24 years after conviction, Bombay HC sets aside murder charge against two

The HC held that “the evidence of the eye witness in the case does not appear to be a sterling testimony” upon which conviction can be maintained and the death was “shrouded with mystery”.

A division Bench of Justice Sadhana S Jadhav and Justice Prithviraj K Chavan on February 8 passed a verdict in an appeal by the two.

On October 8, 1987, Shankar Wagh, the husband of deceased Girija, had lodged a complaint with Vikramgad Police station in Thane district stating that a day before the incident, he and his two wives (Ladkyai and Girija) went to sleep with an oil lantern burning inside their door-less hut.

Shankar added that around midnight, three men entered the hut and one of them shouted at him, threatening to kill Shankar and Girija. Shankar identified the two persons as appellants Ladkya and Manji, who belonged to Girija’s village Indgaon in Wada Taluka. The third person was not known to him.

According to the complaint, Ladkya was armed with a spear and asked Girija as to why she had not returned to Indgaon, despite the fact that she was called by them.

Shankar got scared and escaped the hut and ran towards an adjacent hamlet and gathered people. When Shankar, along with the others returned, they saw that Girija was lying in a pool of blood. She had died and had injuries on her chest.

The investigation was set in motion and after the prosecution examined six witnesses, a chargesheet was filed and the two appellants were convicted in 1998.

The bench held that the evidence of Shankar and his first wife Ladkyai “do not inspire the confidence” of the court.

“The evidence of the eye witness does not appear to be a sterling testimony upon which conviction can be maintained. There are material omissions and contradictions in the evidence of the eye witnesses, which go to the root of the matter and cannot be taken into consideration by a prudent mind,” the HC observed.

It noted that a close acquaintance of Shankar, who was a prosecution witness, categorically stated that the cry raised by Shankar and Ladkyai was that thieves had com.e

The bench, while setting aside the conviction, stated, “It is therefore doubtful as to whether the present appellants had committed the offence alleged against them. To uphold the conviction for offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, the evidence of eye-witness has to be a sterling testimony, leaving no room for doubt. It appears that the death of Girija, unfortunately, is shrouded with mystery. Hence, the accused would be entitled to benefit of doubt. In view of this, appellants deserve to be acquitted.”