High Court Acquits Appellant in Murder Case Due to Insufficient Circumstantial Evidence and Unproven Extra Judicial Confession. Conviction Under Sections 302 and 201 IPC Set Aside

Sub Category: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY
  • 12
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The High Court allowed the criminal appeal filed by Appellant challenging his conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC and destruction of evidence under Section 201 IPC. The Court found that the prosecution's case based on circumstantial evidence was insufficient as it failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances pointing unequivocally to the appellant's guilt. Key circumstances including motive, extra judicial confession, last seen together theory, and recovery of blood-stained clothes were not conclusively proved. The Court emphasized that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove all circumstances beyond reasonable doubt and the chain must be complete without any missing links. Since the prosecution failed to meet this standard, the appellant was given benefit of doubt and acquitted.

Headnote

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay -- Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction -- Criminal Appeal No. 705 of 2012 -- Appellant Ashok Shankar Mhatre challenged conviction under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 201 of IPC -- The Appellant was convicted by Additional Sessions Judge, Vasai in Sessions Case No. 48 of 2010 -- The Court examined whether circumstantial evidence formed complete chain pointing to guilt -- The Court found prosecution failed to prove motive, extra judicial confession, last seen together theory, and recovery of evidence -- The Court held evidence insufficient to sustain conviction -- The Appeal allowed -- Conviction set aside -- Appellant acquitted

Issue of Consideration: The Issue of whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt based on circumstantial evidence

Final Decision

The Appeal allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed by Additional Sessions Judge, Vasai in Sessions Case No. 48 of 2010 set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges. Bail bonds cancelled.

 

 

2026 LawText (BOM) (02) 29

Criminal Appeal No. 705 of 2012

2026-02-05

Manish Pitale J. , Shreeram V. Shirsat J.

2026:BHC-AS:6028-DB

Mr. D.S Mhaispurkar a/w Mr. H.S. Pawaskar, Mr. R.S. Patil i/b Mr. Ashish Sawant for Appellant, Ms. Sangita E. Phad, APP for Respondent/State

Ashok Shankar Mhatre

The State of Maharashtra

Nature of Litigation: Criminal appeal against conviction for murder and destruction of evidence

Remedy Sought

Appellant seeking acquittal and setting aside of conviction

Filing Reason

Challenging impugned judgment and order dated 05.05.2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Vasai

Previous Decisions

Appellant convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine, and under Section 201 IPC sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 3 years with fine

Issues

Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt based on circumstantial evidence Whether the circumstantial evidence formed a complete chain pointing unequivocally to the appellant's guilt

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant's counsel argued prosecution failed to prove motive, extra judicial confession was weak evidence, last seen together not conclusively proved, recovery of clothes from open place had limited value State's counsel argued prosecution established case through circumstantial evidence including extra judicial confession and recovery of evidence

Ratio Decidendi

In cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove all circumstances beyond reasonable doubt and the chain of circumstances must be complete without any missing links. Extra judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence requiring corroboration. When prosecution fails to establish complete chain of circumstances, benefit of doubt must be given to the accused.

Judgment Excerpts

The Appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) and has been sentenced to suffer Life Imprisonment The case is based on circumstantial evidence and the circumstances that have been taken into consideration are the circumstances of motive, extra judicial confession, the theory of last seen together, call details of the deceased, recovery of blood stained clothes Extra Judicial Confession has come by way of omission and therefore no reliance can be placed on such an Extra Judicial Confession, which is otherwise a weak piece of evidence

Procedural History

FIR registered as C.R. No. I-8 of 2010 at Virar Police Station -- Investigation conducted by Local Crime Branch, Vasai Unit -- Appellant arrested on 31.01.2010 -- Chargesheet filed -- Case committed to Sessions Court -- Trial conducted as Sessions Case No. 48 of 2010 -- Appellant convicted on 05.05.2012 -- Appeal filed in High Court on 21.06.2012 -- Appeal heard and reserved on 13.01.2026 -- Judgment pronounced on 05.02.2026

Related Judgement
High Court High Court Acquits Appellant in Murder Case Due to Insufficient Circumstantial E...
Related Judgement
High Court Court Nullifies Government Permission for New Law College, Cites Procedural Flaw...