Summary of the Judgment
Case Name: Vishwajeet Kerba Masalkar v. State of Maharashtra
Date: 17 October 2024
Judges: Hon’ble Justice B.R. Gavai, Hon’ble Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, Hon’ble Justice K.V. Viswanathan
Advocates:
Ms. Payoshi Roy (for the Appellant),
Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari (for the Respondent, State of Maharashtra)
Acts and Sections:
Sections 302, 307, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)
Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872
Cited Judgements:
Swamy Shraddananda (2) alias Murali Manohar Mishra v. State of Karnataka, (2008) 13 SCC 767
Chuhar Singh v. State of Haryana, (1976) 1 SCC 879
Sharad Birdhichand Sharda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116
Introduction
On 17 October 2024, the Supreme Court of India delivered its judgement in Vishwajeet Kerba Masalkar v. State of Maharashtra, a criminal appeal that questioned the death penalty conviction under Sections 302, 307, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The case revolved around the gruesome murders of the appellant's mother, wife, and child, for which the trial court and High Court had sentenced him to death. The Supreme Court, however, allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and sentence, raising significant questions about the nature of evidence and the handling of circumstantial cases in India.
Factual Background
The incident occurred on 4 October 2012, when the appellant, Vishwajeet Masalkar, informed the police control room about a robbery and the murder of his family members at his residence in Pune. The appellant’s neighbour, Madhusudhan Kulkarni, was also injured in the incident. Initially, a First Information Report (FIR) was lodged against unknown persons for murder and robbery under Sections 302 and 397 of the IPC. However, further investigations revealed that the appellant had a love affair with another woman, Gauri Londhe, and there was growing suspicion regarding his involvement in the crime.
The post-mortem reports of the deceased family members revealed multiple causes of death, including smothering and blunt force trauma. Upon investigation, the police arrested the appellant and charged him with the murders under Sections 302, 307 (attempt to murder), and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) of the IPC.
Legal Issues and Arguments
The crux of the appeal in the Supreme Court was whether the appellant’s conviction and death sentence, as affirmed by the High Court, could be sustained in light of the evidence presented by the prosecution.
Ms. Payoshi Roy, counsel for the appellant, argued that the prosecution’s case was primarily based on the testimony of Madhusudhan Kulkarni (PW-12), which lacked credibility due to inconsistencies. Additionally, she contended that the recoveries of incriminating material, including the hammer and blood-stained clothes, were unreliable and lacked corroborative value. Ms. Roy further argued that the case did not meet the "rarest of rare" criteria necessary for the imposition of the death penalty.
On the other hand, Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, representing the State, asserted that the prosecution had presented sufficient circumstantial evidence to prove the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He argued that the recovery of the murder weapon and blood-stained clothes, coupled with the appellant’s motive, supported the conviction.
Examination of Evidence
The prosecution’s case rested heavily on the testimony of Madhusudhan Kulkarni (PW-12), the injured witness. Kulkarni claimed that he had heard screams from the appellant’s house and, upon investigating, was attacked by the appellant. However, this testimony was filled with contradictions. For instance, although Kulkarni mentioned seeing the appellant with a hammer, this critical detail was absent from his initial statement under Section 164 of the CrPC.
The Honourable Supreme Court scrutinized this delay, noting,
“A million-dollar question that would arise is if Madhusudhan Kulkarni (PW-12) was conscious and oriented at the time of admission in the hospital, then why was his statement not immediately recorded.”
The Court observed that this six-day delay in recording the witness’s statement cast serious doubts on the veracity of his testimony.
Moreover, the recovery of the hammer and blood-stained clothes at the instance of the appellant was also called into question. The hammer, allegedly used in the crime, was recovered from a canal three days after the incident. The Court pointed out that it was improbable for bloodstains to remain on a hammer submerged in water for three days. Similarly, the recovery of the appellant’s blood-stained clothes from an accessible location further weakened the prosecution’s case, as it raised the possibility of tampering.
Circumstantial Evidence and Legal Standards
The Court reiterated the well-established principles governing cases based on circumstantial evidence, drawing upon Sharad Birdhichand Sharda v. State of Maharashtra, which emphasised the need for a complete and conclusive chain of evidence that excludes every hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused. The Court held:
"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."
In the present case, the circumstantial evidence did not satisfy these standards. The Court noted that the prosecution failed to exclude all possible hypotheses of innocence. In particular, the discrepancies in the testimony of the key witness (PW-12) and the dubious nature of the recoveries undermined the prosecution’s narrative. As the Court remarked,
“Suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt.”
Death Penalty and Mitigating Factors
Ms. Roy argued that even if the appellant were found guilty, the imposition of the death penalty was unwarranted, as the case did not fall under the “rarest of rare” category. She cited Swamy Shraddananda (2) alias Murali Manohar Mishra v. State of Karnataka, where the Supreme Court laid down the principle that the death penalty should only be imposed in cases where there is no possibility of reformation of the convict.
The Supreme Court agreed, noting that the appellant was not a hardened criminal and there was no evidence to suggest that he could not be reformed. The Court’s decision to overturn the death sentence reflected its cautious approach towards capital punishment, emphasising the need for judicial restraint in its application.
Conclusion
In its final verdict, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and death sentence imposed on Vishwajeet Masalkar. The Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in a case that relied on circumstantial evidence. The judgement underscores the importance of ensuring that all evidentiary requirements are met before convicting an accused, especially in cases where the death penalty is involved.
The decision also serves as a reminder of the judiciary’s role in safeguarding the rights of the accused and ensuring that the criminal justice system adheres to the highest standards of fairness. As the Court aptly concluded:
"An accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt."
This judgement, thus, serves as a crucial precedent in the jurisprudence on circumstantial evidence and the application of the death penalty in India. Legal professionals, particularly those dealing with criminal cases, can derive key insights from this case on the evidentiary standards required for conviction and the cautious approach needed when dealing with capital punishment cases.
Comments