Kriti Agrawal
On Friday the Bombay High Court upheld the appellant’s conviction for the murder of three women, reasoning that the only inference that could be drawn from circumstantial evidence was that the accused committed the crime.
The conviction was upheld by a Bench of Justice Sadhana S Jadhav and Justice NR Borkar, who observed that “Witnesses can lie, but circumstances speak for themselves.”
The Court reasoned that the totality of the circumstances must be such that the accused’s innocence is proven.
According to the prosecution’s case, the three women, the complainant’s mother and two sisters, went missing.
The complainant got phone calls from her mother’s phone advising her that if she wanted to see her mother, she should go to a remote place and come alone. However, she alerted the police instead.
Her cousins informed her that one of her sisters had an affair with the appellant-accused, and that he was forced out of the village because of the opposition.
When she reported her suspicions to the authorities, the appellant was apprehended and reportedly admitted to killing the three women.
The appellant, who was convicted of murder by the Alibaug Sessions Judge, petitioned the High Court, arguing that the prosecution relied on a lot of knowledge that was only given by the appellant himself.
In his contention he stated that the entire case was based on suspicion and that conviction cannot occur without evidence. He also pointed out several procedural flaws by the police that cast fair doubt on the prosecution’s case.
The court concluded from the evidence presented that the calls were made by appellant himself. The court also stated that appellant was responsible for the discovery of the missing persons’ deaths and the location of the decomposed remains. A few of the accused’s belongings were discovered at the crime scene.
There was no proof that the police might have discovered the bodies’ location before appellant gave them that detail.
The court said that, “Immaterial and irrelevant delays in inquiry will not entitle an accused to benefit of the doubt. A misguided leniency would result in a miscarriage of justice, particularly in cases like this one, where a mother and daughter were murdered by the accused.”
After dismissing accused’s appeal, the court ordered him to appear before the Sessions Court within eight weeks whether he was on bail or parole.
