The Bombay high court has acquitted a couple, who was convicted for murdering the man's three-year-old daughter in 2012, after giving them benefit of doubt.
The Bombay high court has acquitted a couple, who was convicted for murdering the man's three-year-old daughter in 2012, after giving them benefit of doubt.
Who is the couple and where are they from?
A division bench of Justices PV Hardas and Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi acquitted Haribhau Varpe and his second wife (the girl's step mother), Usha, for killing Roshni at Jategaon village in Nandgaon taluka of Nashik district.
Why were they given benefit of doubt?
While acquitting the couple, the judges observed: "We find that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the offence punishable under section 302 (murder) read with 34 (common intention) of IPC against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In our opinion, the appellants are entitled to be given the benefit of doubt."
When were the Varpe's sentenced?
According to additional public prosecutor Hitendra Deshia, Roshni was found dead in the house in 2012 and the postmortem report indicated that she was strangulated. The girl's maternal grandfather, Haribhau's first wife Aruna's father, lodged a complaint, after which an FIR was filed.
The sessions court at Malegaon convicted Haribhau and Usha and sentenced them to life imprisonment.
What did the HC bench rule?
The couple approached the HC, challenging their conviction. After going through the evidence, the HC opined that the prosecution had utterly failed to prove the presence of the accused at the scene of the offence.
"Merely because a body was found in the house cannot be a ground for prosecuting all the inmates of the house. In this case, it is true that deceased Roshni had died an unnatural death. However, there is no evidence to connect the appellants with the commission of crime," the judges observed.
What other loopholes were found in the prosecution's claims?
Also, the prosecution failed to establish the motive behind the murder, the judges noted. The bench added: "There is no evidence regarding motive for appellant Haribhau to murder his own daughter and there is no evidence that he was present near the scene of the incident at relevant time when the offence is alleged to have been committed."
The HC further noted that the prosecution has also not been able to establish the time of death and consequently, it cannot claim that the accused have failed to explain the death of the deceased.
){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}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}