Blog

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 549 OF 2016

INTRODUCTION

The High Court of Bombay- passed a judgement on 14 June 2023. In the case of RAJESHWAR MAROTRAO BIRADAR Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 549 OF 2016 which was passed by a single bench comprising of HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE V. V. KANKANWADI, HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, an appellant convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is challenging the decision of the trial court. The appellant asserts that the judgment is illegal, perverse, and unsustainable in the eyes of the law. The case revolves around the death of Ujwala, the appellant’s wife, and the prosecution’s reliance on circumstantial evidence to establish the appellant’s guilt. This blog post examines the key arguments presented by both the appellant and the state, evaluates the strength of the circumstantial evidence, and analyses the relevant laws in the case.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The case originated from an incident where Ujwala was initially admitted to a hospital due to convulsions following a reported fall from a bed. However, her condition worsened, and she eventually passed away. Upon receiving the autopsy report, which indicated death due to smothering and manual strangulation, the police registered a case against the appellant and conducted an investigation. The trial court subsequently found the appellant guilty of Ujwala’s murder under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment. Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) states that whoever commits murder shall be punished with either death penalty or imprisonment for life, along with the possibility of a fine.

APPELLANT’S SUBMISSIONS

The appellant’s counsel argued that the prosecution’s case was based solely on circumstantial evidence, as there were no direct eyewitnesses. The counsel contended that the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that Ujwala’s death was homicidal, as the medical evidence presented conflicting opinions on the cause of death. The appellant’s counsel further claimed that the prosecution did not provide any evidence to establish a motive for the alleged murder. The counsel also criticized the trial court for relying on Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act to hold the appellant solely responsible for Ujwala’s death without adequately establishing the primary burden of proving homicidal death.

STATE’S SUBMISSIONS

On behalf of the state, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor defended the trial court’s judgment. The prosecutor emphasized that the appellant was the only person present with Ujwala when she died, making him the prime suspect. The prosecutor argued that it was the appellant’s responsibility to provide a plausible explanation for his wife’s death while she was under his custody. The state maintained that the appellant’s failure to discharge this burden further strengthened the case against him.

ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGMENT

As the first appellate court, the task at hand is to re-evaluate the evidence presented in the trial court and determine whether the prosecution’s reliance on circumstantial evidence was sufficient to establish the appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court referred to various landmark cases and relevant laws to establish the principles that should guide the evaluation of circumstantial evidence.

Regarding the cause of death, the court examined the medical evidence provided by the treating doctors and the autopsy report. The court noted that there were conflicting opinions among the medical experts, with some indicating smothering and others pointing to manual strangulation. The court highlighted the absence of ligature marks on the deceased’s neck and the difficulty in reconciling the simultaneous occurrence of smothering and manual strangulation. These inconsistencies raised doubts about the accuracy of the medical conclusions.

Furthermore, the court emphasized that the prosecution failed to establish a clear motive for the alleged murder. In a circumstantial evidence-based case, it is crucial for the prosecution to establish a motive to strengthen the chain of circumstances. Without a motive, the court found it difficult to draw conclusive inferences against the appellant.

CONCLUSION

Upon careful examination of the evidence and arguments presented, the court found that the prosecution’s case was weak and the circumstantial evidence did not firmly establish the appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court observed significant inconsistencies in the medical evidence and noted the absence of a motive. In light of these factors, the court concluded that the trial court’s judgment was unsustainable in the eyes of the law. The appellant’s conviction was overturned, and he was acquitted of all charges.

In summary, this case demonstrates the importance of scrutinizing circumstantial evidence and evaluating it in accordance with the established legal principles. The burden of proof rests with the prosecution, and a conviction cannot be solely based on conjecture or assumptions. The judgment serves as a reminder of the fundamental principles of justice and the need for a fair and robust legal process.

“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

Click here to view judgement