[ad_1]
The Supreme Courtroom on Thursday acquitted a person, who was on the dying row for the previous eight years, in a case of the homicide of his mom, spouse and two-year-old daughter in 2012.
A bench of Justices B R Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra and Okay V Viswanathan, cleared Vishwajeet Masalkar of all prices, setting apart the dying sentence given to him by the trial court docket in 2016 and confirmed by the Bombay Excessive Courtroom in 2019.
The court docket mentioned that the prosecution had didn’t show the crime past cheap doubt. “It’s a major precept that the accused “should be” and never merely “could also be” responsible earlier than a court docket can convict, and each doable speculation besides the guilt of the accused must be dominated out. In our thought-about opinion, within the current case, the prosecution has failed to take action,” the Supreme Courtroom mentioned.
On October 4, 2012, Masalkar had reported {that a} theft had taken place at his residence in Pune and that his mom Shobha, spouse, Archana and daughter Kimaya have been killed. He additionally knowledgeable the police that his neighbour was injured, and gold and money from his home, valued at Rs 3.07 lakh have been lacking.
The police subsequently arrested Masalkar claiming that he was having an affair with a lady and had killed his household to have the ability to marry her. The police case primarily relied on the assertion of the neighbour and restoration of a hammer claimed to have been made on the insistence of the accused.
Masalkar’s lawyer Payoshi Roy had submitted that the neighbour’s assertion was recorded six days after the crime and there was no rationalization by the police for the delay. The lawyer submitted that the neighbour’s assertion was taken solely after Masalkar was booked for the murders.
His lawyer pointed to discrepancies within the neighbour’s assertion and raised questions on why he had not named Masalkar instantly because the accused, as he was acutely aware and oriented. The court docket discarded the neighbour’s testimony agreeing with the grounds stating that it was not a trust-worthy testimony.
The court docket additionally mentioned that the potential of tampering with the restoration of the hammer can’t be dominated out. It mentioned that because it was Masalkar who had reported the crime, his garments having blood stains can’t be mentioned to be unnatural. “That leaves us with the circumstance of motive. We discover that solely on the idea of circumstance of motive, a conviction can’t be primarily based,” the court docket mentioned.
[ad_2]
