Cruelty Need Not Be Physical: Mental Agony and Emotional Distress Are Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: Supreme Court Section 195 Cr.P.C. | Tribunals Are Not Courts: Private Complaints for Offences Like False Evidence Valid: Supreme Court Limitation | Right to Appeal Is Fundamental, Especially When Liberty Is at Stake: Supreme Court Condones 1637-Day Delay FIR Quashed | No Mens Rea, No Crime: Supreme Court Emphasizes Protection of Public Servants Acting in Good Faith Trademark | Passing Off Rights Trump Registration Rights: Delhi High Court A Minor Procedural Delay Should Not Disqualify Advances as Export Credit When Exports Are Fulfilled on Time: Bombay HC Preventive Detention Must Be Based on Relevant and Proximate Material: J&K High Court Terrorism Stems From Hateful Thoughts, Not Physical Abilities: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail of Alleged ISIS Conspiracy Forwarding Offensive Content Equals Liability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Post Against Women Journalists Investigation by Trap Leader Prejudiced the Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Conviction in PC Case VAT | Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Cannot Reopen Assessment: Kerala High Court Absence of Receipts No Barrier to Justice: Madras High Court Orders Theft Complaint Referral Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C Rajasthan High Court Emphasizes Rehabilitation, Grants Probation to 67-Year-Old Convicted of Kidnapping" P&H High Court Dismisses Contempt Petition Against Advocate Renuka Chopra: “A Frustrated Outburst Amid Systemic Challenges” Kerala High Court Criticizes Irregularities in Sabarimala Melsanthi Selection, Orders Compliance with Guidelines Non-Payment of Rent Does Not Constitute Criminal Breach of Trust: Calcutta High Court Administrative Orders Cannot Override Terminated Contracts: Rajasthan High Court Affirms in Landmark Decision Minimum Wage Claims Must Be Resolved by Designated Authorities Under the Minimum Wages Act, Not the Labour Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court Madras High Court Confirms Equal Coparcenary Rights for Daughters, Emphasizes Ancestral Property Rights Home Station Preferences Upheld in Transfer Case: Kerala High Court Overrules Tribunal on Teachers' Transfer Policy Failure to Formally Request Cross-Examination Does Not Invalidate Assessment Order: Calcutta High Court

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

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


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

 

Similar News