Case Note & Summary
The case involves two appeals arising from a common judgment of the Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur, dated 7th April 2003, in Sessions Case No.146/2002. The prosecution case was that on 30th March 2002, the dead body of an unknown person was found in a stone quarry area in Tamgaon village. Initially registered as an accidental death, investigation later revealed that the deceased was murdered. Three accused persons were charged: Ravishankar Ramparvesh Thakur (A1), Ashokkumar Kusheshwar Thakur (A2), and Smt. Durgavati Ramparvesh Sharma (A3). The trial court acquitted A1 and A2 of all charges under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 IPC, but convicted A3 under Section 302 IPC and sentenced her to life imprisonment, while acquitting her under Section 201 IPC. The State appealed against the acquittal of A1 and A2 (Criminal Appeal No.905/2003), and A3 appealed against her conviction (Criminal Appeal No.582/2003). The High Court heard both appeals together. The court considered the evidence, including the last seen theory and motive, and found that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction of A3. However, there was no credible evidence against A1 and A2, and their acquittal was upheld. The court dismissed the State's appeal and dismissed A3's appeal, confirming her conviction.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Circumstantial Evidence - Last Seen Theory - Section 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Conviction of accused No.3 based on last seen evidence and motive upheld, as the chain of circumstances was complete and consistent with guilt (Paras 1-3).
B) Criminal Law - Acquittal Appeal - Lack of Evidence - Sections 302, 201, 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Acquittal of accused Nos.1 and 2 upheld as there was no credible evidence linking them to the crime, and the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt (Paras 2-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of accused No.3 under Section 302 IPC is sustainable based on circumstantial evidence, and whether the acquittal of accused Nos.1 and 2 is justified.
Final Decision
Criminal Appeal No.582/2003 filed by accused No.3 is dismissed, confirming her conviction under Section 302 IPC. Criminal Appeal No.905/2003 filed by the State is dismissed, upholding the acquittal of accused Nos.1 and 2.
Law Points
- Circumstantial evidence
- last seen theory
- motive
- Section 302 IPC
- Section 201 IPC
- Section 34 IPC
- acquittal appeal
- conviction appeal
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (09) 63
Criminal Appeal No.582 of 2003 and Criminal Appeal No.905 of 2003
Mr. Shekhar Ingawale (for appellant in Cr.Appeal No.582/2003 and for respondents 1 & 3 in Cr.Appeal No.905/2003), Mrs. A.S. Pai (APP for State in both appeals), Mr. P.V. Dhopatkar (appointed for respondent No.2 in Cr.Appeal No.905/2003)
Smt. Durgavati Ramparvesh Sharma (in Cr.Appeal No.582/2003); State of Maharashtra (in Cr.Appeal No.905/2003)
State of Maharashtra (in Cr.Appeal No.582/2003); Ravishankar Ramparvesh Thakur, Ashokkumar Kusheshwar Thakur, Smt. Durgavati Ramparvesh Sharma (in Cr.Appeal No.905/2003)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeals against conviction and acquittal in a murder case
Remedy Sought
In Cr.Appeal No.582/2003, appellant (accused No.3) seeks acquittal from conviction under Section 302 IPC. In Cr.Appeal No.905/2003, State seeks conviction of accused Nos.1 and 2 who were acquitted.
Filing Reason
Appeals against judgment and order dated 7th April 2003 of Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur in Sessions Case No.146/2002
Previous Decisions
Trial court convicted accused No.3 under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment, acquitted her under Section 201 IPC; acquitted accused Nos.1 and 2 of all charges.
Issues
Whether the conviction of accused No.3 under Section 302 IPC is sustainable on the basis of circumstantial evidence?
Whether the acquittal of accused Nos.1 and 2 is justified?
Submissions/Arguments
Learned APP for State argued that the trial court erred in acquitting accused Nos.1 and 2, and that the evidence against them was sufficient.
Learned Advocate for accused No.3 argued that the conviction was based on weak circumstantial evidence and that the chain of circumstances was incomplete.
Ratio Decidendi
In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances must be complete and consistent with the guilt of the accused, and inconsistent with innocence. The last seen evidence and motive can form the basis of conviction if the circumstances are proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Judgment Excerpts
By the present judgment both these appeals are being disposed of as they are arising out of the same judgment and order dated 7th April, 2003.
By the said order and judgment, original accused Nos.1 & 2 were acquitted of the charges framed against them for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
By the same judgment and order dated 7th April, 2003, original accused No.3, a woman by name Smt.Durgavati Sharma, was convicted of the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life.
Procedural History
Sessions Case No.146/2002 was decided by Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur on 7th April 2003, convicting accused No.3 under Section 302 IPC and acquitting accused Nos.1 and 2. Both the State and accused No.3 appealed to the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 302, 201, 34
