Reversal of Fate: The Struggle Against Wrongful Conviction

CASE NAME: VISHWAJEET KERBA MASALKAR VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA.

CASE NO.: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 213 OF 2020 

DATED: October 17, 2024

QUORUM: B.R. Gavai, J.

 

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. On October 4, 2012, the appellant reported to the police that a robbery had occurred at his residence in Champaratna Society, Uday Baug, Wanwadi, Pune. He claimed that his mother, Shobha Masalkar, wife, Archana Masalkar, and his two-year-old daughter, Kimaya Masalkar, had been killed during this incident. Additionally, a neighbor, Madhusudhan Kulkarni, was reported injured.
2. Based on the appellant’s complaint, FIR No. 196 of 2012 was registered under Sections 302 and 397 of the IPC against unknown persons. The appellant reported stolen items worth Rs. 3,07,000/-. Three bodies were sent for post-mortem, and witness Madhusudan Kulkarni received medical treatment. The crime scene panchnama was recorded.
3. Bajirao Dadoba Mohite (PW-14), found that nothing was entered forcibly into the flat of the appellant in the spot panchnama. Jewellery and cash were kept hidden behind the photo frame. Further, blood-stained bangles and an odhani near the main door, suggest a disputed entry.
4. Investigation disclosed that the appellant was in a relationship with Gauri Londhe (PW-2), who testifies before this Court that he wanted to leave his family for her, so it reveals the motive involved in personal relationships. CCTV recording also showed the mother of the appellant arriving at 3:22 PM, and appellant leaving on his motorcycle at 4:28 PM, and his time being doubtful. 
5. Postmortem examination found the cause of death: asphyxia due to smothering to his daughter Kimaya Masalkar, traumatic and hemorrhagic shock caused by a head injury in his wife Archana Masalkar; hemorrhagic shock caused by a head injury to his mother Shobha Masalkar.
6. The appellant disclosed that he hid his blood-stained clothes and his wife’s Mangalsutra in M.I.D.C., Hadapsar, Pune. He admitted to disposing of the hammer used in the crime in a canal and mentioned a consent letter for divorce from his wife found in a drawer at his home.
7. On investigation, a charge-sheet was laid before the Pune Cantonment Court for the purpose of offences under Sections 302, 307 and 201, IPC. The matter was then referred to Sessions Court where charges were framed.
8. During the trial, 16 witnesses were examined and the court concluded that the prosecution had proven the appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
9. On 26th August 2016 the appellant was sentenced to death and a fine of Rs. 5,000 for murder, and additional terms for attempted murder and tampering with evidence. The judgment of the trial court to execute its decision by way of death penalty was transmitted to the High Court for confirmation under case number 2 of 2016.

 

ISSUES OF THE CASE

1. Whether the conviction of Vishwajeet Kerba Masalkar under Sections 302, 307, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) by the trial court and the High Court justified based on the evidence presented.
2. Whether the testimony of the key witness, Madhusudhan Kulkarni (PW-12), provide sufficient and reliable evidence to support the conviction of the appellant.
3. To what extent a reasonable explanation for the six-day delay in recording the statement of Madhusudhan Kulkarni (PW-12), credible and the extent of its impact the credibility of the witness’s testimony.
4. Whether the recoveries of the hammer, blood-stained clothes, and jewelry found at the instance of the appellant credible and admissible as evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
5. To what extent the prosecution sufficiently establishes a motive for Vishwajeet Kerba Masalkar to commit the alleged offenses, and whether the motive alone be a basis for conviction.
6. To what extent were the principles of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt in a case based on circumstantial evidence adequately applied by the lower courts.
7. Whether the imposition of the death penalty on the appellant appropriate, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and whether there were sufficient mitigating factors to warrant a lesser sentence.

 

LEGAL PROVISIONS

1. Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860:

• Section 302 (Murder): Deals with the punishment for murder. If someone is found guilty under this section, the punishment can be either a death sentence or life imprisonment, along with a fine.
• Section 307 (Attempt to Murder): Pertains to the attempt to commit murder. If a person does any act with the intention or knowledge that, if it caused death, they would be guilty of murder, they could be punished with imprisonment up to 10 years, and if the act causes hurt, the punishment could be life imprisonment or such term as directed by the court.
• Section 201 (Causing Disappearance of Evidence of an Offense, or Giving False Information to Screen Offender): Relates to causing the disappearance of evidence or giving false information with the intent to save the offender from legal punishment. The punishment varies depending on the severity of the crime involved, with a possibility of imprisonment for up to seven years and a fine.

2. Indian Evidence Act, 1872:

• Section 27 (Discovery of Facts): This section provides that when any fact is discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of an offense, the fact so discovered may be proved, provided that the accused person must have stated it while in police custody. This provision was used to admit the recovery of the hammer and other items allegedly used in the crime.

3. Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), 1973:

• Section 161 (Examination of Witnesses by Police): Involves the process by which police officers can examine any person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case. Statements taken by police under this section are not admissible as evidence in the trial but can be used for corroboration or contradiction during cross-examination.
• Section 164 (Recording of Confessions and Statements): Provides for the recording of confessions and statements before a magistrate. Statements recorded under this section are given more importance as they are taken in front of a judicial authority, unlike statements taken under Section 161.
• Section 415 (Stay of Execution of Sentence of Death): Relates to the suspension of the death sentence while the appeal process is ongoing. In this case, it allowed the stay of execution of the death sentence until the expiration of the period allowed for preferring an appeal before the higher court.

4. Standards of Proof: The trial court emphasized that the prosecution must prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, adhering to the principle that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The trial court determined that the circumstantial evidence presented created a chain strong enough to exclude reasonable doubt regarding the appellant’s guilt. 

 

CONTENTIONS BY THE APPELLANT

Ms. Payoshi Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant states that the High Court and the trial have made a grave mistake in pronouncing the appellant guilty of the crime under Section 302 of IPC. She submits that the prosecution case mainly rests on the evidence of Madhusudhan Kulkarni (PW-12). And from the testimony of PW-12, it would be clear that his testimony is not sufficient to base the order of conviction.

Firstly, she submits that, the statement of the PW-12 recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. was recorded with delay i.e. after 6 days. She further submits that no explanation was given as to why the statement was not recorded for 6 days. She states that even the testimony of the IO would depict that it was not necessary for the IO to go to the hospital for 6 days to record the statement of PW-12. She further submits that, from the evidence of PW-12, it would also be clear that he has not witnessed the incident. It was also noted that the statement of PW-12 has been recorded by the police after he was informed that an FIR has been registered against the present appellant for committing the murder of his wife, daughter and mother. As such, no credence could be given to the testimony.

Secondly, Ms. Roy submitted that if the testimony of Madhusudhan Kulkarni (PW-12) is discarded, then the only circumstances upon which the prosecution relies are recovery of hammer and clothes at the instance of the present appellant on a memorandum under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872. It is however submitted that the said recoveries are all farcical and cannot be relied on. She therefore requests that the present appeal deserves to be allowed.   

Finally, she submits that, in the event this Court finds that the prosecution has proved that the present appellant has committed the offence, then the death penalty would not be warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. She submits that there are various mitigating circumstances as to be found from the various reports placed on record that the appellant was not a hardened criminal and that there is nothing on record to establish that there is no possibility of the present appellant being reformed.  

 

CONTENTIONS BY THE RESPONDENT

Shri Siddharth Dharmadhikari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State states that both the learned trial court and the High Court have reached a shared conclusion based on the evidence presented to them, affirming that the prosecution has proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt. He submits that the ocular testimony of Madhusudhan Kulkarni (PW-12) also finds additional circumstantial evidences on record against the appellants. 

He says the hammer was recovered from the scene of crime, based on a statement made by the appellant himself, as provided under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. He submits that such evidence discovered due to the statement given to the police might be admissible under that section. Another item, a chhanni (a type of sieve), was also recovered following the appellant’s memorandum under the same section of the Evidence Act, further linking him to the crime. Mr. Dharmadhikari submits that the blood-stained clothes recovered from the scene of the crime is yet another link connecting the appellant to the crime. Finally, Dharmadhikari submits that since PW-12 was an injured witness, his testimony should receive greater importance.

 

JUDGEMENT

In this case, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Vishwajeet Kerba Masalkar. His appeal was allowed and overturning his previous convictions and sentences. The Court set aside the judgments of the High Court delivered on July 23, 2019, in Confirmation Case No. 2 of 2016 and that of the trial court dated August 26, 2016, and August 31, 2016, in Sessions Case No. 64 of 2013. The Court ordered to release Vishwajeet Kerba Masalkar unless he is required for any other case.

The Supreme Court pointed out some crucial flaws regarding evidence and handling of cases. It found the testimony of key witness Madhusudhan Kulkarni (PW-12) to be unreliable due to contradictions and delays in his statement, without any corroboration by other witnesses. The recovery of hammer, blood-stained clothes etc also became doubtful to connect him with crime crimes committed. Further, the Court noted that the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution did not meet the legal standards required to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. And since no other hypotheses were not eliminated, no solid connection of the appellant with the crimes in question could be established by the prosecution.

 

ANALYSIS

The judgment in the case demonstrates the Supreme Court of India’s careful consideration of the evidence, witness credibility, and adherence to the principles governing circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court’s decision to acquit the appellant was based on several critical observations.

There are several serious concerns raised by the Supreme Court with regard to the reliability of the key witness, Madhusudhan Kulkarni (PW-12). The appellate court decided on this, and it rested on the improper recording of Kulkarni’s statement six days after the incident, and since that remained unexplained doubt arose as to its genuineness. Kulkarni’s testimony also had contradictions, mostly about his account of the incident and his identification of the appellant. Non-corroboration from other witnesses made the case very weak for the prosecution. The court, therefore felt that Kulkarni evidence was not sufficient enough to bring in a conviction without another evidence from other sources.

The court highlighted the stringent legal standards required for convictions based on circumstantial evidence. It referred to the “five golden principles” outlined in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, which require that the circumstances be fully established, consistent only with the accused’s guilt, and exclude all other possible explanations. In this case, there was an incomplete or inconclusive chain of evidence that would prove the accused directly involved in committing the offense. Gaps within the evidence gave room for other alternative explanations making it impossible to conclude on guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The Supreme Court even questioned the recovery of the hammer, and the blood-stained clothes as they were recovered from places accessible to the public which in itself raised the suspicion that there might have been a possibility of tampering. The court also questioned the credibility of the evidence due to the conditions under which it was discovered, further undermining the prosecution’s case. 

While the prosecution argued that the appellant’s motive was to marry another woman, the court ruled that motive alone could not justify a conviction in the absence of solid evidence. It stressed that a strong suspicion of motive does not equate to proof beyond reasonable doubt. The court reiterated its stand that concrete evidence would be required for the victim to urge such claims before the court regarding their intentions.

The judgment especially highlighted the principle that suspicion, however valid and strong, could not replace the requirement for proving beyond any reasonable doubt in a criminal case. The Supreme Court reiterated the principle of presumption of innocence, emphasizing an accused must be proved guilty by credible evidence and not on guesswork or speculation. The extra caution the court took on matters arising from capital punishment also speaks to its commitment to upholding the highest standards of justice.

 

CONCLUSION

In its judgment, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, acquitted Vishwajeet Kerba Masalkar of all charges, and set aside the convictions and sentences imposed by the lower courts. The ruling highlighted serious flaws in the prosecution’s handling of evidence and witness testimony, leading to the conclusion that the case against the appellant was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. This decision serves as a critical reminder of the importance of adhering to legal standards in criminal trials, especially in cases that are based on circumstantial evidence and underpins the role of the judiciary in protecting individual rights against wrongful conviction.

 

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

 

WRITTEN BY- TEJASRI RAO