Case Note & Summary
This is an appeal against conviction for murder. The appellant, Babu s/o Mahadya Swami, was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code by the Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Gangakhed, and sentenced to life imprisonment. The prosecution case centered on the murder of the appellant's wife, Shivkanya, on 13 September 2011. According to the prosecution, the appellant had subjected the deceased to cruelty due to his alcohol addiction and demands for money. On the day of the incident, the appellant went to Gangakhed Police Station at 6:30 a.m. and confessed to killing his wife. The police officers accompanied him to his house, where they found the deceased lying in a pool of blood. The deceased had injuries on her head and face, allegedly caused by blows from a stone crusher (khalbatta). The FIR was lodged by the brother of the deceased at 12:30 p.m. The investigation led to the seizure of the stone crusher, blood‑stained cement scabs, and clothes of the deceased. The accused was arrested on 4 October 2011, and his blood‑stained clothes were seized on the same day but sent to the forensic laboratory on 16 October 2011. A total of 17 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. The trial court relied on circumstantial evidence and the extra‑judicial confession made to the police to convict the appellant. In appeal, the appellant contended that there was a delay in lodging the FIR; the inquest panchnama was prepared before the FIR; the extra‑judicial confession was made to police officers and was inadmissible; material witnesses, including neighbours, turned hostile; the medical officer who conducted the post‑mortem examination was not examined; the blood sample of the accused was not sent for analysis; and the chain of circumstantial evidence was incomplete. The appeal was heard on 12 July 2017, and judgment was pronounced on 28 July 2017. However, the provided text of the judgment ends abruptly during the narration of the appellant's submissions, and the court's analysis and final decision are not available in the excerpt.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code based on circumstantial evidence.
Law Points
- circumstantial evidence
- extra judicial confession
- hostile witnesses
- motive
- delay in FIR
- blood group
- seizure of clothes
- delay in sending articles for analysis
- medical officer not examined
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (07) 40
Criminal Appeal No. 274 of 2013
S.S. Shinde, S.M. Gavhane
Sabahat T. Kazi, K.D. Munde
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against conviction for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
Remedy Sought
The appellant sought to set aside the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment imposed by the trial court and prayed for acquittal.
Filing Reason
The appellant was convicted by the trial court for the murder of his wife and sentenced to life imprisonment, which conviction and sentence he challenged.
Previous Decisions
The Ad‑hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Gangakhed, in Sessions Trial No. 03/2012, dated 18 December 2012, convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 2,000, in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months.
Issues
Whether the prosecution proved the motive for the crime beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether the extra‑judicial confession made to police officers is admissible and reliable.
Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and preparing the inquest panchnama before the FIR is fatal to the prosecution case.
Whether the hostile neighbours' evidence and the failure to examine the Medical Officer weaken the circumstantial chain.
Whether the delay in seizing the accused's clothes and sending them for forensic analysis, and the failure to analyze the accused's blood group, create a break in the chain of circumstantial evidence.
Submissions/Arguments
The appellant argued that motive was not established as the informant and father of the deceased never complained to the police about ill‑treatment or harassment and no specific incident was pointed out.
The extra‑judicial confession was made before police officers and is a weak piece of evidence; it is inadmissible under the Evidence Act.
There were contradictions regarding which police officers accompanied the accused to his house.
The blood‑stained clothes of the accused were not seized immediately; they were seized at the time of arrest on 04.10.2011 and sent for analysis on 16.10.2011, causing a delay of more than one month.
There was a delay of 10 days in recording the statements of the police constables (PW3 and PW4).
The inquest panchnama was drawn at 9:00–10:00 a.m. before the FIR was lodged at 12:30 p.m.
The panch witness of the inquest panchnama (PW7) turned hostile.
The arrest was delayed by 22 days despite the accused being available.
Material neighbour witnesses (PW5, PW8, PW12, PW13) turned hostile and their statements contained omissions.
The Medical Officer who conducted the post‑mortem was not examined, and the final opinion after receiving the chemical analyzer report on viscera and blood was not obtained.
The prosecution did not send the blood sample of the accused for analysis to ascertain his blood group.
The photographer (PW14) admitted that photographs can be altered using software and he did not produce the memory card or receipts.
Judgment Excerpts
A report was lodged by Virbhadra Shewalkar on 13th September, 2011, at Gangakhed Police Station, making allegations that accused Babu Swami had killed his wife Shivkanya, the sister of the informant.
On 13th September, 2011, at about 6.30 hours, accused went to the Police Station, he told his name, place of residence and gave information that he has killed his wife.
The extra judicial confession is very weak piece of evidence, and if it is made before the Police Officer then it is not admissible in law.
It has come in the evidence of PW3 Sachin Bhadarge and PW4 Kailash Javale that only Constable Bhadarge and Mundhe went to the spot along with the accused. PW17, Mr.Lamture, stated in his deposition that he went to Vetal Galli where the house of the accused is situate, along with ASI Mundhe. It means there is contradiction in the version of these two witnesses on the point of visit to the house of accused.
Procedural History
On 13.09.2011, at 6:30 a.m., the accused went to Gangakhed Police Station and confessed to killing his wife. The police officers went to his house and found the deceased. At 12:30 p.m., the brother of the deceased lodged the FIR, registering Crime No. 169/2011. During investigation, the inquest panchnama was prepared between 9:00 and 10:00 a.m. on the same day, and the body was sent for post‑mortem. The accused was arrested on 04.10.2011, and his clothes were seized on the same day. After investigation, a charge‑sheet was filed, and the case was committed to the Court of Session under Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The trial was conducted by the Ad‑hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Gangakhed, in Sessions Trial No. 03/2012. On 18.12.2012, the trial court convicted the accused under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The appellant filed Criminal Appeal No. 274 of 2013 before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, which was heard on 12.07.2017 and judgment pronounced on 28.07.2017.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 302
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 209
