound. The appellants were arrested and charged with murder. The trial court convicted them, leading to the present appeals. The Bombay High Court, after analyzing the evidence, found that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances. The last seen evidence was contradictory and unreliable, the extra-judicial confession was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, the recovery of the weapon was not linked to the crime, and motive was not established. The court held that the conviction was unsustainable and set aside the judgment of the trial court, acquitting the appellants.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Circumstantial Evidence - Last Seen Theory - The prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances pointing to the guilt of the accused, excluding every other hypothesis. In the instant case, the last seen evidence was unreliable due to contradictions and lack of corroboration, and the recovery of the weapon was not linked to the crime. Held that the conviction cannot be sustained (Paras 1-33).
B) Criminal Law - Extra-Judicial Confession - Reliability - Extra-judicial confession must be voluntary, truthful, and corroborated by other evidence. The alleged extra-judicial confession in this case was not proved beyond reasonable doubt as the witnesses were interested and the confession was not made to a person in authority. Held that it cannot form the basis of conviction (Paras 20-25).
C) Criminal Law - Motive - Proof - Motive, though not essential, is a relevant circumstance. In this case, the prosecution failed to prove any motive for the murder. The absence of motive, coupled with weak circumstantial evidence, weakens the prosecution case. Held that the conviction is unsustainable (Paras 26-28).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 based on circumstantial evidence is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The appeals are allowed. The judgment and order dated 20th February 2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No.336 of 2012 is set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charges under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. They are directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.
Law Points
- Circumstantial evidence
- chain of circumstances
- last seen theory
- motive
- recovery of weapon
- extra-judicial confession
- dying declaration
- Section 302 IPC
- Section 34 IPC
Case Details
2020 LawText (BOM) (11) 42
Criminal Appeal No. 377 of 2015 and Criminal Appeal No. 1050 of 2015
Smt. Sadhana S. Jadhav, N.J. Jamadar
Mr. Anil Joshi i/b. Ms. Vaishali Joshi for Appellant in Appeal/377/2015, Mr. Anil Joshi a/w Ms. Sandhya A. Mailagir for Appellant in Appeal/1050/2015, Ms. Prajakta P. Shinde, APP for Respondent - State
Shrinivas @ Shenu Shirsappa Ayyappa Swami and Vyankatesh @ Vyankati Narsimallu Sagar
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against conviction for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought acquittal from the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment.
Filing Reason
Appellants were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay on 20th February 2015 in Sessions Case No.336 of 2012 for murder and sentenced to life imprisonment.
Previous Decisions
The trial court convicted the appellants under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment and fine.
Issues
Whether the conviction based on circumstantial evidence is sustainable when the chain of circumstances is incomplete.
Whether the last seen evidence is reliable and sufficient to prove guilt.
Whether the extra-judicial confession is voluntary and trustworthy.
Whether the recovery of weapon is linked to the crime.
Whether the prosecution has proved motive.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the prosecution failed to prove the chain of circumstances, the last seen evidence was contradictory, the extra-judicial confession was not reliable, and the recovery of weapon was not linked to the crime.
Respondent argued that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi
In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances which unerringly points to the guilt of the accused and excludes every other hypothesis. The last seen theory, extra-judicial confession, recovery of weapon, and motive must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. In the instant case, the evidence was unreliable and contradictory, and the chain of circumstances was incomplete, hence the conviction cannot be sustained.
Judgment Excerpts
The appellants being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay dated 20th February 2015 in Sessions Case No.336 of 2012 thereby sentencing them to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to suffer imprisonment for a period of six months under section 302 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code have filed the present appeal.
In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances which unerringly points to the guilt of the accused and excludes every other hypothesis.
Procedural History
On 9th January 2012, a dead body was found. On 10th January 2012, Kasim Ismail Shaikh visited Parksite Police Station regarding a missing complaint. The appellants were arrested and charged with murder. The trial court convicted them on 20th February 2015. The appellants filed Criminal Appeal No. 377 of 2015 and Criminal Appeal No. 1050 of 2015 before the Bombay High Court. The High Court reserved judgment on 16th October 2020 and pronounced on 3rd November 2020, acquitting the appellants.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 302, 34
