Case: State Of Goa Vs. Subhash Ghogle

The Learned Additional Session Judge, Mapusa had convicted the respondent for offence punishable under Section 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 Perriera (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) by strangulation. The prosecution relied upon circumstantial evidence to further its version. The 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 forappeal, the High Court found that the circumstances highlighted were not sufficient to hold the accused guilty and, therefore, directed acquittal.

Reasoning: 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 relied on the evidence of PWs 5,9 and 10. So far as the evidence of these witnesses are concerned the only question(s) 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 asIt 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 and during night time he presumed that you and her were staying in the said restaurant on the first floor. What do you want to say?Q.45:- It is in the evidence of PW.9 that at mid night at 12.30 he heard the noise of fights between you and Madam Pereira and Madam Pereira shouting and calling him as John. He stated that she was calling him John. He heard her shouts "John help me". What do you want todo not in any way relate to any incriminating material against thefar as PW-10 is concerned his evidence is really of no assistance to the prosecution. They related primarily to the engagement of persons in the restaurant. He has only stated that he heard some noise from outside and heard gagging sound of the deceased on the first floor of theview of the insufficiency of the evidence, as rightly noted by the High Court, the prosecution has failed to establish the accusations, so far as the respondent is concerned.The judgment of acquittal passed by the High Court does not suffer from infirmity to warrant interference.