Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Varsha Bhimrao Rasal, was convicted by the 1st Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Karad, in Sessions Case No.8 of 2004 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 364, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced to life imprisonment and other terms. The prosecution case was that the appellant kidnapped and murdered a four-year-old girl named Anita, the daughter of the first informant Akkatai Sathe. The case was based on circumstantial evidence, including the last seen theory and an alleged extra-judicial confession. The appellant challenged the conviction before the Bombay High Court. The court examined the evidence of prosecution witnesses, particularly PW-2 and PW-3 who claimed to have last seen the appellant with the deceased, and PW-4 who testified about an extra-judicial confession. The court found that the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3 was inconsistent and unreliable, and the extra-judicial confession was not corroborated and was made to a witness who had a motive to implicate the appellant. The court held that the chain of circumstances was not complete and did not exclude the hypothesis of innocence. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant, giving her the benefit of doubt.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Circumstantial Evidence - Last Seen Theory - The prosecution relied on the last seen theory, but the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3 was inconsistent and unreliable - The court held that the chain of circumstances must be complete and must exclude every hypothesis of innocence - The last seen theory alone, without corroboration, cannot sustain a conviction (Paras 10-15). B) Criminal Law - Extra-judicial Confession - Reliability - The alleged extra-judicial confession made by the accused to PW-4 was not corroborated and the witness had a motive to implicate the accused - The court held that extra-judicial confession must be voluntary, true, and reliable, and in this case, it was not safe to rely upon it (Paras 16-18). C) Criminal Law - Benefit of Doubt - Acquittal - The prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt - The court held that the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt and set aside the conviction and sentence under Sections 302, 364, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Paras 19-20).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 302, 364, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 based on circumstantial evidence is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant under Sections 302, 364, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 are set aside. The appellant is acquitted of all charges and is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.
Law Points
- Circumstantial evidence must be complete and point only to guilt
- Last seen theory requires corroboration
- Extra-judicial confession must be voluntary and reliable
- Benefit of doubt in absence of conclusive proof
