Mumbai: Fourteen years after his arrest in a murder case, the Bombay High Court has acquitted a man, accused of killing his live-in partner in 2012, observing that the prosecution failed to prove a complete chain of circumstantial evidence. The court noted that the “prosecution evidence vis-a-vis last seen is shaky and doubtful”.
A bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Neela Gokhale, on April 4, quashed the September 25, 2014 order by sessions court at Nashik, convicting Dattu @ Datta Bhika Tongare for murder and sentencing to life in prison.
Tongare challenged his conviction before the HC. His Advocates, Kavin Bookseller and Rohan Dave, argued that the trial court relied solely on weak circumstantial evidence and presumed his guilt.
The High Court noted, “The prosecution cannot absolve itself from proving the initial burden cast upon them i.e. of proving its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant.”
In May 2012 Tongare, his partner, and her two children were living in a shed on a field owned by Balkrushna Chaudhary, who reported the death after finding the woman’s bloodied body under a blanket. Tongare was arrested on May 23 that year.
The prosecution had relied heavily on Chaudhary’s “last seen” testimony, which the court found unreliable. “PW1 (Chaudhary) had seen the appellant going to Ozar with his wife and children the previous day but had not seen when they returned. His evidence appears shaky and doubtful,” the bench noted.
A key piece of evidence—bloodstains matching the deceased’s blood group found on the accused’s clothes—was also questioned. The court pointed out that the prosecution did not clarify who collected the deceased’s blood sample and when, raising doubts about the chemical analysis report.
Further, the evidence of the deceased’s six-year-old daughter was inconclusive as she began crying during her testimony, and no statement was recorded from the younger child. The victim’s mother’s testimony failed to establish a motive.
“Considering the aforesaid, the prosecution has failed to prove the circumstances relied upon by them, as against the appellant, beyond reasonable doubt,” the court held, adding that “a false explanation or a false defence cannot take the place of proof of facts.”
The court ordered Tongare’s immediate release, if not required in any other case, and directed that any fine amount paid be refunded.
