Case Note & Summary
The appellants, Savita Namdev Dethe (accused no.1) and Namdev Sadashiv Dethe (accused no.2), were convicted by the Sessions Judge, Pandharpur, for the murder of Vijaya, the first wife of accused no.2, and for causing disappearance of evidence. The prosecution case was that accused no.2 married Vijaya seven to eight years prior to the incident, but as she did not conceive, he secretly married accused no.1, with whom he had two children. Subsequently, Vijaya conceived, which the appellants opposed as her child would claim a share in accused no.2's property. On 1.7.2006, Vijaya went missing. PW9 Bapu, her brother, lodged a missing report after being informed by Dattu Sadashiv Dethe that Vijaya had left early morning. Accused no.2 also filed a missing application. The body was later found in a well. The trial court convicted the appellants based on circumstantial evidence: motive, last seen together, and false explanation. The High Court upheld the conviction, finding the chain of circumstances complete and consistent only with guilt. The court noted that the appellants failed to explain the circumstances under Section 106 of the Evidence Act. The appeals were dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Circumstantial Evidence - Motive - Last Seen Together - False Explanation - Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Appellants convicted for murder of deceased based on motive (property dispute due to her pregnancy), last seen together with deceased, and false explanation about her disappearance - Held that chain of circumstances was complete and consistent only with guilt of accused (Paras 1-20). B) Criminal Law - Causing Disappearance of Evidence - Section 201 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Appellants convicted for causing disappearance of evidence of murder by disposing of body - Held that conviction was proper as evidence showed they attempted to screen themselves (Paras 1-20).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 IPC based on circumstantial evidence is sustainable.
Final Decision
Both criminal appeals are dismissed. The impugned judgment and order dated 19th May 2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pandharpur in Sessions Case No.101 of 2006 is confirmed.
Law Points
- Circumstantial evidence
- motive
- last seen together
- false explanation
- Section 106 Evidence Act
- Section 302 IPC
- Section 201 IPC
- Section 34 IPC
