INTRODUCTION:
The High Court of Bombay- Aurangabad Bench passed a judgement on 05 June 2023. In the case of SALIM BABU KHAN vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 214 OF 2023 which was passed by a division bench comprising of HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE V. V. KANKANWADI and HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, the learned Sessions Judge, Jalna acquitted the accused in a case involving the commission of an offense under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The original informant/appellant, dissatisfied with the acquittal, has filed an appeal invoking the provisions of Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). In this blog, we will delve into the facts of the case, examine the rival submissions, and analyse the evidence presented in the trial court.
FACTS IN BRIEF:
The appellant, who is also the original informant, approached the Kadim Jalna Police Station with a complaint alleging that the accused, a truck driver, was married to his daughter Shama. It was further alleged that the accused maintained an extramarital affair with another woman, leading to frequent quarrels between the accused and the deceased. On November 3, 2020, the accused husband allegedly poured diesel on his wife and set her on fire, resulting in her death. The appellant filed an FIR under Sections 302, 201, and 120-B read with Section 34 of the IPC.
Trial Proceedings and Judgment: Both accused were charge-sheeted and tried in the Sessions Court. The prosecution presented eight witnesses and relied on documentary evidence. However, after examining the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Sessions Judge reached the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove the existence of a criminal conspiracy between the accused to commit the murder. Consequently, the accused persons were acquitted of all charges. Dissatisfied with this judgment, the appellant has now appealed against it.
LAWS INVOLVED:
- Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Section 302 deals with the offense of murder. It states that whoever commits murder shall be punished with life imprisonment or the death penalty. Murder is defined as the intentional and unlawful killing of a person with the knowledge that such an act is likely to cause death or with the intention to cause grievous harm that is likely to result in death.
- Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Section 201 pertains to the offense of causing the disappearance of evidence. It states that whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offense has been committed, intentionally causes the evidence of the offense to disappear, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term that may extend to seven years, along with a possible fine.
- Section 120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Section 120-B deals with criminal conspiracy, while Section 34 pertains to acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. When these sections are read together, it means that if two or more persons conspire to commit an offense and if an act is done by them in furtherance of the common intention of all, each person is held liable as if they had committed the offense individually.
RIVAL SUBMISSIONS:
The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the deceased had informed her father about the extramarital affair and the frequent quarrels between her and the accused husband. It was alleged that the accused conspired to eliminate the deceased due to her objections to the affair. The counsel argued that the circumstances at the scene of the incident indicated murder and not accidental or suicidal death. The counsel further highlighted the testimonies of corroborative witnesses and criticized the trial court for not waiting for the forensic reports, which were crucial pieces of evidence.
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGMENT:
The appellate court carefully examined the submissions and the material placed before the trial court. It observed that the prosecution’s case primarily relied on the oral evidence of witnesses and documentary evidence such as panchanama and post-mortem reports. However, upon closer scrutiny, the court found several shortcomings in the prosecution’s case.
Firstly, the court noted that the prosecution failed to establish a firm and cogent motive behind the occurrence. The appellant himself could not provide a reason for the quarrels between the accused and the deceased. His testimony also contained inconsistencies and improvements, weakening the prosecution’s case.
Secondly, there was no substantial evidence of a conspiracy between the accused. Mere presence of one accused in the house does not implicate them in the crime. Additionally, the medical evidence was inconclusive about whether the death was homicidal, suicidal, or accidental.
Furthermore, the court highlighted the lack of an eyewitness to the incident, as the case relied solely on circumstantial evidence. In cases based on circumstantial evidence, it is crucial for the prosecution to prove all circumstances beyond reasonable doubt. Unfortunately, the prosecution failed to meet this burden, leaving room for alternative possibilities.
CONCLUSION:
Based on the analysis of the evidence and submissions, the appellate court rejected the appeal and upheld the judgment of the trial court. It emphasized the prosecution’s failure to establish a clear motive, a conspiracy between the accused, and the presence of conclusive evidence. The judgment serves as a reminder of the importance of meeting the burden of proof in criminal cases, especially when relying on circumstantial evidence. Additionally, it underscores the necessity of a strong and cohesive prosecution case supported by relevant laws such as Sections 120-B, 302, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).
“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.”
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY VETHIKA D PORWAL, BMS COLLEGE OF LAW
