Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Nitesh Pundlikrao Kathe, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati for the murder of his wife under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. He appealed under Section 374(2) CrPC. The prosecution case rested on circumstantial evidence, including last seen presence (PW4 Latabai Nimborkar), recovery of a key, and a statement made to a police constable (PW5 Manohar Muhekar). The High Court found that the evidence of PW4 did not establish the appellant's presence with the deceased inside the room just before the incident; instead, it showed the room was locked and the appellant was outside. The statement to PW5 was not treated as an extra-judicial confession and was inadmissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The court noted that the trial court had relied on a leading question put to PW4, which is not legally admissible. The defence under Section 313 CrPC was not properly considered. The court held that the chain of circumstances was incomplete and did not conclusively point to the appellant's guilt. The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Circumstantial Evidence - Section 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires that the circumstances form a complete chain pointing only to the guilt of the accused - In the present case, the evidence of last seen presence (PW4) was unreliable as the witness stated the room was locked and the appellant was outside, and the alleged extra-judicial confession (PW5) was not voluntary - Held that the prosecution failed to prove the chain of circumstances beyond reasonable doubt, and the appellant is entitled to acquittal (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC based on circumstantial evidence is sustainable when the chain of circumstances is incomplete and the evidence of last seen presence is unreliable.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges. Fine, if paid, to be refunded.
Law Points
- Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain
- Last seen theory requires proximity in time and place
- Extra-judicial confession must be voluntary and reliable
- Leading questions inadmissible in examination-in-chief
- Benefit of doubt when circumstances not fully consistent with guilt
Case Details
2016 LawText (BOM) (08) 192
Criminal Appeal No. 468 of 2014
B.P. Dharmadhikari, A.S. Chandurkar
Mr. P.W. & A.W. Mirza for Appellant, Mr. V.A. Thakre for Respondent
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 convicted for murder of his wife based on circumstantial evidence
Previous Decisions
Trial court convicted appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment
Issues
Whether the circumstantial evidence forms a complete chain pointing to the guilt of the appellant
Whether the evidence of last seen presence (PW4) is reliable
Whether the alleged extra-judicial confession (PW5) is admissible and voluntary
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that circumstances A to J do not form a complete chain; PW4's evidence shows room was locked and appellant outside; PW5's evidence does not implicate appellant; statement in station diary not admissible under Section 27 Evidence Act; leading question to PW4 inadmissible; defence under Section 313 CrPC not considered.
Respondent argued in support of the conviction.
Ratio Decidendi
In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must form a complete chain pointing only to the guilt of the accused. If the evidence of last seen presence is unreliable and the alleged extra-judicial confession is not voluntary or admissible, the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the accused is entitled to acquittal.
Judgment Excerpts
Evidence of P.W.4 – Sau. Latabai Nimborkar, does not establish presence of the appellant with the deceased in the tenanted room occupied by them just before the incidence.
Deposition of PW5 does not inspire any confidence.
That statement is not legally admissible and as the defence of appellant in his statement under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code has not been looked into, the trial Court has erroneously reached a finding of guilt.
Procedural History
The appellant was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati on 31.07.2014 in Sessions Trial No. 149/2013 for offences under Sections 302 and 315 IPC. He appealed to the Bombay High Court under Section 374(2) CrPC. The High Court heard the appeal and delivered judgment on 18.08.2016.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 302, 315
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 374(2), 313
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872: 27
