The Bombay HC recently comprising of a Division Bench of justices Prasanna B. Varale and S.M. Modak, held that in a matter of circumstantial evidence, the law doesn’t require a particular number of circumstances to establish the chain, it only depends on nature. (Sandip Baburao Waidande V The State Of Maharashtra)
The present matter was based on circumstantial evidence.
It was expressed that, Law does not require a particular number of circumstance so as to establish the chain. It altogether depends upon the nature of the transaction.
Facts of the case
In the present matter, there were a few circumstances relied upon by the prosecution and the Additional Sessions Judge believed those circumstances and drew an inference about the guilt of the accused of committing murder of his own wife Nirmala. Accused was convicted under Section 302 of Penal Code, 1860 and the said judgment has been challenged in the present appeal.
Accused and his wife were labourers. On the day of the incident both the accused and deceased went from duty a little early due to stomach pain of accused and then slept. On next day when the first informant went to wake them up, he saw Nirmala’ dead body. Accordingly, he lodged the complaint.
Circumstances on which the prosecution relied upon were as follows:
- Last seen theory.
- Motive
- Noticing soaked blood stains on the clothes of the accused.
- Absconding himself from the spot of the incident even though his wife is murdered.
Issue before the Court
Whether the link between the incident of murder and the accused is established on the basis of proved circumstances?
Contention of the Parties
The prosecution relied upon the circumstances of Last seen theory, Motive, noticing soaked blood stains on the clothes of the accused and Absconding himself from the spot of the incident even though his wife is murdered.
The learned APP supported the judgment. According to her the trial Court has rightly drawn an inference against the accused it was due to the failure of the accused in giving explanation about unnatural death of deceased Nirmala. According to her even though circumstances are few, they are sufficient enough to draw an inference about guilt of the accused. The learned APP also brought our attention to section 313 of Cr.P.C and according to her the accused who has failed to participate in the process of recording of the statement as contemplated under sub-section 5 of section 313 of Cr.P.C. cannot take benefit of omission to put certain questions.
Courts observation & Judgment
The Court in regard to the prosecution’s contention stated that they will rely on the golden principles laid down for appreciating circumstantial evidence. “The principles are: –
- The circumstance relied upon must be fully established.
- They must be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused.
- They should be conclusive in nature. Only inference about guilt of the accused is to be inferred.
- There should be complete chain of evidence so as not to lead any doubt about the involvement of the accused.”
Trial Court blamed the accused for not giving explanation. In Court’s opinion, Trial Court committed fault on two aspects first trial court forgot the difference between suspicion and proof.
Secondly, trial court forgot to put to the accused circumstance of ‘last seen together’ as evidenced by PW-2 first informant.
Last seen circumstance has to be proved just like any other circumstance. The only difference is once the prosecution will prove that both the deceased and accused were found last together then certainly it is for the accused to explain about whereabouts or what has happened about his companion. In this exercise the time of last seen and time of death also plays important.
For the above remark the court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran, (2007) 3 SCC 755.
The Court observed that “Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the Court to put questions in two eventualities. One is optional and it may be at any stage of the proceeding. Whereas 2nd is mandatory and it is after prosecution witnesses were examined” and decided to neither remit the matter nor put the questions to the accused since “the circumstance of the last seen together is considered, we do not think that other circumstances are sufficient enough to prove the guilt of the accused i.e., neither recovery at the instance of the accused nor there is direct evidence. Even evidence on the point of motive is insufficient. So, certainly, we are of the opinion that prejudice is caused to the accused.”
Additionally, High Court found the Trial Court’s decision about the arrest of the accused to be flawed since there were no supporting documents. The Bench also stated that, “merely because there was a huge time gap in between the timing of last seen together and probable timing of death the evidence of last seen together could not be rejected in all cases.”
The Court thus on the basis of analyzing the witnesses and the prosecution and accused statements and submissions stated, “Prosecution had sufficiently proved the circumstances of last seen together. However, the Court opined that the circumstance of motive is not proved and evidence on the point of arrest and seizure of clothes was not trustworthy. So, Court felt that the chain of circumstances was not established.”
Hence, High Court held that there was grave suspicion on the accused that he had committed the murder of his own wife but suspicion could not take place of proof hence conviction was set aside and the appeal was allowed.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Share this Document :Picture Source :
