The Bombay High Court rejected an appeal under section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) and the Court observed that there is no eye witness and the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence and the Prosecution has to prove all the circumstances beyond reasonable doubt, in a case based on circumstantial evidence.
Brief Facts:
The present appellant alleged that respondent no.2, a truck driver was married to his daughter Shama and out of their wedlock they had a son. According to him, accused no.1 maintained an affair with accused no.2. On such count, there were frequent quarrels between them. The deceased used to regularly inform him about the treatment meted out to her. On 03.11.2020, the accused – husband poured diesel on his daughter and incinerated her. His daughter suffered 100% burns and died on the spot and hence the FIR. The crime came to be registered for the offences punishable under sections 302, 201, and 120-B read with Section 34 of IPC.
The learned Sessions Judge reached a finding that the prosecution failed to prove that there was a criminal conspiracy hatched by the accused persons for committing the murder of the deceased and thereby acquitted the accused persons from all charges.
Contentions of the Appellants:
The Learned Counsels for the Appellants argued that in spite of being married and in spite of having a son, accused no.1 maintained an extramarital relationship with accused no.2. The informant had learned about it from none other than the deceased daughter. That, only because the deceased had objected to such relations, accused no.1 and accused no.2 conspired amongst themselves to do away with the deceased. The circumstances at the scene of occurrence clearly suggest that it is murder.
Further, the Counsel submitted that C.A. reports were yet to be received. It was a crucial piece of evidence. However, for the best reasons known to it, the learned trial Judge did not wait for C.A. reports and hurriedly proceeded with the trial and passed judgment in the absence of C.A. reports. Therefore, he prayed to allow the instant appeal by granting the prayers raised herein.
Observations of the Court
The Court noted that the witness is unable to assign any reason as to why the accused set his daughter on fire and for what reason. It said that the prosecution had miserably failed to firmly and cogently establish the very motive behind the occurrence. There is no evidence whatsoever in support of the charge of conspiracy on the point of meeting of minds of both accused to give effect to their motive. The informant-appellant herein, himself, is unable to assign any reason behind the quarrel. Medical evidence is not sure about death being homicidal, suicidal, or accidental. There is material suggesting other possibilities.
Further, the Court observed no eye witness and the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence. Therefore, the case is based on circumstantial evidence, it was expected of the prosecution to prove all the circumstances beyond any reasonable doubt.
The decision of the Court:
The Bombay High Court, dismissing the appeal, held that the prosecution failed to prove all the circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt, and therefore, it is not a fit case for admission.
Case Title: Salim vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Vibha Kankanwadi, and Hon’ble Justice Abhay S. Waghwase
Case no.: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 214 OF 2023
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. Gaurav L. Deshpande
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. A. M. Phule
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
