Case Note & Summary
The case arose from the murder of Rakesh, son of the informant Dnyaneshwar (PW1). The prosecution alleged that the accused persons, who resided in the same locality as Sheetal (PW4), disliked the relationship between the deceased and Sheetal. On 22 June 2013, the accused quarreled with Rakesh at Sheetal’s house and threatened him. Rakesh went missing on 23 June 2013, and after a blood pool and his belongings were discovered near a cricket ground, an FIR was lodged under Sections 302 and 201 read with 34 IPC. During investigation, accused No.1 Krishna Swamy led police to the discovery of the dead body, while accused No.2 Ganesh Jagtap produced a car and clothes. There were no eyewitnesses, and the case relied on circumstantial evidence. The trial court convicted both accused under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment and fines. The accused appealed challenging the conviction on grounds that the circumstantial evidence did not complete the chain, motive was not proved, the last seen evidence was unreliable, recoveries were not from exclusive knowledge, the calcium carbide report was inconclusive and not put to the accused under Section 313 CrPC, and the seized articles were not properly sealed. The appeals were heard together along with a bail application by accused No.2. The High Court, after hearing arguments, reserved judgment on 29 October 2018 and pronounced it on 19 November 2018, but the text of the judgment containing the court’s analysis and decision is not provided in the excerpt.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and Section 201 read with 34 IPC based on circumstantial evidence was justified; whether the failure to prove motive, reliable last seen evidence, valid recoveries, and proper compliance under Section 313 CrPC vitiated the trial
Law Points
- Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain
- motive if not proved chain incomplete
- last seen together evidence must be reliable
- recovery under Section 27 Evidence Act must be from exclusive knowledge
- failure to put incriminating material under Section 313 CrPC vitiates trial
- seized articles must be properly sealed
- CA report inconclusive and not put to accused
- medical evidence must be corroborated by weapon
Case Details
2018 LawText (BOM) (11) 63
Criminal Appeal No. 1057 of 2017 along with Criminal Appeal No. 1068 of 2017 and Criminal Application No. 1094 of 2018
S.S. Shinde, A.S. Gadkari
Mr. Satyavrat Joshi for Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 1057/2017 and Applicant in Criminal Application No. 1094/2018; Mr. Satyavrat Joshi with Mr. Sumant Deshpande for Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 1068/2017; Mr. H.J. Dedhia, A.P.P. for Respondent-State
Ganesh Sunil Jagtap and Krishna Subramaniyam Swamy
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeals against conviction for murder and destruction of evidence
Remedy Sought
Appellants seek setting aside of conviction and acquittal
Filing Reason
Convicted by Additional Sessions Judge, Pune under Sections 302, 201 read with 34 IPC on 14 December 2017
Previous Decisions
Trial court convicted both accused and sentenced them to life imprisonment and fines
Issues
Whether the trial court rightly convicted the accused based on circumstantial evidence
Whether the prosecution proved motive beyond reasonable doubt
Whether the last seen together evidence was reliable
Whether the recoveries under Section 27 of the Evidence Act were valid
Whether the failure to put the chemical analyzer report to the accused under Section 313 CrPC vitiated the trial
Whether the medical evidence corroborated the use of the recovered weapon
Submissions/Arguments
No eye witness; case based on circumstantial evidence; chain of circumstances not established beyond reasonable doubt; motive not proved; only interested witnesses examined; material witnesses like Masudkar and Shahrukh not examined; last seen evidence unreliable due to contradictions; recovery of scythe not from exclusive knowledge; seized articles not properly sealed; CA report inconclusive and not put to accused under Section 313 CrPC; weapon not shown to doctor; dead body found in drainage but no contamination noted by doctor; evidence of liquor purchase unreliable; car recovered from open place not in locked condition; ownership of car not proved; clothes not identified; recovery of dead body panchanama suspicious as timing conflicts with FIR; motorcycle recovery already known to police; vehicle number discrepancy.
Reliance placed on Surinder Pal Jain v. Delhi Administration, S. Harnam Singh v. State, Kiran Ashok Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra, Virender v. State of Delhi, Raja Ram v. State of Rajasthan, Kiran Gorakh Shelke v. State of Maharashtra, Krishan Mohar Singh Dugal v. State of Goa.
Judgment Excerpts
There is no direct evidence against the accused and the case of the prosecution is based upon the circumstantial evidence.
The prosecution has failed to prove that there was any motive for the accused to commit the offence.
the evidence brought on record by the prosecution regarding last seen together is not reliable.
the recovery is not from the place which was exclusively within the knowledge of Accused No.1.
C.A. report is inconclusive and the circumstance regarding the C.A. report was not put to Accused No.1 while recording his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Procedural History
On 23 June 2013, informant lodged FIR No. 119 of 2013 under Sections 302, 201 read with 34 IPC. Investigation led to discovery of body and arrests. Charge sheet filed, case committed to Sessions Court. Charges framed (Exhibit 18). Trial held, and by judgment dated 14 December 2017, Additional Sessions Judge, Pune convicted both accused under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 IPC, sentencing life imprisonment and fines. Accused filed Criminal Appeal No. 1057/2017 (Accused No.2) and 1068/2017 (Accused No.1) before High Court. Pending appeal, Accused No.2 filed Application No. 1094/2018 for suspension of sentence. High Court heard arguments and reserved judgment on 29 October 2018, pronounced on 19 November 2018, but the text containing analysis and decision is not part of the excerpt.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 302, 201, 34
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 313
