Case: Manik &amp; Another Vs. State of Maharashtra

2. The dead body of one Babasaheb Gangaram Ghungrat r/o. Nimgaon (Tanda No.2), Tq. Shirur, Dist. Beed, was found in a well, situate in the land belonging to one Ashok Vishram Tilak, who was theof the informant namely, Rajabhau Gangaram Ghungrat, who was the real brother of the deceased Babasaheb, onat about 09.00 a.m. The said Ashok Tilak made a report to Police Station, Chaklamba and informed that the deceased Babasaheb was habituated to drinks and might have fallen into the well under the influence of liquor. He stated that he had no suspicion or complaint against anybody behind the death of deceased Babasaheb. On the basis of that report, A.D.No.04/2004 came to be registered. P.S.I. Pansambal visited the said well and prepared panchanama thereof. He got the dead body taken out of the well and prepared inquest panchanama thereof. He referred the dead body of Babasaheb to Primary Health Centre at Chaklamba for post mortem. Accordingly, Dr.Raut conducted post mortem and found five external injuries with corresponding internal injuries on the dead body, which were antemortem. He opined that the probable cause of death of Babasaheb was head injury. Funeral of the deceased Babasaheb was performed on the same day.3. The informant Rajabhau lodged report in Police Station, Chaklamba onat about 00.20 a.m., alleging interalia that the appellants had been to the house of the deceased Babasaheb onat about 09.30 p.m. to 10.00 p.m., to call him. The informant asked as to what was the matter and told them that the deceased Babasaheb was not at home. Thereon, the appellants informed that the deceased Babasaheb was to be taken to the Police Head Constable (P.H.C. for short) Sukre, who was at Nimgaon, since the deceased Babasaheb was reported to be among the persons, who allegedly had cut sandal trees. The appellants asked the informant to send the deceased Babasaheb to Nimgaon after his arrival and then went towards Nimgaon on the motorcycle of appellant No.2. They stopped the motorcycle at the distance of about 200 ft.250 ft. from the house of the informant. The appellants saw the deceased Babasaheb in the head light of the motorcycle coming along the road. Appellant no.1 informed the deceased Babasaheb that he was called by P.H.C. Sukre. The deceased Babasaheb was reluctant to go to P.H.C. Sukre. Therefore, the appellants took him on their motorcycle towards Nimgaon at about 09.30 p.m. They stopped the motorcycle near the land of Namdeo Dhanaji Rathod and switched of its headlight. Then they started motorcycle after 2025 minutes and went towards Nimgaon. The deceased Babasaheb did not come back to his house in that night. On the next day morning, appellant no.2 came to the house of the deceased Babasaheb and asked his son namely Tatyaram, as to whether the deceased Babasaheb had come back to the house. Tatyaram stated that Babasaheb had not come back in the night. Thereon, appellant no.2 told him that the deceased Babasaheb had run away towards the stream fastly and might have got his legs fractured. He asked Tatyaram to go towards the stream and see the deceased Babasaheb. Thereafter, Ashok Tilak came there and informed that a dead body was lying in his well and it was looking like that of the deceased Babasaheb. Thereafter, the informant and Ashok Tilak went to that well and identified the dead body as that of Babasaheb.4. According to the informant, before about four months of the incident, appellant no.1 threatened the deceased Babasaheb and himself of death in case he was not given a way from their land for having access to his own land. On that count, dispute was going on between them in the office of the Collector. According to the informant, on this count, the appellants committed murder of Babasaheb.5. On the basis of the F.I.R. lodged by the informant, Crime No.I25/ 2004 came to be registered against the appellants for the abovementioned offence. The investigation followed. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. After completion of the investigation, the appellants came to be chargesheeted for the abovementioned offence.6. The case being exclusively triable by the Court of Session, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gevrai, committed it to the Court of Session at Beed for trial. The learned trial Judge framed Charge against the appellants for the abovementioned offence vide Exh.21 and explained the contents thereof to them in vernacular. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Their defence is that of total denial and false implication at the instance of the informant.7. The prosecution examined seven witnesses to establish guilt of the appellants for the abovementioned offence. The learned trial Judge considered the evidence produced by the prosecution and found it sufficient to establish guilt of the appellants for the abovementioned offence. The learned trial Judge convicted the appellants for the abovementioned offence and sentenced each of them, to suffer imprisonment for life. No fine was imposed on the appellants.

Reasoning: 27. In the case of Raj Kumar Singh alias Batya Vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2013 SC 3150  , it is held that in a criminal trial, suspicion no matter howsoever strong, cannot and must not be permitted to take place of proof. This is for the reason that the mental distance between may be and must be is quite large and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions. The Court has a duty to ensure that mere conjectures or suspicion do not take the place of legal proof. The large distance between may be true and must be true, must be covered by way of clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence produced by the prosecution, before an accused is condemned as a convict and the basic and golden rule must be applied.28. The prosecution failed to establish that the death of Babasaheb was homicidal and that the appellants were connected with his death. The learned trial Judge did not appreciate the evidence on record correctly and properly and merely on the basis of the conjectures and surmises held the appellants guilty for a serious offence like murder, for which the minimum punishment is imprisonment for life. The findings recorded by the learned trial Judge, holding the appellants guilty, are not supported by any cogent and clinching evidence. In the result, the impugned judgment and order will have to be set aside and accordingly set aside.