Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra filed an appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 02.04.1996 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar in Sessions Case No.172/1995, acquitting the respondent-accused Balasaheb Kashinath Shendage for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The prosecution case was that on 4th March 1995, the complainant Santosh Shantilal lodged a report at Takali Dhokeshwar Police Outpost stating that the accused, who was his tenant, called him to see what had happened in his rented premises. The complainant found the accused's wife Urmila lying dead due to burns, with a stove near her. Initially, an accidental death report (A.D. No.13/1995) was registered under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Subsequently, the police investigated and charged the accused with murder and causing disappearance of evidence. The trial court acquitted the accused, leading to the present appeal. The High Court examined the evidence, including the extra-judicial confession allegedly made by the accused to the complainant and the last seen circumstance. The court found that the extra-judicial confession was not reliable as it was not corroborated and the complainant's testimony was inconsistent. The last seen theory was not established due to lack of proximity in time. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the chain of circumstances beyond reasonable doubt and that the trial court's view was plausible. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the acquittal was upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Circumstantial Evidence - Sections 302, 201 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Appeal against acquittal - The State appealed against acquittal of the accused for murder of his wife by burning. The prosecution case rested on circumstantial evidence including last seen theory and alleged extra-judicial confession. The High Court held that the chain of circumstances was incomplete and the evidence was not sufficient to exclude the hypothesis of innocence. The acquittal was upheld as the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 1-10) B) Criminal Law - Extra-Judicial Confession - Evidentiary Value - The alleged extra-judicial confession made by the accused to the complainant was not corroborated by independent evidence and was found to be unreliable. The court held that extra-judicial confession must be voluntary, truthful, and corroborated to form the basis of conviction. (Paras 5-8) C) Criminal Law - Last Seen Theory - Applicability - The last seen theory was not conclusively established as the time gap between the accused being seen with the deceased and the incident was not proximate. The court held that mere presence of the accused at the scene is not sufficient to draw an inference of guilt. (Paras 6-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquittal of the accused for offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is sustainable in law or requires interference by the appellate court.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar in Sessions Case No.172/1995 is confirmed.
Law Points
- Circumstantial evidence must be complete and consistent with guilt
- burden of proof on prosecution
- benefit of doubt to accused
- acquittal not to be reversed unless perverse
