(circumstantial evidence)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 386 OF 2015
Avinash s/o Mahadeo Jadhav, Age 25 years, Occu.
Labour, R/o Hipparga (Rava), Tq. Lohara, Dist. Osmanabad . … Appellant (Ori. Accused)
Versus
The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Inspector, Police Station Omerga, Tq.
Omerga, Dist. Osmanabad . … Respondent . . .
Mr. Gajanan G. Kadam, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. A. M. Phule, APP for the Respondent-State. . . . CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, JJ. RESERVED ON : 03.01.2023 PRONOUNCED ON : 10.01.2023
The prosecution case in trial court is as under : Deceased Manisha was married to appellant-accused two years prior to the incident. Initially, deceased Manisha and accused resided in Hadapsar, but later on shifted to village Hipparga (Rava) i.e. native of accused. Since six months prior to the incident dated 16.01.2013, accused started suspecting fidelity of deceased Manisha. He suspected that she had affair with his own brother and on such count, he used to harass her and beat her. On 16.01.2013 at around 5.30 p.m., accused strangulated Manisha to death in their own house. After autopsy, medical opinion was received that death was due to ‘asphyxia due to strangulation’ and therefore, PW2 father of Manisha set law in motion alleging murder of his daughter Manisha by accused son-in-law. On the strength of his complaint, police registered crime bearing No.03/2013 for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 498-A of IPC.
When a case is based on circumstantial evidence, it is fairly settled that the evidence on record must satisfy the following tests. [a] The circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established. [b] Those circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain, so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probabilities, the crime has been committed by the accused and none else. [c] Those circumstances should unerringly point out towards the guilt of accused. [d] The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of guilt of accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused, but should also be inconsistent with his innocence. The above enumerated tests are culled out from various pronouncements of the Hon’ble Apex Court time and again i.e. from landmark cases cited as under:
1. Hanumant Govind Nirgudkar and another v. State of M.P. ; AIR 1952 SC 343.
2. Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra ; AIR 1973 SC 2622.
3. Sharad B. Sarda v. State of Maharashtra ; AIR 1984 SC 1622
4. Padala Veera Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh ; 1989 (Suppl.2) SCC 706
5. Dhananjoy Chaterjee @ Dhana v. State of West Bengal ; 1994 SCC (2) 220.
6. State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjyot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru ; 2005 (11) SCC 600. 22. Further, criminal jurisprudence calls for conducting criminal trial by bearing in mind few cardinal principles which are dealt and discussed in the case of Dhananjoy Chaterjee @ Dhana v. State of West Bengal [1994 SCC (2) 220] ; Bhagirath v. State of M.P. [AIR 1976 SC 975] ; Shankarlal Dixit v. State of Maharashtra [AIR 1981 SC 765]
PARA.32. Case is based on circumstantial evidence. It is firmly established that deceased met homicidal death i.e. due to strangulation. Deceased wife was in the company and custody of accused husband on the day of occurrence. Accused suspected fidelity of his deceased wife. She had promptly informed her father and uncle, a resident of same village. Therefore, motive is forthcoming. Wife meeting homicidal death in the house of accused, so accused husband was accountable and was expected to offer explanation which he failed to do so in spite of opportunity to that extent. His presence in the house is more than confirmed. Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act comes into play. There was onus on the accused to give satisfactory explanation for the unnatural death of his wife while she was cohabiting with him. He having failed to do so, presumption comes into play. Prosecution has established and proved the charge under Section 302 of IPC against accused.
PARA.33. We have independently assessed and evaluated the entire oral and documentary evidence before us. We have carefully gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Omerga. We have come across that cases advanced by prosecution as well as defence have been properly considered and appreciated. After hearing both sides, a well reasoned judgment has been passed. Required law has been applied. In appeal, how and where learned trial court erred in appreciating the evidence is not pointed out to us. There being no merits in the appeal, we are of the opinion that the same deserves to be dismissed and we accordingly proceed to pass the following order :
ORDER :The appeal is hereby dismissed.
