Bombay HC acquits man accused of 2011 murder, asks state to compensate victim's kids

Bombay High Court.

The Bombay High Court recently set aside the 2017 conviction of a man for the murder of a widow in 2011, stating that there was a doubt if it was a homicide, but directed district legal services authority to decide on compensation to her four minor daughters.

The HC invoked provisions of section 357 (A) of the Criminal Procedure Code and a salutary victim compensation scheme of 2014 and directed the state to compensate the children. But it clarified that it was not laying down any law on making a recommendation in every case of acquittal, stated a report in The Times of India.

"Their interests need to be protected and it is the responsibility of the state. That is why the scheme has been framed and the state government is under obligation to make the funds available,'' said a bench of Justices P B Varale and S M Modak in its March 10 judgment.

The Bombay HC directed the state to act given stark prospects the children would face.

The Solapur man's counsel, Ganesh Bhujbal, argued that the theory of a homicidal death was "doubtful'', while M M Deshmukh, the prosecutor, said proof was adequate. The minors, represented by advocate Shantanu Phanse from the legal aid panel, said Rs 40,000 awarded to them as compensation by a trial court from a Rs 50,000 fine imposed on the man, was not yet deposited by him.

The HC, after checking the records, said the trial judge was wrong in concluding it was murder on the basis of the "cryptic'' testimony of two child witnesses, and had failed to consider a dying declaration and a letter sent by a policeman, which suggested "accidental death''. Their mother was near a gas stove which exploded and the accused tried to douse the fire and put the woman in an autorickshaw. HC said the trial court had wrongly put the onus on the accused to prove the dying declaration and letter. The burden lies on the prosecution to prove its case of murder, said HC.

The trial court convicted him "based on wrong interpretation of principles of criminal trial'', the Bombay HC said.