Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Bhartiben w/o Guneshbhai Gamit, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Surat at Vyara, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of her husband, Guneshbhai Gamit, and sentenced to life imprisonment. The prosecution case was that on the intervening night of 23.05.2010 and 24.05.2010, following a quarrel, the appellant strangled the deceased with a plastic ligature and inflicted injuries on his stomach with an iron weapon. The incident came to light when PW-6 Sampathbhai informed the village sarpanch, PW-4 Shankarbhai Gamit, who then informed the brother of the deceased. The appellant allegedly made an extrajudicial confession before the sarpanch and others. The FIR was lodged by PW-3 Manish Gamit. The trial court convicted the appellant based on circumstantial evidence and the extrajudicial confession. On appeal, the High Court of Gujarat examined the evidence and found that the extrajudicial confession was not voluntary or credible, as PW-4 had a motive to implicate the appellant and there was no independent corroboration. The court also noted that the chain of circumstances was incomplete and the prosecution failed to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Circumstantial Evidence - Extrajudicial Confession - The appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC for murdering her husband. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence and an extrajudicial confession made before the village sarpanch. The High Court held that the extrajudicial confession was not voluntary and credible, and the chain of circumstances was incomplete. The conviction was set aside and the appellant was acquitted. (Paras 1-25) B) Evidence Act - Extrajudicial Confession - Credibility - The extrajudicial confession allegedly made by the appellant before PW-4 (village sarpanch) was found to be unreliable as there was no independent corroboration and the witness had a motive to implicate the appellant. The court held that extrajudicial confession must be voluntary, truthful, and corroborated. (Paras 12-18) C) Criminal Procedure Code - Appeal Against Conviction - Acquittal - The High Court, in appeal, reappreciated the evidence and found that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The benefit of doubt was given to the appellant. (Paras 19-25)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code based on circumstantial evidence and extrajudicial confession is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges. Bail bond cancelled.
Law Points
- Circumstantial evidence
- extrajudicial confession
- burden of proof
- reasonable doubt
- Section 302 IPC
- Section 27 Evidence Act
