The Bombay high court recently upheld a life term handed to a 25-year-old man from Pune for murdering his 14-year-old cousin. While doing so, it observed that if the prosecution is able to provide overwhelming evidence completing the chain of circumstances despite being unable to establish a motive behind the offence, the case still stands and the accused is not given the benefit of doubt.
A division bench of Justice P V Hardas and Justice Anuja Prabhudessai upheld the conviction of Ajay Kondekar for murdering his first cousin. "In light of such overwhelming evidence, according to us, failure of the prosecution to prove motive, by itself, would not be fatal to the prosecution case," said the bench.
According to the police, on April 24, 2007, the minor and her friend had gone to school to collect their mark sheets. Kondekar was waiting for his cousin in his auto at the gate. The girl had left with him, after which she went missing.
On April 30, the victim's mother registered a case of kidnapping against the Kondekar, after which he was arrested. During the investigation, he showed the police the spot near the banks of the Mulshi dam where he allegedly killed the victim and then set her body on fire. The police recovered a half-burnt body and clothes with traces of insecticide.
During the trial, the prosecution examined 9 witnesses to prove the case against Kondekar. However, the accused denied all charges. After examining the evidence, the session's court convicted Kondekar in 2012. This order was challenged by him in high court.
The HC bench, after hearing the pleas made by the defence and the prosecution, observed, "The deceased was in the company of the appellant alone who could commit the murder. The finding of insecticide on the hair of the deceased would certainly rule out voluntary consumption of the insecticide. There is no evidence on record to remotely indicate that the deceased would voluntarily consume it to commit suicide. Moreover, the burn marks show that they were post-mortem, thus the body was set ablaze after the victim had died to destroy evidence." Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}