Bombay High Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Due to Lack of Evidence of Marriage and Inconsistent Testimony. Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside as prosecution failed to prove motive and presence of accused at scene.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: NAGPUR In Favour of Accused
  • 113
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appellant, Pramod Navneet Shirsat, was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Akola, for the murder of Pratibha under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment. The appellant appealed to the Bombay High Court. The prosecution case was that on 6th March 2011 at about 10 p.m., the appellant along with his parents caused the death of Pratibha, who was alleged to be his wife. However, the appellant disputed the marriage, and evidence from PW1 (mother of deceased) showed that Pratibha was married to one Jagdeo Nikhade three years prior and was deserted. There was no evidence of divorce. The trial court acquitted the parents of the appellant, and the State did not appeal that acquittal. The High Court heard arguments from both sides. The court found that the prosecution witnesses gave inconsistent testimony regarding the presence of the appellant at the scene. PW1 stated she saw the appellant running away, but PW2 (brother) did not mention the appellant's presence. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the motive and the presence of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Murder - Section 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Acquittal - The appellant was convicted for murder of his alleged wife. The prosecution failed to prove the marriage between appellant and deceased, and the evidence of witnesses was inconsistent regarding the presence of appellant at the scene. The court held that the prosecution did not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the appellant was entitled to acquittal. (Paras 1-10)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of Pratibha is sustainable based on the evidence on record.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges. Fine, if paid, to be refunded.

Law Points

  • Murder
  • Section 302 IPC
  • Acquittal
  • Benefit of Doubt
  • Inconsistent Testimony
  • Lack of Motive
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2016 LawText (BOM) (07) 133

Criminal Appeal No. 92 of 2014

2016-07-04

B.R. Gavai, V.M. Deshpande

R.M. Mardikar (for appellant), C.A. Lokhande (Additional Public Prosecutor for State)

Pramod Navneet Shirsat

State of Maharashtra

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeal against conviction for murder

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought acquittal from conviction under Section 302 IPC

Filing Reason

Appellant was convicted for murder of Pratibha and sentenced to life imprisonment

Previous Decisions

Sessions Judge, Akola convicted appellant on 30th December 2013 in Session Trial No.91 of 2011; parents of appellant were acquitted

Issues

Whether the prosecution proved that the appellant was the husband of the deceased? Whether the evidence of prosecution witnesses is consistent and reliable? Whether the conviction under Section 302 IPC is sustainable?

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that the marriage was not proved and evidence was inconsistent. State argued that the evidence was sufficient to sustain conviction.

Ratio Decidendi

The prosecution failed to prove the marriage between appellant and deceased, and the testimony of witnesses was inconsistent regarding the presence of the appellant at the scene. Therefore, the prosecution did not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the appellant is entitled to acquittal.

Judgment Excerpts

Though, in the charge, it has been stated that the deceased Pratibha was wife of the present appellant, the said fact is seriously disputed by the appellant. It is nowhere in the case of the prosecution witness Laxmibai (PW 1), the mother of the deceased or PW 2 Sanghpal, the brother of the deceased that there was divorce between Pratibha and said Jagdeo.

Procedural History

Sessions Judge, Akola convicted appellant on 30th December 2013 in Session Trial No.91 of 2011. Appellant filed Criminal Appeal No. 92 of 2014 in Bombay High Court. High Court heard and allowed appeal on 4th July 2016.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Penal Code, 1860: 302, 34
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Upholds Constitutional Validity of Explanation to Section 6(5) of Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 — Partition by Execution of Registered Deed or Court Decree is Valid and Not Unconstitutional. The court held that the ...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Due to Lack of Evidence of Marriage and Inconsistent Testimony. Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside as prosecution failed to prove motive and presence of accused at scene.