25 July 2024 Acquittal >> Criminal Law   |   Criminal Appeals & Suspension of Sentence >> Criminal Law  

In a recent judgment Manharan Rajwade v/s State of Chhattisgarh, the court overturned the conviction of an appellant who had been sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of his wife, Geeta. The case primarily rested on the prosecution's reliance on the theory of "last seen together," but the evidence failed to substantiate this claim, leading to the appellant's acquittal.

Case Background:

The appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with murder. The prosecution alleged that the appellant had strangled his wife, Geeta, and her body was discovered in their home at approximately 5:00 p.m. on the day of the incident. The crux of the prosecution's argument was that the appellant and the deceased were last seen together, thereby establishing the appellant's guilt.

Prosecution's Argument:

The prosecution's case hinged on the theory of last seen together. They argued that, given the appellant's failure to discharge the burden placed on him by Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act (Evidence Act), his conviction should be upheld. The prosecution presented two witnesses, Sonawati (PW-1) and Hirmaniabai (PW-2), to support their claim.

However, the prosecution's case faced significant challenges. PW-1's testimony was inconsistent with the prosecution's narrative. She stated that she found Geeta unresponsive but alive when she visited the appellant’s house. Furthermore, PW-1 testified that the appellant had been away, working on crushing stones, and returned home only at 7:00 p.m., two hours after Geeta was found dead. PW-2, another witness, was declared hostile and provided no relevant information about the appellant's presence near the time of Geeta’s death.

Defense's Position:

The defense argued that the prosecution had failed to establish the theory of last seen together. They highlighted the lack of evidence proving the appellant’s presence in the house at the relevant time and pointed out that the appellant’s statement during his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC) was consistent with his claim of arriving home only after his wife had already passed away.

Judicial Consideration:

The court critically analyzed the evidence provided. It found that the prosecution had not substantiated its key argument—the last seen theory. The evidence from PW-1 contradicted the prosecution's claim, as she testified that the appellant was not present at home when Geeta was found. Additionally, PW-2’s hostile testimony further weakened the prosecution’s case. The court noted that for Section 106 of the Evidence Act to be invoked, the prosecution must present solid evidence proving the appellant's presence at the crime scene. Since this was not achieved, the burden could not shift to the appellant.

Verdict:

Given the prosecution’s failure to establish the key circumstances of the case and the lack of direct evidence connecting the appellant to the crime, the court concluded that the appellant could not be held guilty of murder. Consequently, the earlier judgments were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted. The court directed that the appellant be released immediately unless his detention was required for any other case.

Conclusion:

The acquittal of the appellant underscores the importance of concrete evidence in criminal cases. Without a reliable foundation for the theory of last seen together or any other incriminating evidence, the conviction could not stand. This case highlights the judiciary's role in ensuring that convictions are based on solid and verifiable evidence, upholding the principle of justice.

  Indian Evidence Act, 1872