Criminal Appeal by State challenging Sessions Judge's acquittal of original accused no.3 from murder charge. High Court held trial judge correctly acquitted accused as evidence was only circumstantial; rejected application and refused leave to appeal.
Application rejected; leave to appeal to Full Bench refused.
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.
ALS: 2/20.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ALS) NO. 2 OF 2020
The State of Maharashtra. ..Applicant. Versus Sakshi @ Yogita Santosh Khade. ..Respondent.
..Respondent.
Mr. Arfan Sait, APP for the Applicant – State.
CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE & SURENDRA P. TAVADE, JJ. Date : June 21, 2021 .
P. C. :
1 / 7
patilsr
ALS: 2/20.
to suffer life imprisonment along with fine, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year. Accused nos.1, 2 and 3 were convicted for the offence punishable under section 201 read with 34 of IPC and sentence was awarded to them. Accused No.3 Sakshi @ Yogita Santosh Khade was also convicted for commission of the offence punishable under section 404 of IPC and awarded sentence. But the learned trial judge was pleased to acquit accused no.2 as well as accused no.3 from the charge of commission of offence punishable under section 302 of IPC read with section 34 of IPC.
2 / 7
patilsr
ALS: 2/20.
of the case of prosecution against the respondent Sakshi @ Yogita Santosh Khade. Thus, in short, the submission of learned APP is of an erroneous appreciation of evidence by the learned trial Judge.
3 / 7
patilsr
ALS: 2/20.
4 / 7
patilsr
ALS: 2/20.
and hitting from the house of accused Sakshi Khade. He also heard noise of falling utensils and the loud shouts of one lady. Both these witnesses, Nitesh and Abhishek, rushed to the house of Sakshi. However, Sakshi prevented them from entering into the house. Sakshi then gave direction to her daughter to go down-stairs and latch the door from outside. On an enquiry made by these witnesses, Sakshi informed that her maternal aunt gets the shocks of epilepsy on seeing kids. Then they heard the words “vx vkbZ x”. Then they heard words in the voice of Sakshi “ckck rqeps dke >kys dk”. With these material, the prosecution wanted to establish its case against respondent-accused no.3 Sakhi. Even accepting that the words uttered by Sakshi namely, “vx vkbZ x” and “ckck rqeps dke >kys dk” were heard by these witnesses, ie.., PW-2 Nitesh and PW-3 Abhishek, that by itself would not be a substantive material to arrive at a conclusion that accused no.3 played a vital role in the commission of offence punishable under section 302 of IPC. The prosecution ought to have established its case against respondent–accused no.3 with some more reliable material than except the words.
5 / 7
patilsr
ALS: 2/20.
of evidence against the respondent. The material on which the prosecution relies against accused no.3 is the recovery of articles, namely gold chain and gold tops (ear-rings). Perusal of the judgment clearly shows that the witnesses have stated that the accused persons mortgaged the gold ornaments as they were in need of money. Even for the sake of assumption this is a material against respondent – accused no.3, this material at the most would indicate an act of disposal of property in the offence by the respondent and this material would not be sufficient enough to establish that the respondent – accused no.3 played any active role in the serious offence of committing murder of deceased, i.e., the offence punishable under section 302 of IPC.
6 / 7
patilsr
ALS: 2/20.
that the learned trial judge committed no error in appreciating the evidence and arrived at the ultimate conclusion. The application, thus, being devoid of any merit deserves to be rejected and the same is rejected. Needless to state that leave to appeal is refused.
[Surendra P. Tavade, J.] [Prasanna B. Varale, J.]
7 / 7
patilsr
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the learned trial judge committed an error in acquitting accused no.3 from the charge of murder under section 302 IPC.
Whether circumstantial evidence, including ocular testimony and recovery of articles, is sufficient to convict a co-accused for murder.
Whether the enhanced sentence of life imprisonment can be imposed on the applicant based on the acquittal of original accused no.3 for murder.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
State of Maharashtra
Sakshi @ Yogita Santosh Khade
Prasanna B. Varale
Surendra P. Tavade
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
