A session court in Mumbai has sentenced a man to life imprisonment for the murder of his mother..Additional Sessions Judge M Mohiuddin held that accused was the only person in the house where the mother was killed, blood-stained items were found at the crime scene and the accused had failed to explain how his mother’s injuries occurred.These factors were enough to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the Court ruled in its February 24 judgment..“From the evidence on record, the prosecution has proved that the death of deceased Lalita (Mother) occurred in the custody of the accused and her death is homicidal one. Accused fails to explain how his mother received the injuries in his custody and whatever the explanation he tried appears to be false. As such, it is a strong circumstance which indicates that he is responsible for the murder of Lalita Shenoy,” the judgment said..The accused lived alone with his mother in a chawl in Dahisar, Mumbai. According to court records, no other family members were present in the house at the time of the incident and neighbours reported that the two occasionally quarrelled. On the morning following the night of the murder, the accused contacted the police to inform them that some unknown person had killed his mother.Upon arrival at the scene, the police discovered the mother lying dead in her room along with several blood-stained household items, including a paper cutter, clothes and a pillow cover..The Court noted that the accused had later allegedly confessed to the police. The accused told the police that he had given his mother 30 sleeping tablets before pressing a pillow over her face and cutting her throat with a paper cutter. He claimed he acted after a quarrel and wanted to end the argument once and for all.However, under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 23 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha (BNSS) Act, 2023, confessions made to police officers cannot be used in court. As a result, the Court did not rely on his statement. Instead, the conviction was based on circumstantial evidence. .The police recorded statements from neighbors and collected evidence from the house. Local residents helped verify the seizure of items from the scene. Although the accused’s fingerprints were not found on the cutter or other objects, the Court noted that no one else was in the house at the time. The accused also did not provide any explanation for the blood-stained items or how his mother died..The investigators had seized several items from the room, including the paper cutter, blood-stained clothes, a pillow and a piece of mattress. The Court recorded that forensic tests later confirmed the presence of human blood on some of these items and medical examination determined that the mother’s death was caused by deep incised injuries to the neck..The judgment also addressed the conduct of the accused following the incident. The Court observed that the accused did not raise an alarm, call neighbors, or attempt to seek medical help for his mother immediately, but waited until the morning to contact the police. "But the conduct of accused is not natural conduct because if any such incident had happened he would have 1st made hue and cry he would have made shout for help and he would have informed to neighbors and call them for help, he would have first tried to save his mother, he would have taken his mother to hospital... There is no explanation from the side of accused why he remained silent till arrival of police," noted the Court.This conduct, combined with the other evidence, reinforced the court’s conclusion that the accused was responsible for the death..In view of the above, the Court found the accused guilty of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced him to life imprisonment and fine of ₹5,000.If he defaults on fine, he will have to undergo three months of additional imprisonment, the Court ruled.The Court also noted that the accused had been under trial since his arrest on November 29, 2018, and set off the period already spent in custody against the sentence, in accordance with Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure..Advocate Shashikant Damodarlal Chandak (Legal Aid) and Kanchan Chandak appeared for the accused. Additional Public Prosecutor PS Rathod represented the State..[Read Order].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.
