SHIVAJI CHINTAPPA PATIL versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2021] 2 S.C.R. 617 · Decided: 02-03-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.F. NARIMAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2021] 2 S.C.R. 617
617
SHIVAJI CHINTAPPA PATIL
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
(Criminal Appeal No. 1348 of 2013)
MARCH 02, 2021
[R. F. NARIMAN AND B. R. GAVAI, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860: s.302 – Conviction based on circumstantial
evidence – Prosecution case was that the appellant was addicted to
liquor and used to abuse and beat his wife forcing her to get money
from her mother – On the fateful night, the appellant and his wife
went to sleep in their house – Next day morning, when the brother
of the appellant went to call the appellant for going to field for
harvesting crop, appellant informed him that his wife committed
suicide by hanging – Trial court convicted appellant under s.302
and sentenced him to imprisonment for life – High Court upheld the
said order – On appeal, held: The medical expert who conducted
the autopsy admitted that the rope, which was found on the spot,
could have been used for suicidal hanging of the deceased – He
further stated that in case of homicidal strangulation, the bodily
resistance would be reflected – Admittedly, there were no marks on
the body to suggest violence or struggle – In any case, the medical
expert himself did not rule out the possibility of suicidal death – In
the light of this evidence, trial court as well as High Court erred in
holding that the prosecution proved that the death of the deceased
was homicidal – The motive relied on by prosecution was ill-treatment
by the appellant meted out to the deceased for not arranging money
from her mother – PW-3, mother of the deceased stated that appellant
and deceased had been to her house and stayed for four days few
days prior to the incident – This showed that the relations between
the deceased and appellant were cordial – Thus, it was not safe to
rely on the uncorroborated evidence of such a witness – Also,
prosecution sought to rely on the evidence of PW-1 – However, his
evidence was full of improvements and omissions – Even trial court
and High Court disbelieved his evidence – Thus, prosecution utterly
failed to prove motive beyond doubt – As such, an important link to
complete the chain of circumstances was totally absent – Prosecution
failed to prove a single incriminating circumstance beyond
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
618
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 2 S.C.R.
reasonable doubt – Conviction and sentence passed by trial court
as affirmed by High Court is set aside and appellant is acquitted of
all the charges.
Evidence Act, 1872: s.106 – Burden to prove – s.106 does
not directly operate against either a husband or wife staying under
the same roof and being the last person seen with the deceased –
s.106 does not absolve the prosecution of discharging its primary
burden of proving the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt –
It is only when the prosecution has led evidence which, if believed,
will sustain a conviction, or which makes out a prima facie case,
that the question arises of considering facts of which the burden of
proof would lie upon the accused – In the instant case, the
prosecution has even failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that
the death was homicidal.
Criminal law: Motive – Though in a case of direct evidence,
motive would not be relevant, in a case of circumstantial evidence,
motive plays an important link to complete the chain of
circumstances.
Criminal law: False explanation or non-explanation can only
be used as an additional circumstance, when the prosecution has
proved the chain of circumstances leading to no other conclusion
than the guilt of the accused – However, it cannot be used as a link
to complete the chain.
Criminal law: Two views – If two views are possible, the benefit
shall always go to the accused.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. In the instant case, PW-6 examined as a medical
expert, conducted the autopsy along with his senior medical
officer. In the advance death certificate issued on 24th March 2003,
under his signature, the probable cause of death was ‘asphyxia
due to strangulation’. However, in the Post-Mortem Report which
was signed by PW-6 as well as his Senior Medical Officer on 19th
June 2003, the cause of death was ‘cardio respiratory arrest due
to asphyxia due to hanging’. PW-6 admitted, that in both the cases
of suicidal or homicidal hanging, the ligature marks around the
neck shall go upwards ears. He further admitted that after
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
619
consulting his senior medical officer and going through the books,
he concluded that it was a case of hanging. He further admitted,
that 

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