Insufficient Circumstantial Evidence: Chain of Circumstances Not Fully Established: Bombay High Court Acquits Two in 2009 Murder Case

99
0
Share:
evidence physical Bail Diamonds Tax civil v Porsche Car withdrawal Railway Financial Teacher Duty Service Property Notification Appointments Industries Film psychological Property damage Bail Room Husband Sarpanch Certificate Employment Children Judicial Central Rape judiciary Ownership driving Railway Workman driving Domestic fraud DV Date bank marital Daughter DRT Sex Educational Loan DVDuty Act child Candidate Section 202 vBail Sister absence Tenancy

In a significant judgment, the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, has acquitted two individuals, Dattatrao @ Bandu Vithalrao Sarje and Amol s/o Narayanrao Patange, in the 2009 murder case of Vishal Balwant Patange. The bench comprising R. G. Avachat and Neeraj P. Dhote, J., held that the prosecution failed to establish a conclusive chain of circumstantial evidence against the appellants.

The court observed, “The prosecution has failed to prove the circumstances so as to form a complete chain which would point towards guilt of the appellants.” This observation was pivotal in the decision to overturn the earlier conviction and life sentence awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hingoli in Sessions Trial No. 45 of 2010.

The case, primarily resting on circumstantial evidence, raised significant questions regarding the ‘last seen theory’ and the discovery of the deceased’s belongings. The court critically analyzed the testimony of PW7 – Pralhad Bapusaheb Patange, who claimed to have seen the deceased last with the appellants. The bench found inconsistencies in the witness’s testimony, noting, “In the light of this evidence of PW 1 – Balwant, the evidence of PW 7 – Pralhad Bapusaheb Patange regarding travelling of deceased Vishal in the Bus, is required to be seen with doubt.”

Furthermore, the recovery of deceased Vishal’s belongings from open places did not conclusively link the appellants to the crime. The court added, “Though the said articles are identified by PW1 Balwant and PW8 Jayabai as that of deceased Vishal, it is strange how three (3) boots can be that of one person i.e., of deceased Vishal.”

The judgment also upheld the trial court’s acquittal of the co-accused, citing a lack of conclusive evidence against them. The bench remarked on the acquittal applications filed by the State and PW1 Balwant, “Sans evidence against the co-accused, the learned Trial Court has rightly acquitted the co-accused.”

 Date of Decision: 30 January 2024

Dattatrao @ Bandu Vithalrao Sarje VS The State of Maharashtra

Download Judgment

Share: