Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Dagadu Vishvanath Gaikwad, was convicted under Section 302 IPC for the murder of his wife Sunita. The prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence including motive, last seen, extra-judicial confession, and dying declaration. The High Court found that the dying declaration was not reliable as it was not recorded by a magistrate and was inconsistent. The extra-judicial confession was not corroborated. The chain of circumstances was incomplete, and the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal was allowed, and the conviction was set aside.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Circumstantial Evidence - Section 302 IPC - The prosecution relied on motive, last seen, extra-judicial confession, and dying declaration. The court held that the chain of circumstances was incomplete and the evidence was unreliable, leading to acquittal. (Paras 1-20)
B) Evidence Law - Dying Declaration - Reliability - The dying declaration was not recorded in the presence of a magistrate and was inconsistent with other evidence, hence not trustworthy. (Paras 15-18)
C) Evidence Law - Extra-Judicial Confession - Credibility - The extra-judicial confession was not corroborated and was made to a person who was not a reliable witness, thus inadmissible. (Paras 12-14)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 based on circumstantial evidence is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted.
Law Points
- Circumstantial evidence
- chain of circumstances must be complete
- motive
- last seen theory
- extra-judicial confession
- dying declaration
- Section 302 IPC
- Section 374(2) CrPC
Case Details
2020 LawText (BOM) (12) 4
Criminal Appeal No.384 of 2014
Ravindra V. Ghuge, B. U. Debadwar
Mr Ajinkya Reddy (appointed) for the appellant, Mr M.M. Nerlikar, APP for the respondent / State
Dagadu s/o. Vishvanath Gaikwad
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against conviction for murder
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought acquittal from conviction under Section 302 IPC
Filing Reason
Appellant was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for murder of his wife
Previous Decisions
Trial court convicted appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment
Issues
Whether the conviction based on circumstantial evidence is sustainable
Whether the dying declaration and extra-judicial confession are reliable
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that the evidence is insufficient and unreliable
Respondent argued that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt
Ratio Decidendi
In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances must be complete and must point only to the guilt of the accused. The prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt as the dying declaration and extra-judicial confession were unreliable.
Judgment Excerpts
This appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been directed against the Judgment and order dated 26-09-2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Omerga, Dist. Osmanabad in Sessions Case No.18 of 2012 whereby convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for six months.
Procedural History
The appellant was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Omerga on 26-09-2013 in Sessions Case No.18 of 2012. He appealed to the Bombay High Court under Section 374(2) CrPC.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): 374(2)
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 302
