STATE OF GOA versus SUBHASH GHOGLE

Citation: [2008] 15 S.C.R. 33 · Decided: 21-10-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 15 S.C.R. 33 
i 
STATE OF GOA 
A 
II. 
SUBHASH GHOGLE 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1107 of 2002) 
OCTOBER 21, 2008 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, C.K. THAKKER AND 
LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302 - Murder- Prosecution case 
that death by strangulation - Reliance on circum~tantial c 
evidence -
Conviction uls. 302 and imposition of life 
imprisonment - However, acquitted by High Court -On 
appeal, held: High Court rightly held that the evidence was 
insufficient, thus, prosecution failed to establish accusations 
- Evidence - Circumstantial evidence. 
D 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 1107 of 2002. 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 1.7.2002 of the 
E 
High Court of Bombay at Goa in Criminal Appeal No. 70 of 
2000. 
A. Subhashini for the Appellant. 
J.K. Mahapatra, Amit Singh, Aruneshwar Gupta, Prashant 
F 
Kumar and Triveni Potekar for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Challenge in this appeal is to 
the judgement of acquittal passed by a Division Bench of 
G 
Bombay High Court at Goa. 
The Learned Additional Session Judge, Mapusa had 
convicted the respondent for offence punishable under Section 
33 
H 
34 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 15 S.C.R. 
A 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC'). The 
allegation was that on the night of 4th January, 1999 the 
respondent herein had killed Smt. Bendita Parriera (hereinafter 
referred to as 'the deceased') by strangulation. The prosecution 
relied upon circumstantial evidence to further its version. The 
B Trial Court found that the circumstances were sufficient to fasten 
the guilt on the accused and accordingly convicted him and 
sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. In appeal, the 
High Court found thatthe circumstances highlighted were not 
sufficient to hold the accused guilty 'and, therefore, directed 
c acquittal. 
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted with reference 
to the evidence of PWs 5 and 9, that their evidence was 
sufficient to hold the respondent guilty. 
D 
Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand 
E 
F 
G 
supported the judgement of the High Court. 
The circumstances highlighted by the prosecution are as 
follows: 
"1. 
The relations between the appellant/accused and 
the deceased were strained and the strained 
relations furnishes a motive. 
2. 
The appellant/accused used to usually stay in the 
company of the deceased on the first floor of the 
hotel. 
3. 
The appellant/accused and the deceased were 
alone on the first floor at about 11.30 P.M. This 
circumstances emerges from the evidence of P.ws·. 
9 and 10. 
4. 
Shouts of quarrels were heard from the first floor by 
P.Ws. 5, 9arid
110. 
H 
5. 
The appellant/accused has not offered any 
STATE OF GOA v. SUBHASH GHOGLE 
35 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.) 
explanation regarding his presence at 11.30 P.M. 
A 
on the first floor . 
. 
6. 
Both the doors were initially found closed by the 
witnesses and later on P.W.9 noticed the rear door 
to be opened. Thus an inference can be drawn that 8 
the accused had escaped from the rear door after 
committing the crime. 
7. 
Death is homicidal. 
8. 
Injury on the accused is consistent with the c 
prosecution case and which is not explained by the 
accused. 
9. 
Statement made by the accused to P .W.1 when he 
was being examined. 
10. 
Blood of 'B' group found on the wristwatch, which 
was identified to be that of the appellant/accused. 
11. 
The false defence taken by the accused furnishes 
the additional link." 
So far as some of the circumstances are concerned they 
have no relevance to be question as to whether the respondent 
_.... 
. was guilty of the charged offence. The prosecution primarily 
D 
E 
relied on the evidence of PWs 5,9 and 10. So far as the 
evidence of these witnesses are concerned the only question(s) 
F 
of any remote substance out of the questions which were put 
to the accused in the examination under Section 313 of the 
Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (in short the Code) are as 
follows: 
"Q.35:-
It is in evidence of PW5 that in front of his STD 
booth there is Lobster pot bar and restaurant run 
by you and one Bernadette ~nd during night time 
he presumed that you and her were staying in 
G 
the said restaurant on the first floor. What do you 
H 
36 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 15 S.C.R. 
r 
A 
want to say? 
Q.45:-
It is in the evidence of PW.9 that at l]lid night at 
12.30 he heard the noise of fights betwe
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.