The Bombay High Court has ordered the release of a Palghar resident who was awarded life term after being convicted by a trial court in a murder case. The HC was hearing an appeal filed by Babu Gangad challenging the order of the sessions court sentencing him to life imprisonment for allegedly murdering his sister-in-law in April, 2003.
While passing the verdict, a division bench of justices, Sadhana Jadhav and Milind Jadhav, observed, "The learned trial court has erroneously arrived at the conclusion that the accused is guilty of the act to commit the murder of Jethibai and in view of the unreliable evidence given by prosecution witnesses.”
According to additional public prosecutor Prajakta Shinde, Gangad killed Jethibai since she reportedly didn’t provide sufficient food to him since childhood, and also forced him to go to his sister’s house.
Immediately after the incident, Gangad absconded and was later arrested in 2010. Additional sessions judge, Palghar convicted him on September 4, 2015. The magistrate recorded his statement on July 27, 2015, where he confessed to having murdered Jethibai.
Nasreen Ayubi, his advocate in the HC, argued that on August 17, 2015, his advocate filed an application before the magistrate that Gangad was not mentally fit and it was necessary to refer the accused for medical treatment to hospital.
Instead of ascertaining the mental condition of the accused by referring the accused to the hospital / medical practitioner, the judge took it upon itself and posed questions to Gangad to determine whether his mental condition was proper or otherwise, argued Ayubi. Besides, there were no eyewitnesses to the assault.
An accused can't be convicted solely on the basis of the purported confessional statement given before a magistrate under sections 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which was later retracted. Within 20 days, the accused’s advocate had made an application stating that he was not mentally fit and it was necessary to refer him for medical treatment to a hospital.
The HC, refusing to believe the statements of the prosecution witnesses, said that their evidence was “completely unreliable and cannot be countenanced for convicting the accused”.
