High Court dismissed an appeal against acquittal in a murder case. The court upheld the trial court's finding that the prosecution failed to prove essential links in the circumstantial evidence chain, specifically regarding motive and physical feasibility. The appeal failed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. APPELLATE SIDE.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 487 OF 1996
The State of Maharashtra
........ Appellant
versus
Sou. Shantabai Mallawa Suresh Masal..... Respondent
Shri B.H.Mehta APP for the State Mrs. D.M. Shah advocate appointed for the respondent.
CORAM: V.G. PALSHIKAR & R.C. CHAVAN, JJ.
DATED : 18TH JULY, 2005
ORAL JUDGEMENT ( Per Palshikar, J.) :
1.Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 16-3-1996 passed by the IIIrd
Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur in Sessions Case No. appellant has
preferred this appeal on the ground mentioned in the memo of appeal as also
canvassed before us.
2.With the assistance of the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the
1
appellant and the learned APP, we have srcutinised the entire record, and reappreciated the evidence both oral and documentary as is raised on the record before the Additional Session Judge.
2
wife Shantabai in this regard. It was on the basis of this complaint that the police undertook investigation, arrested the accused and prosecuted her alone. The prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses to prove its case that it was the accused alone who committed murder. The learned trial Judge on appreciation of this evidence, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case that the accused Shantabai murdered Kusum the victim. He therefore proceeded to acquit the accused by the impugned judgment. This appeal as aforesaid is directed against that order of acquittal.
a)That there was quarrel between the accused and the victim.
b) That in the night of 1st March 1995 the victim was missing.
3
of the victim, and according to him one was post mortem and the another was ante mortem.
h) A stone weighing about 70 kgs. was found in the well on the
platform and the body was hanging on saree tied to this stone at the neck of the victim.
nature, and consequently it was necessary as per existing principle of law for the prosecution to prove each link in the chain of circumstantial evidence. We have observed that the prosecution has proved the above quoted circumstances. The proof of those circumstances by themselves is not enough to connect the accused with the crime. She has denied the confession. The following circumstances in our opinion, are not proved by the prosecution. They are:
1)Motive for committing murder.
2)That after committing murder the body was thrown into well.
were removed.
4)How the accused who is about 25 years of age and not very stout personality could lift a stone of 70 kg. as also how could she lift or drag the dead body of Kusum alone.
4
and another, why no investigation was done in regard to that.
5
interfere in such circumstances. The findings recorded by the learned trial Judge are correct. We also quoted our own reasons for upholding those findings. In the result the appeal fails and it is dismissed.
xxxxx
6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order of acquittal of the accused in a murder charge by the trial court warrants interference in criminal appeal.
Whether the circumstantial evidence on record is sufficient to sustain a conclusion of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
State of Maharashtra
Sou. Shantabai Mallawa Suresh Masal
V.G. PALSHIKAR
R.C. CHAVAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
