LexaceLexace Ask the AI ›
โš–๏ธ Ask the AI about your situation:๐Ÿš— Car Accident๐Ÿ’ผ Work / Job๐Ÿ  Housing / Eviction๐Ÿ‘ช Family / Divorce๐Ÿ“‹ Contract Dispute๐Ÿ’ฐ Money Owed

NILESH BABURAO GITTE versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2025] 11 S.C.R. 37 · Decided: 07-10-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.V. VISWANATHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 11 S.C.R. 37 : 2025 INSC 1191
Nilesh Baburao Gitte 
v. 
State of Maharashtra
(Criminal Appeal No. 1471 of 2013)
07 October 2025
[K.V. Viswanathan* and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Appellant was convicted for matricide-killing of oneโ€™s own mother.  
By the present appeal, the appellant calls in question the correctness 
of the judgment of the High Court.
Headnotesโ€ 
Penal Code, 1860 โ€“ s.302 โ€“ Matricide-killing of oneโ€™s own 
mother โ€“ Prosecution case that Police received an unknown 
call informing that there was a doubtful death โ€“ Police reached 
the spot โ€“ Last rites of the dead body was hurriedly carried 
out โ€“ The body was inspected and it was found that there was 
strangulation mark on the neck and injury on the backside of 
skull with blood oozing โ€“ Body was removed from the pyre 
and inquest was carried out โ€“ Chargesheet was filed against 
two persons: appellant and one B โ€“ Trial Court convicted 
both the accused โ€“ However, the High Court acquitted B and 
conviction of appellant was maintained โ€“ Correctness:
Held: The evidence of PW-8-Deputy Superintendent of Police 
reveals that she received a call from an unknown person, however, 
no efforts were made to track down the said person to elicit more 
details โ€“ No leads from the crowd, who gathered there, were picked 
out and nobody was examined in Court โ€“ There is no evidence 
to show that the present appellant was present at the site of the 
first attempted cremation, or any of the relatives of the deceasedย โ€“ 
The doctor-PW-6 opined that the cause of death was asphyxia by 
strangulation โ€“ There was no ligature mark from the back side of 
the neck โ€“ During cross-examination, the doctor clearly deposed 
that the absence of ligature mark on the back side of neck is 
possible in case of hanging โ€“ He further deposed that in case 
of strangulation; the ligature mark should be present all around 
the neck โ€“ He further deposed that that the imprint injury of the 
*โ€ƒAuthor
38
[2025] 11 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
nylon rope is possible in case of hanging as there were weight 
and force of body โ€“ A document also reveals that deceased was 
treated for relapsed schizophrenia โ€“ Based on the deposition of Dr. 
PW-6 examined by the prosecution, a serious doubt arises as to 
whether at all the deceased died a homicidal death โ€“ There is no 
definite medical opinion and in view of the considerable ambiguity 
in the evidence of PW-6, death by suicide, cannot be said to be 
completely ruled out โ€“ Besides that, on same evidence, the High 
Court has acquitted B โ€“ Also, there is nothing on record to show 
that appellant resided with deceased โ€“ PW-9-Investigating Officer 
stated that appellant was residing in the house of M on rental 
basis โ€“ Further, the evidence of PW-2 is also contradictory to the 
evidence of PW-9 insofar as the travel to the place of recovery is 
concerned โ€“ All this present a very unsatisfactory state of affairsย โ€“ 
As far as angle of property is concerned, it has come on record 
that the appellant has his father as well as two sisters who are 
alive โ€“ It is not as if that the property would, on the death of the 
deceased, immediately devolve on the appellant in the event of 
the alleged murder by him going undetected โ€“ The courts below 
have fallen into a serious error in convicting the appellant on 
the basis of the evidence on record โ€“ For the reasons stated 
above, appellant is acquitted of all charges framed against him. 
[Paras 28, 29, 31-34, 38, 40, 49, 53, 56, 57]
Case Law Cited
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [1985] 1 
SCR 88ย : (1984) 4 SCC 116; Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of 
Maharashtra [2006] Supp. 7 SCR 156 : (2006) 10 SCC 681 โ€“ 
relied on.
Ramaiah alias Rama v. State of Karnataka [2014] 7 SCR 995 : 
(2014) 9 SCC 365; Shambu Nath Mehra v. The State of Ajmer 
[1956] 1 SCR 199; Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh [1952] 
1 SCR 1091 : (1952) 2 SCC 71 โ€“ referred to.
Books and Periodicals Cited
Modiโ€™s Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology (Twenty Third 
Edition) โ€“ referred to.
List of Acts
Penal Code, 1860; Evidence Act, 1872; Code of Criminal Procedure, 
1973; Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
[2025] 11 S.C.R. 
39
Nilesh Baburao Gitte v. State of Maharashtra
List of Keywords
Matricide-killing of oneโ€™s own mother; Strangulation marks on neck; 
Injury on back side of skull; Motive; Discovery u/s.27 of Evidence 
Act; Recovery of nylon rope; Circumstantial evidence; Asphyxia 
due to strangulation; Ligature mark; S

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.