Author’s name: Shilpa Sarkar
5th Year B.A L.L.B
Sureswar Dutta Law College, Howrah, University of Calcutta.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 213 OF 2020
Vishwajeet Kerba Masalkar
v.
State of Maharashtra
(The Supreme Court set aside the conviction and the death sentence of a man for the alleged murder of his wife, mother and two-year old daughter noting that the prosecution was unable to prove an unbroken chain of events)
APPELLANT(S): VISHWAJEET KERBA MASALKAR
RESPONDENT(S): STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Introduction
This is a significant case where the Supreme Court of India overturned the conviction and death sentence of Vishwajeet Kerba Masalkar, who was accused of murdering His mother, wife, and two-year-old daughter. The court decision by the division bench comprised of three judges B.R. Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra and K.V Biswanathan held that the prosecutions failure to prove an unbroken chain of events. This case Decided by the High Court of Maharashtra Highlights the challenged faced by the judiciary in addressing issues related to criminal liability And the presumption of innocence Which Have attract the legal and public scrutiny.
The central issue In this case was the horrific nature of the crime. Vishwajeet Kerba Masalkar is accused of murdering three individuals in cold blood. The crime was not a random act but rather a premeditated and a brutal killing. The triple murder raises several questions regarding the motive behind the killings. The circumstances leading to the Crime and the psychological state of the accused at the time of the incident. The police investigation revealed that the accused has some personal reasons for killings as because the extra marital affair was disclosed to the investigator, and methodical nature of the crime indicates a prior careful planning. This highlighted the issues of criminal intent and the gravity of the offense, which led the case to the category of murder as under section 302 of IPC.
Facts:
- On 4th October, 2012 The appellant Vishwajeet Kerba Masalkar made a complaint about a robbery and triple murder Of his wife mother and daughter in his house and also informed that his neighbor Madhusudan Kulkarni (PW-12) has also been injured. Under section 302, 307 And 201 of IPC 1860 a complaint made against an unknown individual.
- During the investigation it was found that the appellant had an affair, and he was ready to leave his family for paramour Gauri Londhe (PW-2).
- After that all the Mentioned goods were found as well in the flat of the appellant and there was no sign of forced entry. All the circumstances were indicating the involvement of the appellant in the triple murder.
- The Appellant (Masalkar) disclosed about the murder weapon Which was found from a canal after three days of the incident and blood-stained cloths and Mangal sutras, gold chain of 8 Tolas, 3 small gold rings, and two almond shaped pendant, stated by the appellant as stolen, all things were found from the appellants room.
- The police made charge-sheet against appellant under section 302 and 307 of the IPC.
- However the defense contested the prosecutions claim asserting that the evidence was circumstantial and eyewitnesses we’re unreliable.
- The appellant contented that he was not present at the time of crime scene.
- The Trial Court after evaluating evidence the appellant was convicted under the said provisions and imposed death sentence by the high court with reference of the order of the Trial Court, leading to his appeal to the high court.[1]
Issues:
- Eyewitness reliability: The credibility of eyewitness PW -12 testimonies are a critical component in determining the outcome of the criminal trial and the appellant contented, only upon his (Madhusudhan Kulkarni) statement the appellant is guilty because he was injured, the police takes his statement after six days of the commencement of the incident and Kulkarnis statements were in contradiction with the provisions of under section 164 of CRPC. In this case raised questions about how to assess the reliability of such testimonies, particularly when multiple accounts are innocent.[2]
- Burden of proof: The principle that the prosecution bears the burden of proof was central to the appeal. Here the prosecution state he has proofed the Case beyond reasonable doubt where Mr. Kulkarni was admit in the hospital and the blood stained cloths and the discovery of the hammer after three days of the incident was also indicating tampering with evidences. The defense argued that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of Masalkar beyond a reasonable doubt and the story of extra marital affair doesn’t give the weight in the case.
- Alibi Defense: The defenses argument centre on the alibi Presented by masalkar, Which needed to be adequately substantiated To create reasonable doubt in the prosecution’s case , as the appellant contested he was not present at the crime scene when the incident was happened.[3]
- Legal representation and fair trial: As with many criminal cases the right to a fair trial is a fundamental Issue, whether the accused received competent legal representation and whether the trial process adhered to the Principle of justice were vital point of concerns. Defense lawyers argued that there were discrepancies in the way the trial was conducted, especially with regard to the credibility of witnesses and the admissibility of certain pieces of evidence. The legal team for the defense may have contested The credibility of contested report, witness statements, or the investigation integrity creating significant procedural hurdles for the prosecution.
- Problem in investigation and Lack of Evidence: Another critical issue in the case is the handling of the investigation the police was tasked with established a clear connection between the accused and the crime scene, which was pivotal in building a case against Masalkar. However, question was raised regarding the effectiveness of the investigation. Key issues include the thoroughness of the forensic evidence, eyewitness testimonies, and the potential lapses in the police’s investigation procedures.
- Motive behind the murders: The motive for the triple murder was another issue in the case. prosecutors initially suggests that the killings were driven by personal grievances possibly linked to financial dispute or the intention to get rid the victims because in investigation it was discovered through the witnesses that the accused appellant was engaged in extra marital affair and he was ready to leave his family for the Gauri Londhe (PW – 2) Or interpersonal conflicts. However the defense argued that the prosecution has failed to proof the actual motive and the involvement of the appellant in the triple murder, the absence of clear motive and strong evidence could weaken the prosecution’s case, and also making it harder to secure a conviction.
- Sentencing and Appeals: Another issue that often arises in the murder cases is the sentencing and The possibility of appeals. In this case of the triple murder, the potential for the capital punishment is very high, and the arguments surrounding the sentencing are deeply contagious. If the accused is convicted the debate over the appropriate punishment will inevitably surface, including whether mitigating the factors such as mental health issues, age or personal circumstances should influence the final verdict. The accused right to appeal the decision and the possible legal scopes for the overturning a conviction Could delay justice and prolong legal justice.
Arguments:
- Prosecutions arguments: The prosecution argued that the eyewitness PW-12 accounts provided sufficient evidence to Establish Masalkars’ Presence at the crime They pointed to the physical evidence and injuries sustained by the victim, claiming they were consistent with the manner of attack described by the neighbor eyewitness. the prosecutions primary arguments was that the appellants actions Were deliberate and intentional that satisfies the element of ‘Mens Rea’ that the guilty mind of the accused required for a murder conviction under section 302 of the IPC, to execute the case into conclusion.
The presented witnesses testimony and circumstantial evidence to establish that Vishwajeet had planned and executed the killings. the prosecution argued that the manner of crime and the use of lethal weapon, and the victims injuries reflected clear intend premeditation.[4]
- Defense arguments: The defense challenged the credibility of the eyewitness, noting discrepancies in their testimonies and questioning their Ability to accurately Identify Masalkar amidst the chaos of the incident. The defense argued that the prosecution has failed to proof a clear and coherent motive and intention behind the murders, they emphasized that the prosecution Had not conclusively linked Masalkar to the crime relying instead on circumstantial evidence and uncorroborated testimonies.
The defense argued that there was insufficient evidence to proof that Vishwajeet acted with necessary intend to commit murder. They claimed the incident as result of accidental injury, thereby challenging the prosecution’s premeditated murder. The appellant argued that the eyewitnesses are unreliable, the forensic evidence was inconclusive, and that the autopsy result did not point out the involvement of the appellant in the murder. the defense prayed it would be unfair if the conviction took place where there was no such concrete proof of committing the triple murders by the appellant.
- Precedent cited [5]: The defense has taken help to uphold the judgement of the Trial Court as follows- Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1952 The circumstances should be of conclusive in nature to proof the guilt of the accused.
Sharad Vidichand Sarada v. State of maharashtra 1984 that a suspicion cannot took a place of proof however, strong it may be beyond reasonable doubt it should implicate on rational basis. Also court state the distinction between “may be proved” and “must be or should be proved” ‘That it should be understood where a accused is must be and merely be or may prove the guilt, and every possible hypothesis except guilt of the accused has to be ruled out.’
Judgement:
Upon reviewing the case the High Court considered several critical aspects:
- evaluation of Eyewitnesses testimonies: The court carefully analyze the statements of the eyewitness, noting inconsistencies in their accounts. The underscored the importance of corroboration in criminal cases and acknowledged the potential for error in eyewitness identifications, specially in High-stress situations. Where the noticeable thing was the reliability of the PW-12 testimonies because his statement was taken after six days of the incident and the doctor claimed he was in full conscious to give statement.
- Assessment of the prosecution’s evidence: The Hugh Court found that the prosecution’s case is heavily relied on the testimonies of the witnesses without sufficient corroborate evidence. The court emphasized for a conviction to be upheld, The evidence must meet the standard Of beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Alibi and reasonable Doubt: The defense successfully presented an alibi that raised reasonable doubt regarding Masalkars’ Presence at the crime scene. The court noted that even a slight doubt in the prosecution’s case must lead to te acquittal of the accused, as per the principle of “in dubio pro ero” (when in doubt, for the accused).[6]
Conclusion:
The High Court ultimately overturned the conviction of vishajit kerba masalkar, taking that the prosecution had failed to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. the case underscores the critical importance of reliable evidence in criminal proceedings and the necessity for the prosecution to meet its burden of proof. the judgement reaffirmed fundamental principles of the criminal law, emphasized the protection of rights against wrongful convictions. The case serves as reminder of the delicate balance between the need for justice foe victims and the rights of the accused in the criminal justice system. It highlights the judiciary’s roles in safeguarding these principles, ensuring That the conviction based on solid evidence rather than a mere accusations or unreliable testimonies.
[1] Facts of the case, indian kanoon https://indiankanoon.org/doc/174947967/
[2] Issues indian kanoon https://indiankanoon.org/doc/174947967/
[3] Issues https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-appeal-by-man-convicted-of-murdering-wife-mother-daughter-sentenced-to-death-allowed-272712
[4] Arguments https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/supreme-court/vishwajeet-kerba-masalkar-v-state-of-maharashtra-2024-insc-788-death-sentence-set-aside-murder-case-1555030
[5] Precedents cited https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/supreme-court/vishwajeet-kerba-masalkar-v-state-of-maharashtra-2024-insc-788-death-sentence-set-aside-murder-case-1555030
[6] Alibi https://www.the-laws.com/encyclopedia/browse/case?caseId=004202728000&title=vishwajeet-kerba-masalkar-vs-state-of-maharashtra