AMBADAS S/O. SHRIPATI JADHAV AND ORS v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
Conviction Set Aside: Insufficient Circumstantial Evidence and Flawed Identification Parade Fail to Prove Guilt in Double Murder and Robbery Case.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:56961-DB
Decision Date: 09-12-2025
List of Laws
The Indian Penal Code, 1860; The Indian Evidence Act, 1872; Circumstantial Evidence; Test Identification Parade
- Facts: Four individuals were convicted by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Pune, for the murder of two elderly women, Smita Patki and Sulabha Pachapurkar, and for house trespass with intent to commit an offense punishable with death, along with robbery. The prosecution's case rested on circumstantial evidence, alleging the accused committed the crimes with the intention of robbing the victims. The victims were found murdered in their home, and gold ornaments were missing.
- Procedural Posture: The High Court heard three criminal appeals (811/2015, 1016/2024, and 215/2024) filed by the convicted individuals challenging the judgment and order of the Sessions Court.
- Issue: Did the prosecution adequately prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt based on the circumstantial evidence presented, particularly considering the lack of conclusive evidence and inconsistencies in witness testimonies?
- Holding: No, the High Court held that the prosecution failed to discharge the burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The convictions and sentences imposed by the trial court were deemed unsustainable in law and were set aside.
- Reasoning: The Court found that the prosecution's case, based on circumstantial evidence, was weak and lacked conclusive proof. The Court emphasized that for a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, the facts must be conclusively established, leaving no other reasonable conclusion than the guilt of the accused. The Court noted inconsistencies in the testimonies of key witnesses, including doubts about their identification of the accused and the lack of a clear connection between the recovered ornaments and the deceased. The Court also criticized the Test Identification Parade, stating that it was conducted improperly and after a significant delay, diminishing its credibility. The Court stated, "In light of the aforesaid, since the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused, and in absence of the burden being discharged by the prosecution, to establish the circumstances, one leading to the other, and ultimately the accused being connected to the death of the two women, we do not find the conviction and the sentence imposed upon the accused persons to be sustainable in law." The Court also considered the lengthy imprisonment already served by the accused.
🔒 For Members Only