20 March 2024 Evidence >> Criminal Law   |   Kidnapping >> Criminal Law   |   Murder Homicide >> Criminal Law  

In a verdict highlighting the complexities of circumstantial evidence, here convicted Barkya Patil (hereinafter referred to as “Appellant”) of kidnapping and murdering a minor boy, Kuldeep More. The case hinged on witness testimonies, recoveries based on Appellant’s confessions, and the absence of a concrete alibi. Appellant was sentenced to life in prison.

Facts:

The first informant, Dadasaheb Baburao More, his wife Manisha, and their two sons, Kuldeep and Rohit, resided in Bilashi village. On January 25, 2014, at around 7:00 PM, Kuldeep went to the Maruti temple for Darshan but did not return home. Dadasaheb, his friends, Manisha, and their neighbor inquired about Kuldeep in the village but could not find him. They also inquired with Kuldeep’s friends but in vain. At around 11:00 PM, Dadasaheb lodged a missing report for Kuldeep. On January 26, 2014, at around 7:00 AM, Dattatraya Shipekar found Kuldeep’s dead body in an adjacent field. Dattatraya Shipekar informed Dadasaheb and others in the village and then filed a report. A post-mortem examination revealed that Kuldeep died due to acute asphyxia caused by strangulation. The Appellant was arrested under an Arrest Panchnama on January 27, 2014. The Appellant had injuries to his left-hand ring finger and little finger. On January 29, 2014, the Appellant made a disclosure statement and recovered the motorcycle from the house of Ajit Parit. The Appellant also made another disclosure statement on the same day and showed the spot from where he had taken Kuldeep, the route by which he had taken Kuldeep, where he collected the rope, where he parked the motorcycle, where the murder was committed, and where he abandoned Kuldeep’s body. On January 30, 2014, the Appellant gave another disclosure statement and led the police to his house where he recovered his clothes, the rope used in the offense, and an orange bag which Kuldeep was carrying at the time of the incident.

Appellant's Defense:

Appellant argued that the prosecution's case relied solely on circumstantial evidence and did not meet the burden of proof.

Conclusion:

The court disagreed with Appellant’s defense. The judge highlighted that Kuldeep was last seen with Appellant and that Appellant himself had made several incriminating statements. The court found Appellant guilty of kidnapping and murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment.

  Indian Evidence Act, 1872    Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012