On Thursday, the Bombay High Court granted bail to a man accused of killing his own daughter for marrying against his wishes observing that the case was undisputedly based on 'circumstantial evidence'.

The accussed in the case has been charged for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC for murder of his daughter after her body was found near a footpath in Ghatkopar. He was accordingly arrested on July 15, 2019 and been in jail since then.

Prosecution, during the course of hearing submitted the deceased performed her marriage against the wishes of the applicant and her husband wished to took her to his native place, which didn't go well with the applicant and he deemed it as damage to his reputation and as result of rage, he murdered her.

Applicant's Learned Counsel submitted that the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence. There is no cogent evidence against the applicant, and he has been in custody from the day of the arrest. Also, there are no criminal antecedents against him. The relationship between the applicant and deceased was cordial.

He further contended that the recovery under Section 27 cannot be relied upon, as the statement mentions that a knife was used in commission of crime and what is recovered is a sickle.

"The statement of the maker of this particular sickle has not been recorded but the statement of the person who sold the alleged sickle to the applicant has been recorded. But there is discrepancy in the identification of the accused, as the accused was shown to him at the police station, without conducting identification parade. The tower location of the applicant would at the most show the presence of the applicant at Kurla,whereas, the body of the deceased was found at Ghatkopar."

Contrary, Additional Public Prosecutor Rutuja Ambekar submitted that there is a strong motive for the applicant to commit the crime. The CDR shows that there were several calls between the applicant and deceased on the date of incident.

He argued:

"The tower location shows that the applicant was present at the place of incident with the deceased. The statement of the person who sold the sickle to the applicant shows the complicity of the applicant in the crime as he has identified the applicant. Furthermore, the CCTV footage showed that the applicant had consumed juice at the shop situated at Sion, and the shop owner has identified the applicant. Thus there is strong evidence against the applicant."

After listening to the arguements from both side, the Court observed:

"Undisputedly, the case is based on circumstantial evidence. Although, body was found on the footpath at Ghatkopar, there is no eyewitness to the incident. There is discrepancy in the statement leading to recovery as pointed by learned counsel for the applicant. The alleged discovery statement mentions that the accused is willing to show the knife used in crime and the sickle was recovered. On perusal of the police report with regards to tower location, it does not appear that the applicant was at Ghatkopar."

The Court also didn't accept the prosecution's contention relying upon the CDR to show that there were calls between the applicant and the deceased. It said:

"Since the deceased was the daughter of the applicant no adverse inference can be drawn with regards to such calls. The person who had allegedly sold sickle to the applicant has identified the accused at the police station. No identification parade was conducted."

The Court thus allowed the bail and the applicant was permitted to furnish a provisional cash bail of ₹ 25,000 in lieu of surety for a period of 12 weeks.

The order has been passed by Justice PRAKASH D. NAIK on 09-07-2020.

Read Order Here:

 

 

Picture Source :