Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Suresh Vithoba Gangode, was convicted by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik for the murder of his wife Shali under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. The prosecution case was that on 31st May 1993, the appellant and his wife went to a hillock to collect firewood and did not return. A missing report was lodged the next day. About a month later, the dead body of Shali was found, and the appellant was arrested. The conviction was based on circumstantial evidence, including last seen together, recovery of a sickle and clothes at the instance of the appellant, and the appellant's abscondence. The High Court found that the evidence of last seen together was unreliable as the witnesses were not independent and their testimony was inconsistent. The recovery of the sickle was not credible as the panch witnesses turned hostile. The appellant's abscondence alone could not be a conclusive circumstance. The court held that the chain of circumstances was incomplete and did not exclude the possibility of the appellant's innocence. The appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Circumstantial Evidence - Section 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires that the circumstances must be fully established and must point only to the guilt of the accused - The prosecution failed to prove the chain of circumstances, as the evidence of last seen together and recovery of articles was unreliable - Held that the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt and acquittal (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC based on circumstantial evidence is sustainable.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted.
Law Points
- Circumstantial evidence must be complete and point only to guilt
- Benefit of doubt when evidence is unreliable
- Conviction cannot be based on suspicion alone
