Case: State of Maharashtra Vs. Ratan

2. The prosecution case is that victimSachin Hazare was the son ofHazare. Relations between the respondent and Laxmibai were strained. On 23.05.1999,A.S.I., Police Station, M.I.D.C. Area, Latur came to know that a dead body of a boy was floating in the well in the premises of Dayanand College, Latur. Hence,registered A.D.No.21 of 1999 on the strength of report lodged by Peon of Dayanand College, Latur. This witness went to the spot and recorded inquest panchanama of the dead body vide Exh.14. He recorded spot panchanama (Exh.13) and sent dead body to Civil Hospital, Latur for postmortem. He recorded statements of the witnesses. The dead body was identified byin the Civil Hospital. Thenlodged report against the respondent in Police Station, M.I.D.C. Area, Latur, thatand original accused No.2 and Uttam had taken her son, namely, Sachin towards Dayanand College, Latur and they committed his murder by throwing him in the well. Deceased Sachin died because of drowning. The respondent and original accused No.2 are sons of original accused No.3Babu Kasabe. On the strength of said report,P.S.I., registered Offence vide Crime No.63 of 1999 against the original accused under sections 363, 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "I.P.C."). He recorded the statements of the witnesses. During the course of investigation, he came to know that the original accused No.2 Uttam Kasabe used to give threats toand her husband. The accused were threateningthat they would commit murder of any member of her family. Thus, P.W.S.I. Budhwant came to the conclusion thatsuspected in the report that the accused must have committed murder of her sonSachin. After completion of investigation, the P.S.O., Police Station, M.I.D.C. Area, Latur submitted charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under sections 363, 302 read with section 34 of the I.P.C. in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latur. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latur committed the said case to the Court of Sessions, because the offence punishable under section 302 of I.P.C. is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions.3. The charge vide Exh.3 has been framed against the accused for the offences punishable under sections 363, 302 read with section 34 of the I.P.C. They pleaded not guilty to the charge. Their plea was of total denial. In their statement recorded under section 313 of Cr.P.C., the original accused stated that false case has been filed against them.

Reasoning:
The Supreme Court in the case Rambraksh alias Jalim v. State of Chhatisgarh, A.I.R. 2016 S.C. 2381 held that, it is trite law that a conviction cannot be recorded against the accused merely on the ground that the accused was last seen with the deceased. In other words, a conviction cannot be based on the only circumstance of last seen together. Normally, last seen theory comes into play where the time gap, between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were seen last alive and when the deceased is found dead, is so small that possibility of any person other than the accuse being the perpetrator of the crime becomes impossible. To record a conviction, the last seen together itself would not be sufficient and the prosecution has to complete the chain of circumstances to bring home the guilt of the accused.11. While considering the case based upon circumstantial evidence, the Supreme Court in the case of Hanuman Govind Nargundkar and another v. State of M.P., AIR 1952 SC 343   observed as under :"It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused."12. Upon considering the evidence in its entirety, we are of the view that in the first place there are no incriminating circumstances brought on record by the prosecution which would form complete chain, and would unequivocally lead to the only hypothesis of guilt of the accused. In that view of the matter, the view taken by the Trial Court is possible, and therefore we are not able to persuade ourselves to cause any interference in the impugned judgment and order of acquittal of the respondent.