Case Note & Summary
The appellants, Ramesh and Mukinda Sabhadinde, were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Washim for the murder of their father Ramchandra under Section 302 IPC and other offences. The prosecution case was that on 7.1.2012, the deceased was sleeping in a farmhouse with others when unknown persons attacked and killed him. Accused no.2 Mukinda lodged a report on 8.1.2012 alleging dacoity and murder. During investigation, the accused allegedly made extra-judicial confessions to witnesses and certain articles were recovered at their instance. The trial court convicted them based on these confessions and circumstantial evidence. On appeal, the High Court scrutinized the evidence and found that the extra-judicial confessions were not reliable as the witnesses were interested and their versions were inconsistent. The circumstantial evidence, including last seen and recovery, did not form a complete chain pointing to the guilt of the accused. The court noted material contradictions and omissions in the prosecution case. Consequently, the court held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt and the appellants were entitled to benefit of doubt. The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentences were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Extra-Judicial Confession - Corroboration - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 - The court examined the reliability of extra-judicial confession allegedly made by accused to witnesses. Held that extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and requires corroboration. In the absence of any independent corroboration, conviction cannot be sustained (Paras 10-15). B) Criminal Law - Circumstantial Evidence - Chain of Circumstances - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 - The court considered the circumstantial evidence including last seen theory and recovery of articles. Held that the circumstances must form a complete chain pointing only to the guilt of the accused. In this case, the chain was incomplete and the prosecution failed to exclude the possibility of innocence (Paras 16-20). C) Criminal Law - Benefit of Doubt - Acquittal - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 - The court found that the prosecution case suffered from material contradictions and omissions. Held that the accused are entitled to benefit of doubt and the appeal must be allowed (Paras 21-22).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Sections 302, 182, 201 read with 34 IPC based on extra-judicial confession and circumstantial evidence is sustainable.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentences set aside. Appellants acquitted. Fine, if paid, to be refunded.
Law Points
- Extra-judicial confession must be corroborated
- Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain
- Benefit of doubt when prosecution case doubtful
