Bombay High Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Due to Lack of Evidence and Unreliable Witnesses. Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside as prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: AURANGABAD In Favour of Accused
  • 61
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appellant, Hariomdas Govinddas Bainade, was convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 309 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in Sessions Case No. 26 of 2018. The prosecution case was that the appellant, a mason, suspected the chastity of his wife Kalpana and frequently beat her. On the intervening night of 04.10.2017 and 05.10.2017, Kalpana died due to burn injuries. The appellant was also found with burn injuries and was charged with murder and attempt to commit suicide. The trial court convicted the appellant based on circumstantial evidence, including last seen evidence and motive. The appellant challenged the conviction before the Bombay High Court. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the prosecution witnesses, including the informant Gendabai (PW-2), were unreliable and their testimonies were inconsistent. The court noted that the chain of circumstances was incomplete and the prosecution failed to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant of all charges.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Murder - Circumstantial Evidence - Last Seen Theory - The prosecution relied on last seen evidence and motive, but the witnesses were unreliable and the chain of circumstances was incomplete - Held that conviction cannot be based on weak circumstantial evidence (Paras 1-20).

B) Criminal Law - Attempt to Commit Suicide - Section 309 IPC - The appellant was also convicted for attempt to commit suicide, but the evidence was insufficient to prove the offence - Held that the conviction under Section 309 IPC is also unsustainable (Paras 1-20).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 302 and 309 of the Indian Penal Code is sustainable based on the evidence on record.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges. Bail bonds cancelled.

Law Points

  • Circumstantial evidence
  • Last seen theory
  • Motive
  • Section 302 IPC
  • Section 309 IPC
  • Benefit of doubt
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2025:BHC-AUG:27327-DB

Criminal Appeal No.1253 of 2019

2025-10-01

Nitin B. Suryawanshi, Sandipkumar C. More

2025:BHC-AUG:27327-DB

Mr. S.G. Ladda, Advocate holding for Mr. Sagar S. Ladda, Advocate for the appellant. Mrs. Uma Bhosale, A.P.P. for respondent – State.

Hariomdas Govinddas Bainade

The State of Maharashtra

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeal against conviction for murder and attempt to commit suicide.

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought acquittal by challenging the conviction recorded by the trial court.

Filing Reason

Appellant was convicted under Sections 302 and 309 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment and fine.

Previous Decisions

Trial court convicted the appellant on 06.11.2019 in Sessions Case No. 26 of 2018.

Issues

Whether the conviction under Section 302 IPC is sustainable based on circumstantial evidence. Whether the conviction under Section 309 IPC is sustainable.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and the evidence was unreliable. Respondent/State supported the conviction based on last seen evidence and motive.

Ratio Decidendi

In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances must be complete and must point only to the guilt of the accused. If the evidence is unreliable or the chain is broken, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt.

Judgment Excerpts

By way of this appeal, the appellant Hariomdas Govinddas Bainade i.e. the original sole accused, is challenging his conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 309 of the Indian Penal Code.

Procedural History

The appellant was convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad on 06.11.2019 in Sessions Case No. 26 of 2018. He filed Criminal Appeal No.1253 of 2019 before the Bombay High Court, which was reserved on 14.08.2025 and pronounced on 01.10.2025.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 302, 309
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Due to Lack of Evidence and Unreliable Witnesses. Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside as prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows State Appeal Against Inadequacy of Sentence in SC/ST Atrocity Case — Minimum Sentence of Six Months Imprisonment Mandatory. Accused convicted under Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 19...