The Bombay High Court recently granted bail to a man accused of murdering his live-in spouse, dismembering the corpse, and disposing of the pieces in bags and bedsheets. The bench consisted of Justice Amit Borkar. The Maharashtra Police Act and the Arms Act were used to make the individual a suspect. The girl’s parents reported her missing on August 8, 2021, and the police started an inquiry.
The prosecution said that the guy had admitted to having a romantic relationship with the girl. The dead and the guy allegedly often fought over her unwillingness to execute a marriage.
According to allegations, the applicant choked the girl to death on August 20, 2021, about 8 o’clock. He then shut the door before departing for Akkalkot. Inquirer came back on August 13, 2021.
The next day, he borrowed a tempo from a buddy and bought two sacks from a store in Nehru Chowk. He arrived at the rental property with a scythe, a knife, and bags. He entered the chamber on August 15, 2021, at around 12:30, and used the scythe, knife, and hexa blade to dismember the corpse.
It was said that he placed the legs in one bag and the head, two hands, and two feet in another. The remainder of the body was covered with a blanket and bedsheet. Additionally, he is accused of driving the tempo across Pirangut and Lavasa Road while carrying the bags containing the body parts.
After the police filed a charge sheet, the guy requested bail.
He was represented by attorney Sana Raes Khan, who argued that the panchnama required by section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, took place on August 24, 2021, between 10.55 and 11.25 a.m. However, the panchnama is inadmissible as evidence since the petitioner was detained after it.
She said that neither the scene of the purported event nor the tempo had any bloodstains. Additionally, the DNA of the retrieved body pieces could not be matched with any Class-I heir’s sample that was on file. It was argued that circumstantial evidence served as the case’s primary support.
According to additional public prosecutor Amit Palkar, the admissibility of the panchnama prepared in accordance with section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, had to be decided during the trial since the petitioner and the deceased were cohabitating.
He said that the victim had been brutally murdered and that her body parts had been chopped up and dispersed. He also said that the applicant’s suggested location was where the criminal’s firearms were discovered. Consequently, he reasoned, the application ought to be turned down.
The court agreed with the applicant’s arguments and said that, at first glance, it seemed that there were no bloodstains in the area or at the scene of the claimed crime of dismembering the corpse into separate pieces.
“At first glance, it seems that there were no bloodstains in the area or at the purported murder scene where the corpse was allegedly sliced into many pieces. As the prosecution has to have the chance to provide evidence about the precise time of the Panchnama, the arrest, and its consequences, the admissibility of the Panchnama under Section 27 must be decided at the trial, the court said.
The court observed that the charges had not yet been set out and that it was doubtful that the trial would conclude soon.
“Given the deceased’s completely decayed corpse, the identification of that must be resolved at the trial. The evidence against the applicant, however, does not, at this point, seem to be adequate to justify his continued imprisonment, the court said.
