Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra filed an appeal under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the judgment and order dated 29 July 2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangamner, in Sessions Case No.32 of 2007, whereby the respondent (original accused) was acquitted of offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 364, 376, 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The case arose from Crime No.58 of 2005 registered at Akole police station. During investigation of that crime, the accused, while in police custody, allegedly made a disclosure statement that the dead body of his sister Shashikala, who had died 7-8 years earlier, was buried at the bank of the Pravara river. Pursuant to the memorandum statement, the accused led the police and panch witnesses to a spot where excavation yielded human bones, a skull, a saree, a blouse, a scarf, and a Tulshimal. The bones were confirmed to be human by the Medical Officer and the Forensic Science Laboratory. The accused was charged with murder and other offences. The trial court acquitted the accused, finding that the prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The State appealed, arguing that the trial court's findings were perverse. The High Court, after hearing the Additional Public Prosecutor, dismissed the appeal, holding that the recovery of bones from an open place did not establish exclusive knowledge of the accused, and that the chain of circumstances was incomplete. The court noted that the prosecution did not examine any witness to prove the identity of the deceased or the cause of death, and that the disclosure statement was not corroborated by independent evidence. The acquittal was upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Appeal against acquittal - Section 378 CrPC - Scope of interference - The High Court's power to interfere with an acquittal is limited; unless the findings are perverse or unreasonable, the appellate court should not substitute its own opinion. (Paras 1-2) B) Indian Evidence Act - Disclosure statement - Section 27 - Recovery of human bones - The prosecution must prove that the disclosure statement led to discovery of a fact which was within the exclusive knowledge of the accused. In this case, the recovery of bones from an open place accessible to all did not establish exclusive knowledge. (Paras 3-5) C) Indian Penal Code - Murder - Circumstantial evidence - Sections 302, 201, 364, 376, 498-A - The chain of circumstances must be complete and must point only to the guilt of the accused. The prosecution failed to establish motive, last seen, or any other link connecting the accused to the death of Shashikala. (Paras 6-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment of acquittal recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangamner, in Sessions Case No.32 of 2007, acquitting the respondent for offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 364, 376, 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, is perverse and liable to be set aside.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the criminal application, upholding the judgment of acquittal passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangamner, in Sessions Case No.32 of 2007.
Law Points
- Circumstantial evidence
- disclosure statement under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act
- 1872
- recovery of human bones
- acquittal appeal under Section 378 CrPC
- standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt
- chain of circumstances must be complete
