Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Shayamrao Ramchandra Dhayagude, was convicted by the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharpur for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 364 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of a child named Saurabh. The prosecution case was that the appellant, a former employee of the victim's father's iron factory, had a motive due to refusal of an advance and dismissal from service. On 2.1.2001, the victim and his sister Sonali were playing with friends. Sonali complained that Tejas and Bahubali had beaten her. The appellant allegedly approached the children, enquired about the incident, and enticed the victim to accompany him to confront the other boys. The victim did not return home, and his body was found the next morning in a forest with a stone injury on the forehead. The police arrested the appellant. The prosecution examined 26 witnesses, including PW2 (Sonali) and PW3 (another child). The trial court convicted the appellant. In appeal, the High Court examined the evidence. The court found that PW2's testimony was inconsistent and unreliable, as she had not mentioned the appellant's name in her initial statement to the police. PW3's testimony also had contradictions. The recovery of the stone was not proved to be at the instance of the appellant. The court held that the circumstantial evidence did not form a complete chain pointing to the appellant's guilt. The conviction was based on suspicion and conjecture. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant, giving him the benefit of doubt.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder and Kidnapping - Sections 302, 364 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Circumstantial Evidence - Appeal against conviction - The appellant was convicted for murder of a child and kidnapping - The prosecution relied on last seen evidence and recovery of stone - The court found the evidence of last seen witness unreliable due to contradictions and lack of corroboration - The recovery of stone was not proved to be at the instance of the appellant - Held that the chain of circumstances was incomplete and the conviction was based on suspicion, not proof beyond reasonable doubt (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 302 and 364 of the Indian Penal Code based on circumstantial evidence is sustainable
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges. Fine, if paid, to be refunded.
Law Points
- Circumstantial evidence must be complete and consistent
- conviction cannot be based on suspicion
- benefit of doubt must be given when evidence is unreliable
