Mumbai – The Bombay High Court has acquitted Nashik resident Sampat Tongare, who was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment in 2017 for murdering his wife, ruling that circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution was insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. A bench of justices Sarang Kotwal and Advait Sethna declared that the circumstantial evidence could not form a complete chain pointing definitively to Tongare’s guilt.
The landmark judgment, delivered on August 22, resulted in Tongare’s immediate release from prison after serving eight years behind bars. The court’s decision highlights critical issues surrounding the reliance on circumstantial evidence in criminal prosecutions and the high burden of proof required for conviction in murder cases.
Background of the Murder Case
Sampat Tongare lived with his wife Lata in Kochargaon, a village in Nashik’s Dindori taluka renowned for grape farming. The couple had been married in 2014 and lived together until the tragic incident that led to the murder charges. On January 15, 2015, Lata’s father Shivram Shinde filed a complaint at the Dindori police station after discovering his daughter’s body in a field near their residence.
The sessions court in 2017 had convicted Tongare based on circumstantial evidence and sentenced him to life imprisonment. Throughout the legal proceedings, Tongare maintained a defense of complete denial, refusing to accept any responsibility for his wife’s death. The case attracted significant attention due to its reliance entirely on circumstantial evidence rather than direct witness testimony.
Events Leading to the Alleged Murder
According to the prosecution’s case presented to the sessions court, Lata had returned to her father’s house approximately one month before her death. The family alleged that she fled after Tongare had beaten her severely with a wooden log, causing her to seek refuge with her parents for safety and medical treatment.
Twenty days after Lata’s return to her father’s house, both families attempted reconciliation. Her father and uncle met with Tongare’s father and brother to broker a peaceful resolution to the marital dispute. They reached an agreement to send Lata back to her husband after he provided assurances that he would not repeat his alleged violent behavior.
However, tragedy struck just two weeks after Lata returned to her marital home. She died from what medical examination revealed as “hemorrhagic shock due to facial injury coupled with cerebral injury.” Shinde alleged that Tongare had attacked her “mercilessly” because he suspected her character and fidelity.
Police Investigation and Physical Evidence
The police investigation focused heavily on circumstantial evidence to build their case against Tongare. Investigators discovered a wooden log in the bushes where Lata’s body was found, and forensic analysis revealed that blood on the log matched her blood group. This physical evidence became a cornerstone of the prosecution’s argument for Tongare’s guilt.
The prosecution argued that this circumstantial evidence, combined with the history of domestic violence and the timing of events, created a compelling case against the accused. However, the defense challenged every aspect of this circumstantial evidence, questioning its reliability and the conclusions drawn by investigators.
Defense Arguments Challenge Circumstantial Evidence
Tongare’s lawyer Swapana Kode presented a comprehensive defense strategy that systematically challenged the prosecution’s reliance on circumstantial evidence. She argued that the prosecution had failed to prove each circumstance separately beyond reasonable doubt, which is essential when building a case based entirely on circumstantial evidence.
Kode contended that the prosecution had not established a clear motive for Tongare to kill his wife. She pointed out significant inconsistencies in the family’s claims about Lata’s alleged hospitalization after the supposed assault. While the family claimed Lata was taken to a private hospital following Tongare’s attack, medical records showed she had visited the Dindori hospital for fever treatment and subsequently returned to her husband’s house voluntarily.
Also Read: Ganpati Visarjan Mumbai Traffic: Essential Guidelines for Safe Travel
Critical Flaws in the Prosecution’s Case
The defense highlighted several crucial weaknesses in the prosecution’s circumstantial evidence. Kode argued that the very premise of Lata’s alleged ill-treatment was questionable given the medical records’ contradiction of the family’s claims. She suggested that the family had filed the FIR “out of anger” rather than based on factual evidence.
The recovery of the alleged murder weapon also faced scrutiny. Kode pointed out that a panch witness had testified that the wooden log was shown to him at the police station rather than being discovered at the scene, raising questions about the evidence’s authenticity and chain of custody.
Furthermore, while blood group matching was established between stains found in Tongare’s house, the wooden log, and Lata’s clothing, the defense noted a critical gap: no blood trail existed from the house to the field where her body was discovered.
High Court’s Landmark Ruling on Circumstantial Evidence
The Bombay High Court’s judgment emphasized that cases based purely on circumstantial evidence require an unbroken chain of circumstances that point definitively to the accused’s guilt. The court determined that the prosecution had failed to establish such a chain beyond reasonable doubt.
The bench concluded that “these circumstances cannot form a complete chain of circumstances pointing unerringly only to the hypothesis of the guilt of the appellant.” This ruling reinforces the principle that circumstantial evidence must meet extremely high standards of proof in criminal cases, particularly those involving serious charges like murder.
The court’s decision to acquit Tongare after eight years of imprisonment demonstrates the judicial system’s commitment to ensuring that convictions are based on solid evidence rather than assumptions or incomplete circumstantial evidence chains.
