Case Note & Summary
The case pertains to the murder of Ganesh Motiram Sakpal, husband of appellant Ashwini Ganesh Sakpal (accused No.1). The prosecution alleged that Ashwini, along with her paramour Pramod @ Anil Dashrath Gawali (accused No.2), murdered Ganesh on the night of 1st May 2006. The deceased was brought to Shatabdi Hospital by his wife and neighbours, where he was declared dead. The inquest panchnama revealed ligature marks on the throat. The postmortem report confirmed death due to asphyxia due to strangulation. The prosecution examined 11 witnesses, including the investigating officer, panch witnesses, and neighbours who deposed about the extra-judicial confession of accused No.1. The trial court convicted both accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment. In appeal, the High Court examined the circumstantial evidence: motive (illicit relationship between accused No.1 and accused No.2), extra-judicial confession by accused No.1 to PW-3 and PW-4, recovery of a knife at the instance of accused No.2, and the medical evidence of ligature marks. The court found that the chain of circumstances was complete and inconsistent with the innocence of the appellants. The defence argued that the death was accidental due to consumption of alcohol, but the court rejected this as the medical evidence clearly indicated strangulation. The court also noted that the appellants were in custody since arrest and had not challenged the recovery or confession. The appeals were dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Circumstantial Evidence - Motive - Extra-judicial Confession - Recovery of Weapon - The appellants, wife and her paramour, were convicted for murder of the husband. The prosecution relied on motive (illicit relationship), extra-judicial confession by accused No.1 to neighbours, recovery of a knife at the instance of accused No.2, and ligature marks on the deceased. The court held that the chain of circumstances was complete and pointed to the guilt of the appellants, rejecting the defence of accidental death. (Paras 1-23) B) Evidence Act - Extra-judicial Confession - Credibility - The extra-judicial confession made by accused No.1 to PW-3 and PW-4 immediately after the incident was found to be voluntary and reliable, as it was made to independent witnesses without any inducement. (Paras 10-12) C) Criminal Procedure Code - Conviction on Circumstantial Evidence - Standard of Proof - The court reiterated that circumstantial evidence must be complete and consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt. Applying this standard, the court found the evidence sufficient to uphold the conviction. (Paras 18-23)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC based on circumstantial evidence is sustainable.
Final Decision
Both criminal appeals are dismissed. The conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC are upheld.
Law Points
- Circumstantial evidence
- motive
- extra-judicial confession
- recovery of weapon
- last seen theory
- Section 302 IPC
- Section 34 IPC
