Case Note & Summary
The case involves two appeals against conviction for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. The prosecution case was that accused No.1 (husband of P.W.3) and accused No.2 (cousin) murdered Sayaji Mungse on the night of 12th February 2001. The evidence included an extra-judicial confession by accused No.1 to his wife (P.W.3) that he had killed Sayaji, and last seen evidence from P.W.8 who saw the deceased with the accused. The trial court convicted both accused. On appeal, the High Court examined the credibility of the extra-judicial confession and the last seen theory. The court found that the extra-judicial confession was made to an interested witness (wife) and was not corroborated; the wife did not report it immediately. The last seen evidence was weak as the time gap between the last sighting and the discovery of the body was not proximate, and the time of death was not established. The court held that the circumstantial evidence did not form a complete chain pointing only to the guilt of the accused. The appeals were allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted. Accused No.1, who was in jail, was ordered to be released forthwith unless required in another case.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Circumstantial Evidence - Extra-judicial Confession - Last Seen Theory - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 read with Section 34 - The appellants were convicted for murder based on extra-judicial confession allegedly made by accused No.1 to his wife and the last seen theory. The court held that the extra-judicial confession was not reliable as the witness (wife) was an interested witness and the confession was not corroborated. The last seen theory failed because the time gap between the deceased last seen with accused and the discovery of the body was not proximate. The prosecution failed to prove the chain of circumstances leading to the only inference of guilt. (Paras 2-10) B) Evidence Law - Extra-judicial Confession - Credibility - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 24 - The extra-judicial confession allegedly made by accused No.1 to his wife (P.W.3) was found to be unreliable as it was made to an interested witness and there was no independent corroboration. The court noted that the wife's testimony was inconsistent and she did not report the confession to anyone immediately. (Paras 5-7) C) Criminal Law - Last Seen Theory - Proximity in Time - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 - The last seen evidence (P.W.8 seeing deceased with accused at night) was insufficient as the time of death was not established and the body was found the next morning. The court held that the last seen theory requires close proximity in time and place to the occurrence, which was lacking. (Paras 8-10)
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 including extra-judicial confession and last seen theory is sustainable.
Final Decision
Appeals allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellants acquitted. Accused No.1 (Harischandra Sitaram Manjule) in jail to be released forthwith unless required in another case.
Law Points
- Circumstantial evidence must be complete and point only to guilt
- Extra-judicial confession must be voluntary and corroborated
- Last seen theory requires proximity in time and place
- Benefit of doubt when prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt
