Bombay High Court: A petition was filed challenging the order passed by the Sessions Court whereby, the accused was convicted for offence under Section 302 of Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), and sentenced with life imprisonment based on the testimony of the sister of deceased and other circumstantial evidence. The Division Bench of Bharati Dangre* and Nivedita P. Mehta, JJ., held that the it was a classic case where the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused, as there were several inconsistencies in the testimony of primary witness i.e. the sister of deceased, and there was no other cogent evidence to connect the accused with the crime, except the inadmissible extra-judicial made by him to the police.
The Court opined that the Sessions Court was in complete ignorance of principles of criminal justice as the benefit of doubt was not given to the accused when the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the Court quashed and set aside the said order and directed for immediate release for the accused.
Background
The deceased was a 20-year-old, student from Talpona, Cancona, who had recently returned from Pune on 22-12-2016. While the deceased was in Pune, she contacted her mother on 13-12-2016 informing that a 29-year-old fisherman (accused), who lived near her house, had threatened to kill her. Between 16-12-2016 and 18-12-2016, the accused had visited her house multiple times, expressing his desire to be with the deceased. The accused also threatened to commit suicide if he could not be with the deceased. On 23-12-2016, the deceased left her uncle’s house in the morning informing her family that she was going to Margao for some college related work, and would return at lunch time, but she never came back.
On 23-12-2016, the deceased’s sister received certain phone calls and text messages from the accused, indicating that he and the deceased would be “finished” at Talpona and Cabo-de-Rama fort respectively. The messages also contained allegation about the deceased being involved in sexual work and mentioned that they had been in a fight. Later, when the deceased could not be found, her family even visited the accused’s house, but he was not present there at the time.
On 24-12-2025, after several unsuccessful attempts to contact the deceased, the mother filed a missing person complaint at the Police Station. Later that day, the police received an information that led them to Cabo-ed-Rama fort, where the body of the deceased was found, which was identified by her father. The body was sent to the post-mortem which revealed that she had died from asphyxia, due to strangulation. Consequently, the accused was arrested, wherein he made extra-judicial confession to the police, that he had killed the deceased after the heated argument at the fort. Therefore, the charge-sheet was filed in the Sessions Court.
The accused was charged under Section 302 of IPC and was punished with imprisonment for life and payment of fine of Rs.50,000, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two years, by the Sessions Court. The said conviction was based on the evidence of the prosecution and by recording that there was strong motive for the accused to kill the deceased.
Aggrieved by the said order the accused filed an appeal before the present Court.
Analysis, Law and Decision
The Court observed that the key witness of the prosecution was the deceased’s sister, but her testimonies were not trustworthy. This was substantiated by the Court by pointing out numerous inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimonies given by her. Her call data records (CDRs) revealed that she had been in contact with the accused through multiple calls and messages on various dates in the month of December, contrary to her testimony wherein, she stated that, she never received any call or message from the accused’s phone number.
The Court noted that despite receiving multiple messages from the accused about the fact that the deceased was not alive, she took no immediate action, nor did she inform the police about the same. She rather accompanied her mother to file the missing complaint the next day.
The Court stated that the last seen evidence given by a witness, could also not be relied upon as he had admitted that when he saw the deceased with the accused, her face was covered, therefore, he could not identify her. This made his testimony insufficient to establish that it was the deceased with the accused when he saw him.
The Court further noted that the prosecution failed to produce the deceased’s phone. Additionally, there was no forensic evidence which could tie the accused with the crime. Thus, the Court opined that there was no doubt that apart from the inadmissible extra-judicial confession of the accused, there was no cogent evidence which could establish that the accused was guilty, beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court, therefore, observed several critical flaws in the prosecution’s case. The Court applied the 5 golden principles established by the Supreme Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116, which specified that the circumstances which had established that the circumstances needed to be fully established, should be consistent with the guilt, should be conclusive in nature, should be able to exclude other hypothesis and should form a complete chain of events with the help of those circumstantial evidences.
The Court also observed that the reasoning adopted by the Sessions Court was in complete ignorance of principles of criminal jurisprudence. The burden lies on the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt but in if the presentation of the prosecution’s case results into any doubt, the benefit must be given to the accused which was not considered by the Sessions Court in its order. Additionally, it was also pointed out by the Court that the Sessions Court had could not have considered the testimony given by the accused under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 as incriminating when he had only pleaded not guilty without expressing his version of the incident. Thus, it was observed that the Trial Court had only punished the accused persuaded by the feelings of the parents of the deceased and because that the crime committed was heinous in nature.
Accordingly, the Court held that it was a classic case where the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused as there were several inconsistencies in the testimony of their primary witness and there was no other cogent evidence to connect the accused with the crime, except the extra-judicial made by him to the police, which was inadmissible as per the provisions of the Evidence Act, 1872. Even though the accused was a person with motive in the instant case, the prosecution was unable to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, the Court quashed and set aside the order passed by the Session Court and ordered for immediate release for the accused.
[Vijeyendra v. State of Maharasthra, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 3174, decided on 10-9-2025]
*Judgement authored by- Justice Bharati Dangre
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Advocate for the Petitioner- Rohan Desai with Mr. Pranav Phatak, Advocates
Advocate for the Respondents- S.G. Bhobe, Public Prosecutor
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
