- Case
- AJAY PETER TOPANNU v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (Bombay High Court, 09-01-2025)
- Law
- Code of Criminal Procedure, Indian Evidence Act, Indian Penal Code.
Facts: Ajay Peter Topannu and Mangara Bhikari Barla were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, for the murder of Rajkumar Sahu under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The prosecution alleged that the accused, laborers at Aamby Valley, murdered Rajkumar because he used to tease their wives. The prosecution's case rested on the 'last seen' theory, extra-judicial confessions, and the recovery of the murder weapon (axe) and clothes.
Procedural Posture: The appellants, Ajay Peter Topannu and Mangara Bhikari Barla, filed criminal appeals (No. 801 of 2014 and No. 150 of 2023, respectively) in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, challenging their conviction and sentence.
Issue: Was the prosecution evidence sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants committed the murder of Rajkumar Sahu, justifying their conviction under Section 302 read with 34 of the IPC? Specifically, were the 'last seen' theory and the extra-judicial confessions reliable and voluntary?
Holding: No, the High Court allowed the appeals and acquitted the appellants, setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court.
Reasoning: The High Court found the prosecution's evidence to be insufficient and unreliable. The 'last seen' theory was weakened by the significant time gap between when the accused and deceased were last seen together and when the body was discovered. The Court cited Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy and Another V/s. State of A.P., emphasizing that the 'last seen' theory is only relevant when the time gap is minimal. The extra-judicial confessions were deemed involuntary because the accused were in custody, their hands were tied, and they were surrounded by security personnel. The Court relied on Sahadevan and Another V/s. State of Tamil Nadu, highlighting that extra-judicial confessions are weak evidence requiring corroboration and must be voluntary, truthful, and inspire confidence. The recovery of the axe and clothes was also deemed insignificant as the items were recovered from open places accessible to the public. The Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove every individual circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt and failed to form a complete chain of circumstances proving the guilt of the accused, thus the benefit of doubt was given to the accused.
