Bombay High Court
Surdas Balkrishna Kirgat vs The State Of Maharashtra on 6 September, 2017
Bench: A.A. Sayed
1 APEAL 76-10-Judgment.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.76 OF 2010
Surdas Balkrishna Kirgat. ]
Age - 20 years, Occu - Labourer, ]
Through Nashik Road Central Prison, ]
Convict No.7173. ] ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ] ... Respondent
Mr. Shyam Mehta, Senior Advocate for Appellant.
Ms. R. M. Gadhvi, APP for State.
CORAM :- A. A. SAYED &
SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ.
RESERVED ON :- 24 AUGUST, 2017
PRONOUNCED ON :- 06 SEPTEMBER, 2017
JUDGMENT ( PER : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) :-
1. By this Appeal, the Appellant has challenged the Judgment
and Order dated 04/12/2006 passed in Sessions Case No.164 of 2006
by which the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Sangli has convicted
the Appellant for commission of the offence punishable under Section
302 of the IPC and the Appellant was sentenced to suffer life
imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of
payment of fine, to suffer R.I. for three months. The Appellant was
the sole accused in the said case.
URS 1 of 19
2 APEAL 76-10-Judgment.doc
2. The prosecution case is that the Appellant was son of the
deceased Balkrishna Kirgat. The deceased had two sons including the
present Appellant who was the younger son from his first marriage.
The deceased contracted the second marriage with his own niece 20
years prior to the incident which took place on 01/03/2006.
According to the prosecution case, on that day the Appellant had gone
to village Karnal at about 1.30 p.m. where the deceased was residing
with his second wife and two daughters. It is the prosecution case
that between 4.00 p.m. to 6.00 p.m., the Appellant assaulted the
deceased with a big iron rod and a big flat grinding stone ('Pata') on
the head and committed his murder. At about 6.30 p.m., the wife of
the deceased came home to find the deceased lying on the floor with
blood oozing from his injuries. She raised shouts. The neighbours
gathered there. She was taken to Sangli Rural Police Station where
her FIR was lodged at about 10.10 p.m. on 01/03/2006 vide
C.R.No.17 of 2006 under Section 302 of the IPC. The appellant was
arrested on 03/03/2006. The clothes which he was wearing at the
time of the arrest were seized and sent to the CA. A big iron rod
admeasuring about 58 inches in length and 3 inches in diameter was
recovered at the instance of the Appellant and that too was sent to the
CA. The clothes of the deceased and the blood collected from the spot
were sent to the CA and all these articles showed the presence of
blood of 'B' group. During investigation, various panchanamas were
carried out. Statements of various witnesses were recorded and at the
conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed and thereafter
the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial and was tried
URS 2 of 19
3 APEAL 76-10-Judgment.doc
as Sessions Case No.164 of 2006 before the learned Principal Sessions
Judge, Sangli.
3. During the trial, the prosecution examined 9 witnesses.
PW 1 Ranjana Balasaheb Patil is the widow of the deceased who had
lodged the FIR. She had also deposed about the possible motive. PW
2 Motiram Suratarm Sonar was the panch for spot panchanama which
was conducted on the next day i.e. 02/03/2006 between 8.30 a.m. to
9.45 a.m. PW 3 Pradeep Bhagwan Waghmare was examined as the
panch in whose presence the iron rod admeasuring 58 inches in length
and 3 inches in diameter was recovered. PW 4 Anil Jagannath Mane
was examined as a panch who was present when the clothes of the
Appellant were seized at the police station on 03/03/2006 at about
6.00 p.m. PW 5 Swati Balasaheb Patil was the child witness and was
daughter of the deceased and she was examined to prove the fact that
the Appellant had come to her school at about 1.30 p.m. on
01/03/2006 to make inquiries about the deceased and the PW 1 and
to find their address. PW 6 Nanda Mahadeo Bad was the neighbour of
the deceased who had seen the Appellant in the house with the
deceased where the deceased was residing at about 4.00 p.m. on
01/03/2006. PW 7 Jaywant Hindurao Patil was a teacher in the
school where PW 5 Swati was studying and who had accompanied the
PW 5 when the Appellant was making inquiries with her. PW 8 Dr.
Sangita Rangrao Gurav had conducted the post-mortem examination
on the dead body of the deceased. PW 9 Dilip Shripatrao Chougule
was the Investigating Officer.
URS 3 of 19
4 APEAL 76-10-Judgment.doc
4. PW 8 Dr. Sangita Rangrao Gurav conducted post-mortem
on the dead body of the deceased. During the post-mortem
examination, she found the following injuries on the dead body of the
deceased :
(i) CLW over parietal region admeasuring 7 cm X 2 cm X
bone deep,
(ii) CLW between two eyebrows and above left eye
measuring 5 X 3 cm X fracture frontal bone. Broken
fragments are seen.
(iii) Abrasion 2 X 1 cm, left zygomatic region.
PW 8 Dr. Gurav also noticed 6 fractured injuries corresponding to
Injury No.(ii) mentioned above. PW 8 has opined that the probable
cause of death was due to shock due to cranio-cerebral injury.
5. We have heard Mr. Shyam Mehta, learned Senior Counsel
for the Appellant and Ms. R. M. Gadhvi, learned APP for the State.
With their assistance, we have gone through the entire record and
proceedings.
6. The prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence. It
is a well-settled principle that in the cases of circumstantial evidence,
the prosecution has to establish each of the circumstances beyond
reasonable doubt and then complete the chain of circumstances which
points only to the guilt of the accused eliminating all the possibilities
of the innocence of the accused. Mr. Shyam Mehta, learned Senior
Counsel for the Appellant, relied on the Judgment of the Hon'ble
URS 4 of 19
5 APEAL 76-10-Judgment.doc
Supreme Court in the case of Krishnan Vs. State1. In para 15 of the
said Judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has summarized as to
what should be the approach of the Courts in deciding the cases based
on circumstantial evidence. The observations of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the said para are thus :-
"15. ......... This Court in a series of decisions has consistently held
that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such
evidence must satisfy the following tests :
(i) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is
sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established;
(ii) those circumstances should be of definite tendency
unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;
(iii) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form
a chain so complete that there is no escape from the
conclusion that within all human probability the crime was
committed by the accused and none else; and
(iv) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain
conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of
any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and
such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of
the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence."
In the present case, the following are the circumstances which the
prosecution has tried to establish and by interlinking them together,
has tried to form a complete chain of circumstances :
i) Motive,
ii) The Appellant coming to the village where the deceased
was residing at about 1.30 p.m. and making inquiries
angrily regarding the whereabouts of the deceased,
iii) The deceased was last seen together in the company of
the accused at about 4.00 p.m. and his dead body was
1 (2008) 15 Supreme Court Cases 430
URS 5 of 19
6 APEAL 76-10-Judgment.doc
found at about 6.00 p.m.,
iv) Seizure of the bloodstained clothes worn by the
Appellant with 'B' group.
v) Recovery of a bloodstained iron rod at the instance of
the Appellant. This also shows presence of blood of 'B'
group.
7. To prove the first circumstance of possible motive, the
prosecution has relied mainly on the evidence of PW 1 Ranjana Patil
who is the widow of the deceased and has lodged the FIR. According
to her, she was residing at village Karnal with the deceased and their
two daughters. She has stated that she had got married with the
deceased about 20 years before the incident and her deceased
husband was related to her as her maternal uncle. She has deposed
that from the first marriage, the deceased had two sons namely
Dadasaheb and Suryakant, who is the present Appellant. According to
her, these two sons used to frequently visit their house and used to
quarrel with the deceased on the ground of his contracting the second
marriage and also on the ground that the deceased had sold their
ancestral agricultural land. In her deposition, she further narrates
that when she reached her house at about 7.00 p.m., she saw the dead
body of the deceased lying with the injuries on his head. She has
further deposed that when her daughter Swati returned from the
school, Swati told her that the Appellant was making inquiries about
the deceased in the school at about 2.00 p.m. and that thereafter she
lodged her FIR.
URS 6 of 19
7 APEAL 76-10-Judgment.doc
Thus, to prove the motive, the prosecution has relied on
the evidence of PW 1. No doubt, the motive is an important
circumstance and the importance which can be attached to the
possible motive varies from case to case. Generally, when there is a
direct evidence of an eye witness or in the cases based on
circumstantial evidence, if the circumstances other than the motive
are so strong that conviction can safely be based on them, then the
motive may not play a major role in determining the guilt of the
accused but when the case is based purely on circumstantial evidence
and when such circumstances are not strong enough by themselves to
prove the guilt of the accused, due consideration will have to be
bestowed upon the existence of motive and as to whether that motive
was strong enough leading the accused to take this step of committing
murder. Mr. Shyam Mehta, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant,
has relied on the case of State Through Central Bureau of
Investigation Vs. Mahender Singh Dahiya2. In the said case, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that where the case of the
prosecution has been proved beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of
the material produced before the Court, the motive loses its
significance. But in other cases based on circumstantial evidence,
motive for committing the crime assumes great importance. In such
circumstances, absence of motive would put the Court on its guard to
scrutinize the evidence very closely to ensure that suspicion, emotion
or conjecture do not take the place of proof.
2 (2011) 3 Supreme Court Cases 109
URS 7 of 19
8 APEAL 76-10-Judgment.doc
8. In the present case, the prosecution, through the PW 1,
has established that the Appellant was unhappy with the deceased
because the deceased had contracted second marriage. In this context,
it is worthwhile to note that the deceased and the PW 1 had got
married 20 years before the incident dated 01/03/2006. Therefore, it
cannot be said that this motive was the immediate reason for the
Appellant to take this drastic step. The prosecution has not brought
on record any immediate or proximate cause which had led the
Appellant to commit the murder of his own father. The second
possible motive was selling of the ancestral agricultural land by the
deceased. Here again, the PW 1 or the prosecution evidence has not
elaborated as to which land was sold, when it was sold and to whom
it was sold and except for a vague statement that there used to be
quarrels on account of selling of such land, there is nothing on record.
Moreover, these two possible motives are mentioned in general
narration that there used to be quarrels on these two grounds when
the sons used to visit the deceased. Therefore, in our opinion, the
prosecution has not established the motive or the immediate cause for
commission of the murder. The prosecution evidence indicates that
the Appellant and his brother used to visit the deceased within a gap
of couple of months. The prosecution evidence does not indicate as to
when the last visit was made and when such quarrel took place
between the sons and the deceased on the last occasion. There is
another factor which needs to be considered in this connection and
that is the questions put to the Appellant in his examination under
Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. Significantly, none of these questions
URS 8 of 19
9 APEAL 76-10-Judgment.doc
pertain to the possible motive for commission of the murder and since
the Appellant is not given an opportunity to explain the alleged
motive for commission of murder against him, this circumstance, in
any case, cannot be held against the present Appellant. Therefore, in
such circumstances, we hold that the prosecution has failed to
establish the motive for commission of murder.
9. The second circumstance is regarding the inquiries made
by the Appellant with the PW 5 at about 1.30 p.m. on the date of the
incident. In this connection, the prosecution has examined PW 5
Swati who is the daughter of the deceased and PW 7 Jayant Patil who
was the school teacher who was present when the Appellant had
made such inquiries. PW 5 Swati was a child witness and at the time
of deposing before the Court, she was about 11 years of age. She was
administered oath, she being a child witness, her evidence needs to be
appreciated carefully. She has deposed that the Appellant used to
regularly visit their house. She has deposed that the Appellant was
working at Jaisingpur. Evidence shows that the Appellant was not a
resident of the village Karnal where the deceased used to reside. She
has deposed about the Appellant questioning the deceased regarding
his second marriage and quarreling on that ground. She has further
deposed that on 01/03/2006, the Appellant had been to her school at
1.30 p.m. and he was angrily inquiring about the whereabouts of the
deceased and PW 1. At that time, this witness had informed him that
they were residing by the side of the road leading to Sangli.
Thereafter, this witness had gone to her house at about 6.30 p.m. and
URS 9 of 19
10 APEAL 76-10-Judgment.doc
found the tragic scene in respect of the death of her father. The
evidence of this witness indicates that since the last visit of the
Appellant to their house, they possibly had changed their residence
and therefore, the Appellant was not knowing the new address. This
witness PW 5 had told the Appellant regarding their new address.
The evidence of this witness is to a limited fact that the Appellant was
present in the village Karnal at about 1.30 p.m. and was making
inquiries about the deceased. A suggestion to this witness was given
that she was deposing falsely at the instance of her mother. To be on
a safer side, the prosecution has examined PW 7 Jayant Patil who was
a school teacher and who was present with this witness when the
Appellant was making such inquiries. However, this witness was not
knowing the Appellant and no identification parade was held to
enable him to identify that it was only the Appellant who was making
the inquiries. However, his evidence does go on to show that some
person was making inquiries with the PW 5 regarding the
whereabouts of the deceased. We find that, at the highest, this
circumstance indicates that the Appellant was present in that village at
1.30 p.m. and was making inquiries about the whereabouts of the
deceased. The contention that he was making inquiries in angry state
of mind is doubtful because though the PW 5 says that he made
inquiries angrily, the PW 7 does not say that the Appellant was
making the inquiries in an angry tone. This circumstance will have to
be decided in the background and context of other circumstances.
URS 10 of 19
11 APEAL 76-10-Judgment.doc
10. The most important circumstance the prosecution has
relied on is the theory of the deceased having been seen together with
the Appellant soon before his dead body was found. In this
connection, the prosecution has examined PW 6 Nanda Bad.
According to her, at around 1.30 p.m. one boy aged about 20 to 22
years came to the house of deceased Balasaheb. She has further
deposed that deceased Balasaheb introduced that boy to one
Sakharam Rajput as his son from his first wife and that the boy was
wearing blue coloured shirt and gray coloured pant. She further
deposed that accused before the Court was the same boy. According
to her, the said boy was questioning deceased Balasaheb as to why he
had sold their house and was also questioning Balasaheb on his
remarriage and both were talking in raised voices. She has further
deposed that at about 4.00 p.m. she saw Balasaheb and that boy in
the house and thereafter she left the place and when she returned at
about 6.00 p.m., she saw the dead body of the deceased. Thus, the
prosecution has tried to rely on her evidence to show that the present
Appellant was in the company of the deceased inside the house at
about 4.00 p.m. and soon after within two hours, the dead body of the
deceased was found in that same house. According to the learned
APP, this is a strong circumstance which should enable the Court to
convict the Appellant. The evidence of this witness clearly shows that
she was not knowing the said boy before the incident. It was for the
first time that she had seen him and she claimed that the said boy was
Balasaheb's son because Balasaheb had introduced that boy as his son
from his first wife to one Rajput. Balasaheb had two sons. This
URS 11 of 19
12 APEAL 76-10-Judgment.doc
Rajput is not examined to corroborate her version. This introduction
was not made to her. She had overheard the conversation. Therefore,
it is difficult to attach too much weightage to this introduction. The
most important aspect of this case is that this witness was not made to
identify the said boy. The police had arrested the Appellant within
two days and therefore it was not difficult for them to have conducted
an identification parade. When a suspect / accused is not known to
any witness, it is desirable to hold an identification parade to enable
such witness to identify such suspect or the accused. In this case, no
identification parade was held and later on for the first time in Court
after about more than 7 months this witness had identified the
Appellant in the Court as being the same boy who had visited the
deceased and was in his house at about 4.00 p.m. The Appellant was
the sole accused in the present case. Therefore, it was very easy for
this witness to tell the Court that he was the same person. This can
hardly be described as a safe mode of identification. In the Court-
rooms, the accused are made to sit at a particular place during trials
and therefore it is not difficult for witnesses to identify the accused,
particularly when there is only one accused facing the trial.
Therefore, it is not safe to rely on such identification made for the first
time in Court. In this connection, Mr. Shyam Mehta, learned Senior
Counsel for the Appellant, has relied on the Judgment in the case of
Dana Yadav alias Dahu and Others Vs. State of Bihar 3. In this case,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has, in para 38 of the said Judgment,
analyzed the necessity of the identification parade as thus :-
3 (2002) 7 Supreme Court Cases 295
URS 12 of 19
13 APEAL 76-10-Judgment.doc
"38. In view of the law analysed above, we conclude thus :-
(a) If an accused is well known to the prosecution
witnesses from before, no test identification parade is called
for and it would be meaningless and sheer waste of public
time to hold the same.
(b) In cases where according to the prosecution the
accused is known to the prosecution witnesses from before, but
the said fact is denied by him and he challenges his identity by
the prosecution witnesses by filing a petition for holding test
identification parade, a court while dealing with such a
prayer, should consider without holding a mini-inquiry as to
whether the denial is bona fide or a mere pretence and / or
made with an ulterior motive to delay the investigation. In
case the court comes to the conclusion that the denial is bona
fide, it may accede to the prayer, but if, however, it is of the
view that the same is a mere pretence and / or made with an
ulterior motive to delay the investigation, question for grant
of such a prayer would not arise. Unjustified grant or refusal
of such a prayer would not necessarily enure to the benefit of
either party nor the same would be detrimental to their
interest. In case prayer is granted and test identification
parade is held in which a witness fails to identify the accused,
his so-called claim that the accused was known to him from
before and the evidence of identification in court should not be
accepted. But in case either prayer is not granted or granted
but no test identification parade held, the same ipso facto can
not be a ground for throwing out evidence of identification of
an accused in court when evidence of the witness, on the
question of identity of the accused from before, is found to be
credible. The main thrust should be on answer to the question
as to whether evidence of a witness in court to the identity of
the accused from before is trustworthy or not. In case the
answer is in the affirmative, the fact that prayer for holding
test identification parade was rejected or although granted,
but no such parade was held, would not in any manner affect
the evidence adduced in court in relation to identity of the
accused. But if, however, such an evidence is not free from
doubt, the same may be a relevant material while
appreciating the evidence of identification adduced in court.
(c) Evidence of identification of an accused in court by
a witness is substantive evidence whereas that of identification
URS 13 of 19
14 APEAL 76-10-Judgment.doc
in test identification parade is, though a primary evidence but
not substantive one, and the same can be used only to
corroborate identification of accused by a witness in court.
(d) Identification parades are held during the course
of investigation ordinarily at the instance of investigating
agencies and should be held with reasonable despatch for the
purpose of enabling the witnesses to identify either the
properties which are subject matter of alleged offence or the
accused persons involved in the offence so as to provide it with
materials to assure itself if the investigation is proceeding on
right lines and the persons whom it suspects to have
committed the offence were the real culprits.
(e) Failure to hold test identification parade does not
make the evidence of identification in court inadmissible,
rather the same is very much admissible in law, but ordinarily
identification of an accused by a witness for the first time in
court should not form the basis of conviction, the same being
from its very nature inherently of a weak character unless it is
corroborated by his previous identification in the test
identification parade or any other evidence. The previous
identification in the test identification parade is a check valve
to the evidence of identification in court of an accused by a
witness and the same is a rule of prudence and not law.
(f) In exceptional circumstances only, as discussed
above, evidence of identification for the first time in court,
without the same being corroborated by previous identification
in the test identification parade or any other evidence, can form
the basis of conviction.
(g) Ordinarily, if an accused is not named in the first
information report, his identification by witnesses in court,
should not be relied upon, especially when they did not disclose
name of the accused before the police, but to this general rule
there may be exceptions as enumerated above."
Hence, in the present case, we are of the view that even this
circumstance of last seen together is not proved by the prosecution
beyond any reasonable doubt.
URS 14 of 19
15 APEAL 76-10-Judgment.doc
11. The next circumstance which is relied on by the
prosecution is in respect of seizure of the Appellant's bloodstained
clothes. In this context, the prosecution has examined PW 4 Anil
Mane as the panch who was present when the clothes were seized and
the said panchanama is exhibited vide Exh.15. According to this
witness PW 4, on 03/03/2006 at about 6.00 p.m., he was called at the
Sangli Gramin Police Station and was told that they wanted to arrest a
person in the police station. Thereon, he saw the present Appellant
present there who was wearing bloodstained clothes. He was given
fresh clothes and his clothes were seized in his presence. Thereafter,
the panchanama was drawn. He has identified those clothes when
they were produced in the Court. Significantly, this witness, in his
deposition, has not stated that while seizing those clothes, they were
sealed or that labels containing his signatures were pasted. Mr. Mehta
submitted that it was highly unlikely that the Appellant would wear
the same clothes for two days though he had an opportunity to go to
his house, have them changed and washed. There is some force in his
submission. Moreover, there is no evidence to show from where and
at what time the Appellant was arrested. The evidence throws light
only from the point when the Appellant was seen present in the police
station. Even the I.O. has not elaborated as at what point of time,
from which place and in what condition the Appellant was arrested
and no explanation was given as to why arrest panchanama at the
point of arrest was not carried out. The CA report shows that those
clothes were showing the bloodstains of human origin having 'B'
group. The clothes of the deceased also show the presence of blood of
URS 15 of 19
16 APEAL 76-10-Judgment.doc
'B' group. Therefore, the prosecution alleges that the blood found on
the clothes of the Appellant was that of the deceased. However, the
record shows that the blood group of the Appellant himself was also
'B' and therefore, the prosecution could not eliminate the possibility
that the blood on his clothes was not that of the Appellant himself. In
this context, Mr. Mehta has relied on the observations of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Prakash Vs. State of Karnataka4. In
para 41 of the said Judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held
thus :
"41. In any event, the recovery of the bloodstained clothes
of Prakash do not advance the case of the
prosecution. The reason is that all that the
prosecution sought to prove thereby is that the blood
group of Gangamma was AB and the bloodstains on
Prakash's seized clothes also belong to blood group
AB. In our opinion, this does not lead to any
conclusion that the bloodstains on Prakash's clothes
were those of Gangamma's blood. There are millions
of people who have the blood group AB and it is quite
possible that even Prakash had the blood group AB.
In this context, it is important to mention that a
blood sample was taken from Prakash and this was
sent for examination. The report received from the
forensic science laboratory (Ext.P-27) was to the
effect that the blood sample was decomposed and
therefore its origin and grouping could not be
determined. It is, therefore, quite possible that the
bloodstains on Prakash's clothes were his own
bloodstains and that is blood group was also AB."
Considering these aspects, even this circumstance is doubtful and does
not help the prosecution case in any manner.
4 (2014) 12 Supreme Court Cases 133
URS 16 of 19
17 APEAL 76-10-Judgment.doc
12. The last circumstance relied on by the prosecution was
recovery of the big iron rod at the instance of the present Appellant
and in this connection, the prosecution has examined PW 3 Pradeep
Waghmare who was the panch for the said recovery. According to
him on 06/03/2006, he was called at Sangli Gramin Police Station at
10.00 a.m. and was told to listen to what the Appellant had to state.
According to him, the Appellant showed willingness to lead to the
place where he had concealed the murder weapon i.e. an iron rod.
After recording his memorandum, the police party and the panchas
were led by the Appellant to village Karnal in the plot of one Bhimrao
Patil and from behind one shed, an iron bar having length of 58
inches and diameter of 3 inches was excavated which was concealed
under the ground. During his cross-examination, he has stated that he
did not remember as to by using which instrument the Appellant
excavated and removed the iron rod. The memorandum and
panchanama are exhibited at Exh.13 and Exh.13A respectively. The
I.O. has not explained as to how the earth was excavated and how the
iron rod was removed. Importantly, this witness PW 3, in his
deposition, has not stated that the iron rod was kept in a packet or
was wrapped in paper. He merely says that the labels signed by the
panchas were pasted on the iron rod. He has not further stated that
the weapon was sealed in some packet. The CA report at Exh.27
shows that the CA had received the iron rod and at that time it was
wrapped in paper and was labeled as Article 13. The CA report also
mentions that 11 sealed parcels with seals intact were received by the
CA. Therefore, sealing of this iron rod assumes importance whereas
URS 17 of 19
18 APEAL 76-10-Judgment.doc
this witness PW 3 has not stated anything about sealing of the iron
rod. In this case, therefore, the tampering of the iron rod cannot be
ruled out. In this context, Mr. Mehta has relied on the Judgment of
this Court in this case of Parshuram Alias Parshu Ganpat Nalwade
Vs. State of Maharashtra5. In para 12 of the said Judgment, the
Division Bench of this Court has observed thus :
"12. The second reason due to which we are not inclined to
place reliance on recovery of firearm is that, none of
the prosecution witnesses have stated that weapon was
sealed when it was produced by the accused. The
Supreme Court in the case of Amarjit Singh Alias
Babbu V. State of Punjab6 has observed that the non-
sealing of the revolver at the spot is a serious infirmity
because the possibility of tampering with the weapon
cannot be ruled out."
Therefore, though the iron rod shows the presence of blood group 'B',
considering the infirmities in respect of sealing of the same, we do not
find it safe to hold this circumstance against the Appellant.
13. Thus, taking into consideration all the above
circumstances separately, we find that the only circumstance which
the prosecution has proved to some reasonable extent is that the
Appellant was in the village Karnal at 1.30 p.m. and had visited the
school of PW 5 Swati asking for the deceased. All the other
circumstances are not proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable
doubt. Therefore, this solitary link will not form a complete chain of
circumstances. This circumstance by itself will not point to the only
5 2015 SCC OnLine Bom 4824
6 1995 Supp (3) SCC 217
URS 18 of 19
19 APEAL 76-10-Judgment.doc
hypothesis of the guilt of the Appellant. Therefore, we hold that the
prosecution has failed to prove the circumstances beyond reasonable
doubt to form a complete chain which would unerringly point only to
the guilt of the Appellant. With the result, we allow this Appeal.
Hence the following order :-
ORDER
(i) The Appeal is allowed.
(ii) The conviction and sentence awarded to the Appellant
vide the Judgment and Order dated 04/12/2006 passed by the
learned Principal Sessions Judge, Sangli, in Sessions Case No.164 of
2006 are hereby set aside. The Appellant is acquitted of the charge
framed against him.
(iii) The Appellant shall be released forthwith, if not required
in any other case.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) (A. A. SAYED, J.)
URS 19 of 19
