Case Note & Summary
The Appellant challenged his conviction under Section 302 IPC for the murder of Vasudev, based on allegations of illicit relations with the Appellant's wife- Dying declaration found credible- Conviction upheld-Appeal Dismissed
Headnote
Criminal Law-- Indian Penal Code, 1860-- Section 302-- Evidence Act, 1872-- Section 32 -- Code of criminal procedure, 1973-- Section 164- Illicit relationship between deceased and wife of appellant/accused-- Assault with knife in stomach-- Deceased succumbed to the injuries-- Murder-- Conviction u/s 302 of IPC-- Appeal against conviction preferred by accused-- Re-appreciation of evidence-- Deceased made dying declaration before PW-4/first informant-- Dying declaration have to be dealt with great care and caution-- Noting came out in favour of appellant side in cross examination of PW-4-- Statement of PW-4 recorded u/s 164 of CRPC-- Complete corroboration from statement u/s 164 of CRPC to the deposition of PW-4-- Dying declaration found to be true and free from any embellishment-- Conviction can be recorded sole on the basis of dying declaration if it is true, credible and voluntary-- Motive to commit murde-- PW-8 deposed that the injuries sustained by the deceased were possible by sharp object-- Recovery of knife-- Knife was hidden underneath the stones which was within the knowledge of appellant-- No reason to falsely implicate the appellant-- Conviction uphold-- Appeal Dismissed
Para-- 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 36, 38
Issue of Consideration
The Issue of whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC, and acquitted the Appellant of all charges
Law Points
- Burden of proof lies on prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt
- Evidence must be consistent and reliable to sustain conviction
- Motive alone cannot substitute for substantive evidence
- Recovery of weapon must be properly established
- Testimony of witnesses must be credible and corroborated
- Principle of preponderance of probability applies to defence explanations
Case Details
2026 LawText (BOM) (01) 140
Criminal Appeal No. 741 of 2021 along with Interim Application No. 3585 of 2025 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 741 OF 2021
MANISH PITALE J. , SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT J.
Dr. Uday P. Warunjikar, Ms. Sonali R. Chavan for the Appellant, Dr. Dhanlakshmi S. Krishnaiyer APP for the Respondent/State
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC
Remedy Sought
Appellant seeking acquittal by challenging the trial court's conviction and sentence
Filing Reason
Alleged murder of Vasudev due to illicit relations with Appellant's wife, with the Appellant convicted based on witness testimonies and evidence
Previous Decisions
Trial court convicted the Appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment with fine, via Judgment and Order dated 31/3/2021 in Sessions Case No. 277/2017
Issues
Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt under Section 302 IPC
Whether the evidence on record, including witness testimonies and recovery, was sufficient to sustain the conviction
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant's counsel argued that evidence was insufficient, with inconsistencies in witness accounts and timing, disbelieved recovery of knife, unestablished motive due to non-examination of wife, and inconclusive chemical analysis
State's counsel likely argued for upholding conviction based on prosecution evidence, but details not specified in provided text
Ratio Decidendi
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt with consistent and reliable evidence; inconsistencies in witness testimonies, improper recovery procedures, and lack of conclusive forensic evidence can lead to acquittal even if motive is alleged
Judgment Excerpts
The Ld. Counsel has submitted that the trial court has disbelieved the recovery of knife as it was sent to the CA in an open condition and therefore there is nothing to connect the Appellant to the crime in question
He has further submitted that PW 4, mentions about the enmity between the deceased and the Appellant regarding illicit relationship with the wife of the Appellant, however, the wife of the Appellant has not been examined and therefore the motive also cannot be said to be conclusively established
The Ld. Counsel has further submitted that the Appellant has given a probable explanation with respect to the injuries which were found on his person and submitted that the Accused has not to prove his defence beyond reasonable doubt but on preponderance of probability
Procedural History
Offence registered on 14/1/2017 under Section 302 IPC -- Chargesheet filed before JMFC, Bhiwandi -- Case committed to Sessions Court -- Trial conducted with examination of prosecution witnesses -- Appellant convicted on 31/3/2021 -- Appeal filed in High Court on 2021 -- Reserved on 8th January 2026 -- Pronounced on 27th January 2026
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: Section 302
- Evidence Act: Section 60, Section 32(1), section 27
