Bombay HC Sets Aside Trial Court Decision Due to Lack of Cogent Evidence

Must Read

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work,...

There Can Be No Leniency Shown To Appellant Who Pleaded To Reduce Sentence: Delhi High Court

Facts On 25.2.2016 the victim’s sister who was 13 years old was present with her sister who was 2 years...

Violation of Executive Instructions Cannot Be Sole Ground to Invalidate Transfer Orders: Tripura High Court

In Dr Bithika Choudhury vs the State of Tripura & Ors., a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra...

Case Regarding Anticipatory Bail, Applicant May Be Released Imposing Suitable Conditions: Gujarat High Court

A Single-Judge Bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Dr Justice A.P. Thakur had been hearing submissions of...

Proof of Infliction of Fatal Injury Not Mandatory for Conviction Under Section 307, IPC: Tripura High Court

In the case of Mamin Miah vs the State of Tripura, a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S....

Bombay High Court Pursues Case Alleging Media Trial, Says NBSA Guidelines Must Be Toothed by Centre

Amid the pleas alleging media trials, the Division Bench had been hearing submissions of the News Broadcasters’ Authority (NBA)....

Follow us

In the case of Ramesh Namdeo Naikwade v. the State of Maharashtra, a division bench of Justice S.S. Shinde and Justice M.S. Karnik of the Bombay High Court held that no basis for conviction is formed on the mere existing suspicion against the accused.

Facts of the Case

The accused in this case preferred an appeal from the trial court after being charged and found guilty under section 302 of IPC guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment with Rs. 1000 fine. The accused was found guilty of murdering the deceased Dagu on 16th May 2013. 

It is the case of the prosecution that on 13th May, the accused, along with two others (A1 & A2), took the deceased to a school area where they beat him to death. The family found the body of the deceased on the next day. After this, the investigation officer collected several pieces of evidence including blood-stained sand, a panchnama, statements of eyewitnesses etc. 

The trial court acquitted the two people i.e. A1 and A2 but convicted the accused. The prosecution supported the findings of the trial court whereas the respondent argued that the evidence was not properly analysed. 

Court’s Observations

The court analysed the evidence based on which the accused was held guilty by the trial court:

  1. PW1: The statement of the wife of the deceased looked weak on the premise that in the cross-examination she said that she was told by Kiran (nephew of the deceased) that the deceased was being taken by the appellant, but the same was not mentioned in her written statement, and no reason was assigned by her for the same. Moreover, she didn’t inform the police or the panchayat on the day of the incident or the next day when they found the body.
  2. PW2: He deposed that the appellant was physically challenged. He informed Kiran that the deceased was being taken by the appellant.
  3. PW3: Balu was considered as an eyewitness in the present case. The strange fact here was that when he reached the spot, he deposed that he saw the deceased being beaten up by the appellant and others, but he didn’t react to it nor did the appellant do anything to him even though both of them were nearby.
  4. PW4: The witness stated that he heard the noise of quarrel but didn’t go there as it was dark. He informed PW 3 about the incident. It is interesting to note here that PW3 deposed that he was told by PW4 that the deceased was being beaten up but PW 4 stated in his statement that since it was dark, he didn’t notice anyone. 

The court observed that the statements were more of a false implication on the appellant as the father of PW 3 lost the gram panchayat elections to the appellant. It looks more like a politically motivated implication. Look at the other pieces of evidence now:

  1. PW8: The doctor who conducted the post-mortem stated that the injuries sustained by the deceased could only have taken place if some weapon was involved.  The prosecution’s case was not that the weapon was used by the appellant. The prosecution also never found a murder weapon. Therefore, the injuries on the deceased cannot be attributed to the appellant. 
  2. The eyewitness statement is also unreliable. Hence, the conviction of the appellant only based on blood-stained clothes cannot remain.
  3. As held by the Apex Court in Bhajan Singh v. the State of Punjab, a conviction cannot take place only based on great suspicion.

Court’s Decision

The Court set aside the conviction of the accused and directed him to deposit a surety of Rs. 15000 as per section 437A of the CrPC.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work, except the drinking water component...

There Can Be No Leniency Shown To Appellant Who Pleaded To Reduce Sentence: Delhi High Court

Facts On 25.2.2016 the victim’s sister who was 13 years old was present with her sister who was 2 years old (victim) at their home....

Violation of Executive Instructions Cannot Be Sole Ground to Invalidate Transfer Orders: Tripura High Court

In Dr Bithika Choudhury vs the State of Tripura & Ors., a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S.G. Chattopadhyay...

Case Regarding Anticipatory Bail, Applicant May Be Released Imposing Suitable Conditions: Gujarat High Court

A Single-Judge Bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Dr Justice A.P. Thakur had been hearing submissions of the Applicant to release him...

Proof of Infliction of Fatal Injury Not Mandatory for Conviction Under Section 307, IPC: Tripura High Court

In the case of Mamin Miah vs the State of Tripura, a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S....

Bombay High Court Pursues Case Alleging Media Trial, Says NBSA Guidelines Must Be Toothed by Centre

Amid the pleas alleging media trials, the Division Bench had been hearing submissions of the News Broadcasters’ Authority (NBA). It prayed that severe restrictions...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as he was aggrieved by the...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence in diagnosing the septicemia and...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Disposes Suit for Possession and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction Due To Mutual Consent

In the case of Parveen Kumar vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Ors, the Petitioner, Parveen had filed a suit for declaration, possession and a permanent prohibitory...

Supreme Court Appoints Committee To Examine Arbitrariness of Sealing of Resorts in Elephant Corridor, Tamil Nadu

A Full Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, in the matter of Hospitality Association of Mudumalai V. In Defence of Environment and Animals...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -