Case Note & Summary
The appellants, Shantaram Raikar/Gaonkar and Shashikala Raikar/Gaonkar, were convicted by the Children's Court, Panaji, for the murder of their newborn daughter under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and for causing disappearance of evidence under Section 201 IPC, and sentenced to life imprisonment. They appealed to the High Court of Bombay at Goa. The prosecution case was that the appellants, who were farm labourers in Goa, had a relationship and Shashikala became pregnant. They married in September 2006, and she gave birth to a girl child on 8 November 2006. In March 2007, Shashikala visited her brother PW1 Suresh Mirashi and complained of harassment by Shantaram. PW1 and others went to the police, and Shantaram allegedly confessed to pressing the child's chest and neck on 9 December 2006 and burying the body in a cashew plantation. The High Court found that the evidence was weak and unreliable. PW1 was an interested witness, and his testimony about the extra-judicial confession was not corroborated. The court noted that the prosecution did not produce any independent witnesses or forensic evidence to link the appellants to the crime. The child's body was never recovered, and there was no medical evidence of murder. The court held that the conviction was based on surmises and conjectures, and the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted. They were ordered to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Infanticide - Circumstantial Evidence - Section 302 r/w 34 IPC, Section 201 IPC - The appellants were convicted for murder of a newborn and causing disappearance of evidence. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt as the evidence was based on oral testimony of interested witnesses and lacked corroboration. The conviction was set aside and the appellants were acquitted. (Paras 1-10) B) Evidence Act - Confession - Extra-judicial confession - The alleged confession by the appellant to PW1 was not reliable as PW1 was an interested witness and the confession was not corroborated by independent evidence. The court held that extra-judicial confession must be voluntary and reliable. (Paras 3-5) C) Criminal Procedure Code - Appeal against conviction - Acquittal - The court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction, granting benefit of doubt to the appellants. (Para 10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 201 IPC is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellants acquitted. They be released forthwith unless required in any other case.
Law Points
- Circumstantial evidence
- Infanticide
- Section 302 IPC
- Section 201 IPC
- Goa Children's Act 2003
- Benefit of doubt
