Dattatraya Yemul Murder Case Pune Judgement

(1)SessionsCaseNo.
418/2008Jug
Receivedon: Registeredon: Decidedon: Duration:
26.06.2008 26.06.2008 20.01.2012 Ys.Ms.Ds. 030624
INTHECOURTOF8ADDL.SESSIONSJUDGE,PUNE, th AT:PUNE (PresidedoverbyD.R.Mahajan) SESSIONSCASENO.418/2008 EXH.NO.199
StateofMaharashtra (ThroughP.I.Sahaharnagar PoliceStation,Pune). V/S. [1]
.....COMPLAINANT
Anita@MeenaRajendraKhandabale Age34Yrs.OccuService, R/atB21/10,LowerIndiraNagar Bibvewadi,Pune. AjayAnantGhag Age30Yrs.OccuNil, R/at20/10,LowerIndiraNagar, Bibvewadi,Pune. .. ACCUSED
[2]
CHARGE: Offencepunishableu/s.120B,302,328,394,404,109,114 r/w.Section34ofI.P.C. APPEARANCE: LearnedSpecialPublicProsecutorShri.VijayS.Sawant AdvocateShri.DongrefortheaccusedNo.1. AdvocateShri.BhoitefortheaccusedNo.2.
(2)SessionsCaseNo.418/2008Jug
(Deliveredonthis20thdayofJanuary2012) 1. TheAccusedNos.1and2standprosecutedforthe
JUDGMENT
offencepunishable u/s.120B,302,328,394,404,109,114 r/w. Section 34 of I. P. C. on the accusation that they hatched criminal conspiracy and committed murder of Dattatraya Pedanna Yemul (hereinafter referred as deceased), the owner of Peshwai Creation and Shrimant PeshwaiClothesStores,Pune,robbed thegoldornaments fromhis personafteradministering himmedicinal tablet for causing drowsiness and dishonestly misappropriated thegoldornamentspossessedbythedeceasedatthetimeof his death. In the alternative, it is also alleged that the accused persons with common intention committed the aforesaidcriminalactsandabettedtheoffence. FACTSOFTHEPROSECUTIONCASE:
2.
Innutshell,itisthecaseoftheprosecutionthatthe
deceased was the owner of two shops namely Peshwai CreationandShrimantCollection.Healwaysusedtowear goldGoaf,goldchain,goldbracelet,goldringsandawrist watchonhisperson.HewasusingMobilePhoneofhisson bearing No. 9822601053. The deceased was having
acquaintancewiththeladyaccusedNo.1Anita@Meena RajendraKhandabale. Shewasalreadymarried,butwas havingillicitrelationswiththeaccusedNo.2AjayAnant Ghag.Forsomeperiod,bothaccusedpersonswereresiding inthelocalityatLowerIndiranagar,Bibvewadi,Pune.The deceased used to take accused No. 1 Anita on his two wheeleratTaljaiHill.
3.
According to prosecution, both the accused persons
hatchedcriminalconspiracy.On08.03.2008,theapplicant No.1purchasedthemedicinaltabletnamelyAtvin2Mg. andPedhafromSweetMart.Intheevening,shecontacted the deceased on his mobile and called him at Gajanan MaharajChowk,Laxminagar,Pune.Accordingly,deceased wenttherebyhisActivaScooterbearingNo.MH12/CM 9935.ThereaftertheaccusedNo.1gavehimPedhatoeat inwhichshehadalreadymixedtwotabletsofAtvin2Mg. Thereafter, they both drunk sugarcane juice at the RasawantofSamratDharwatkar,infrontofShindeHigh School.TheemployeeworkinginthesaidRasawantnamely MarutiKhopadeservedjuicetobothofthem. Thereafter, thedeceasedandaccusedNo.1wentawaytowardsTaljai Hill.
4.
The friend of the deceased namely Shri. Balasaheb
AmrutraoDherehadbeentoTaljaiHillintheeveningon 08.03.2008asusualfortakingwalk.Hehadcomethereby his 800 Maruti Car which was parked by him in Cricket ground.However,whilereturningbackfromTaljaiHill,his car did not start and so he was waiting there for the mechanic. At that time, the deceased and accused No.1 reachedtherebyActivaScooter. Shri.Balasaheb Dhere hadtalkedwiththem. Atthesametime,Shri.Balasaheb Dhere noticed that accused No. 2 was standing at some distancewithhisHeroHondaMotorcycleandthegesture wasgoingonbetweenaccusedNo.1andaccusedNo.2.On inquiry with deceased, he disclosed that they had come thereinsearchofthepurseofaccusedNo.1whichwaslost there. Thereafter,both,deceasedandaccusedNo.1went awayfromthecricketground. REGISTRATIONOFCRIME:
5.
Onnextdaymorningi.e.on09.03.2008,atabout 7/
7.30am,theboysnamelyJafarShaikhandSameerSayyed whohadcometheretoplaycricketinthecricketground, noticed that one person was lying in the bushes at some distance from the cricket ground in injured or dead
condition. So they immediately informed the police. The area of Taljai Hill comes under the jurisdiction of Sahakarnagar Police Station. The Assistant Police Inspector Shri. Sunil Gopalrao Kulkarni now working as Dy. Superintendent of Police who was present in Sahakarnagar Police Station, immediately rushed to the spotofincidentalongwithpolicestaff,photographerand dog squad, after registering C.R. No. 88 / 2008 against unknown person u/s. 302 of IPC on the written report submittedbyPSIShri.Yadavonthebasisofinformation receivedbyhim. Soalsobeforeproceedingtothespotof incident, API Shri. Kulkarni took the necessary entry in the station diary. At the spot, he prepared the spot panchanama in presence of panchas and seized Activa vehicle. Soalsohefoundthatthesaidpersonlyingthere wasalreadydeadandstonewaskeptonhisback.Hispair of chappels, a knife, Nylon rope and other articles were lying there. He seized all those articles, collected blood samples.Roughsketchofsceneofoffencewasalsodrawn. Thephotographersnappedthephotographs.Thedeadbody wassentforpostmortemtoSassoonHospital.Theinquest panchanamaofdeadbodywaspreparedbyPSIShri.Yadav inSassoonHospitalinpresenceofpanchas.TheDogSquad couldnottracedoutanyclue.
6.
The Medical Officer of Sassoon Hospital Dr. Ajay
Taware conducted autopsy on the dead body. He found multipleincisedandchopwoundsonthedeadbody.Inhis opinion,thedeathwasduetotraumaticandhemorrhagic shockduetochopinjuriesandbluntinjuriesoverheadwith stabinjuriesoverneck.
7.
On 08.03.2008, it was a Birthday of son of the
deceasednamelyRahulandtheyhaddecidedtocelebrateit inHotelGardenCourtatChandaniChowk,Pune.During thelastvisitofanothersonofdeceasednamelyAmolatthe gate of Peshwai Collection, at about 9 / 9.15 pm, the deceasedhadtoldhimthathehadreceivedtelephonecall andhewantedtogotohelpthesaidpersonandsothey shallcelebratetheBirthdayinhisabsence.Onthatnight and till the morning of 09.03.2008, the deceased did not return to the house and so his family members started searchinghim. Thenecessaryinformationwasalsogiven tothePolice. Inthemorning,thefamilymembersofthe deceased received call from Sahakarnagar Police Station. ThePoliceOfficercarriedthesonsofdeceasednamelyAmol andRahultoSassoonHospitaldeadhouseandshowedthe deadbody,whichtheyidentifiedasthatoftheirfather.At
thattime,theyweretoldbyPolicethatonlyawristwatch andonegoldringwasfoundonthedeadbody.Othergold ornaments were not found. The sons of deceased also disclosedthatwhilegoingfromtheshopintheeveningon 08.03.2008,thedeceasedhadcarriedcashRs.5,000/with him butthesaid cashwasalsonotfoundwiththedead body. Soalso,hismobilehandsetwasfoundmissing. It was of Samsang Company. From the sons of deceased, PoliceOfficerslearntthatthegoldbraceletof15Tolas,2 Goldchainsoutofwhichonewasgoafhavingrounddesign andonechainwashaving PendentofSwastikand2gold ringsoneasusualandanotherofNazaranapatternwere stolen away which were on the person of the deceased. Accordingly,theinvestigationproceeded.Itwasconducted by three Police Officers i.e. Police Inspector Shri. Shailendra Shinde, Assistant Police Inspector Shri. Gopalrao Kulkarni and Police SubInspector Shri. Sachin PatilofSahakarnagarPoliceStation.
8.
As the Mobile of the deceased was not found, the
investigatingofficercollectedthecalldetailsfromtelephone companyinrespectoftheMobilenumberofthedeceased i.e.9822601053 and itwasrevealedthathehadreceived last calls on 08.03.2008 from Mobile No. 9860692134.
Duringinvestigationitwasrevealedthattheownerofthe saidSIMCardwasonePradipKurki andhehadgivenit forusetohisfriendRaviKallurandhisSIMcardwaslost at Sinhagad Fort on 02.03.2008 as he was using double SIMCardsbyreplacingonebyanother.
9.
It was also informed by the Telephone Company to
I.O.that,beforeusingtheaforesaidSIMCardbearingNo. 9860692134,theanotherSIMCardbearingNo.9766049110 wasbeingusedinthesaidMobileHandsethavingIMEINo. 358073018958800.SotheI.O.triedtosearchtheownerof the said SIM Card and from Telephone Company, it was learnt that the said number was in the name of Mr. MukundVaidya. Aftergettingthecalldetailsofthesaid Mobilenumber,itwasnoticedthatthetalkwastakenplace from the said number many times on Mobile No. 9822066496. After contacting on the said number, it was foundthatitwasbelongingtoMr.MukundVaidya.Sowith hishelp,theinvestigatingofficerShri.Kulkarniarrested the accused No. 1 Meena on 12.03.2008. During her personalsearch,twomobilehandsetswerefoundwithher bearingPhoneNo.9326844274and9766049110.Soalsoa Saree from her person having blackish and red colour stainswasalsoseized.
10.
It was also revealed during interrogation with the
accused No. 1 that she had got a SIM card bearing No. 9860692134at Sinhagad(whichwaslostbyPradipKurki on02.03.2008). SotheInvestigatingOfficercollectedthe calldetailsofallthesephonenumbers.Itwasrevealedthat theaccusedNo.1hadtalkedbyhermobileonthemobile No. 9326058466 many times. After getting information fromtheconcernedtelephonecompanies,itwasfoundthat thesaidSIMCardwasinthenameofaccusedNo.2Ajay Ghag. It was also revealed that Mobile No. 9326844274 whichwasseizedfromaccusedNo.1andwasalsointhe nameofaccusedNo.2AjayGhag. Itwasalsofoundthat therewasatalktakenplacefromMobileNo.9860692134 on Mobile No. 9420206683 and 9860314076. So the investigatingofficertracedoutthepersonswhoareholding theaforesaidtwomobilenumbersanditwasrevealedthat the first mobile number was in the name of Mr. Suresh RanawadeandanotherMobilenumberwasownedbyMr. SadanandSutar,bothresidentofTalKankawali,District Sindhudurga. Oninquirywiththem,itwasrevealedthat the father of accused No.1 had talked with them on 05.03.2008 from the aforesaid Mobile No. 9860692134 whichwasbeingusedbyaccusedNo.1.
11.
While the accused No.1 was in police custody, she
gavememorandumandinviewofthesaidmemorandum, showed the spot where she had got a SIM Card at Sinhagad. At thattime, Policemadeinquiry with aTea Shop owner at Sinhagad namely Dattatray Khatpe who identifiedtheaccusedNo.1bysayingthatbeforeabout15 days of 18.03.2008, she had come there along with one personbymotorcycle.
12.
Again while she was in the police custody, accused
No.1gavememorandumtoshowthespotwhereshehad concealedtheornamentsofdeceased.Accordingly,shetook Police and panchas at her house at Lower Indiranagar, Bibvewadiandtookouttheornamentsconcealedinearthen flowerplotattheterraceofthehouse.Thesaidornaments were weighed by calling the Jweller. Accordingly, panchanamawasprepared.TheaccusedNo.1alsopointed outthehouseofaccusedNo.2wheretheyhadstayed.
13.
InviewofthedisclosuremadebyaccusedNo.1and
thecalldetailscollectedbytheinvestigatingofficershowing talk taken place between accused No. 1 and 2, the investigating officer arrested the accused No. 2 on
15.03.2008. Atthetimeofarrest,oneMobilebearingNo. 9326058466 was found with him and it was seized in presence of panchas. The investigating officer also got informationthataccusedNo.2wasservingattheshopof ChitaleBandhubutformanydays,hewasabsentfromhis duty.Theattemptsweremadebytheinvestigatingofficer toarresthimbygoingtohisnativeplacebuthewasnot found.Onreceiptofinformation,afterlayingtrap,hecould arresttheaccusedNo.2atKatrajon15.03.2008.
14.
On18.03.2008,inviewofdisclosurestatementmade
by accused No. 2 Ajay Ghag after recording his memorandum, the Gold ornaments of deceased i.e. Gold Chain and Nazrana Ring and the clothes of the accused havingbloodstainswererecovered.
15.
Duringthecourseofinvestigation,theseizedarticles
andsamplescollectedfromSassoonHospitalweresentto ChemicalAnalyserforexamination.Thestatementsofthe witnesses were recorded from time to time. The test identificationparadeinrespectofaccusedNo.2AjayGhag was conducted by Tahasildar in which witness Shri. BalasahebDhereidentifiedaccusedNo.2.
SUBMISSIONOFCHARGESHEET: 16. After completion of the investigation, the charge
sheetwasfiledintheCourt of JudicialMagistrate,First Class, Court No. 4, Pune on 04.06.2008 against both the accusedfortheoffencepunishableu/s.120B,302,394and 328ofIPC. COMMITTALORDER: 17. Astheallegedoffencepunishableu/s.302and328of
IPC are exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learnedJudicialMagistrate,FirstClass,CourtNo.4,Pune by his order dated 18.06.2008 committed the case to the SessionsCourt,Pune. Boththe accusedpersons werein theMagistrateCustodyandtheywerealsoforwardedtothe SessionsCourt. CHARGE: 18. Inviewofthefactsoftheprosecutioncaseandthe
papersfiledonrecordandafterhearingthelearnedSpecial Public Prosecutor and defence Advocates, the then Additional Sessions Judge Shri. Vilas S. Patil framed charge against both the accused persons for the offence punishableu/s.120B,302,328,394and404ofIPCand alsointhealternativer/w.Section34ofIPCvideExh.2on
30.06.2008.Itwasreadoverandexplainedtotheaccused personsinvernaculartowhichtheypleadednotguiltyand claimedtobetriedvideExh.3and4respectively.
19.
Thereafter, another Presiding Officer of this Court
AdditionalSessionsJudgeShri.A.Z.Khwajaagainframed fresh charge at Exh. 48 on 28.10.2009 against both the accusedpersonsfortheoffencepunishableu/s.120Br/w. Section302,328,394,404,109,114and34ofIPCandu/s. 302r/w.Section34,109and114ofI.P.C.andu/s.328,394 and404r/w.Section34ofI.P.C. Itwasreadoverand explained to both the accused persons in vernacular to whichtheypleadednotguiltyandclaimedtobetriedvide Exh.49and50respectively.
20.
Afterrecordingofevidenceofinall34witnessesof
prosecution,thestatementsoftheaccusedpersonsu/s.313 of Cr.P.C. were recorded at Exh.176 and 181 respectively. The accused No. 2 Ajay Ghag also submitted separate written statement at Exh.182. Both the accused pleased ignoranceinrespectofcertainfactswhereasinrelationto otherfacts,theirclaimsisthattheyarefalseandtheyhave been falsely implicated in this crime. As per written statementofaccusedNo.2,heisnotknowingaccusedNo.1.
POINTSFORDETERMINATION: 21. IheardtheargumentsofthelearnedSpecialPublic
ProsecutorShri.VijaySawantfortheprosecution,advocate Shri.DongreforaccusedNo.1andAdvocateShri.Bhoite foraccusedNo.2,atlength.Theyplacedrelianceonvarious decisionsofHon'bleHighCourtsandHon'bleApexCourt. FollowingpointsariseformydeterminationtowhichIhave recordedmyfindingsthereon,asunder:
POINTS 1 Does prosecution prove that the accusedNo.1and2hatchedand entered into criminal conspiracy at different places at Pune city fromJanuary2008toMarch2008 andinpursuanceofandasapart ofandforachieving theobjectof abovementioned conspiracy inter alia to do illegal acts, namely, murder,causinghurtbymeansof poison or stupefying drug, voluntarily causing hurt in committingrobberyanddishonest misappropriation of property of deceased and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s. 120B r/w.Section302,328,394and404 ..... ofI.P.C.?
FINDINGS
Provedonly offence punishableu/s. 120Br/w.394 IPC.
POINTS 2 Does prosecution prove that accusedNo.1and2hatchedand entered into criminal conspiracy and on in the night of 8.3.2008 and 9.3.2008 at Taljai Hill at Pune, committed the murder by intentionallyorknowinglycausing death of Dattatraya Pedanna Yemul,andtherebycommittedan offence punishable u/s. 302 r/w. Section120BofI.P.C.? ....
FINDINGS
Notproved
3 Doesprosecutionprovethatonthe aforesaid date, time, place and during the course of the same transaction,accusedNo.1and2, in furtherance of common intention, committed murder of Dattatraya Pedanna Yemul and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s. 302 r/w. Section ...... Proved. 34ofI.P.C.? 4 Does prosecution further prove that on the aforesaid date, time, place and during course of same transaction, accused No. 1 and 2 abetted illegal act i.e. murder of Dattatraya Pedanna Yemul and thereby committed an offence punishabel u/s. 302 r/w. Section ..... 109or114ofI.P.C.?
Doesnotsurvive
POINTS 5 Doesprosecutionprovethatonthe aforesaid date, time, place and during the course of the same transaction,accusedNo.1and2, hatchedandenteredintocriminal conspiracyandcommittedrobbery of gold ornaments of Dattatraya Pedanna Yemul and while committing robbery, voluntarily caused hurt to him and thereby committed an offence punishable ... u/s.394r/w.120BofI.P.C.? 6 Doesprosecutionprovethatonthe aforesaid date, time, place and during the course of the same transaction,accusedNo.1and2, in furtherance of their common intention, committed robbery of gold ornaments of Dattatraya Pedanna Yemul and while committing robbery, voluntarily caused hurt to him and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s.394r/w.Section34ofI.P.C.? .. 7 Does prosecution prove that on aforesaiddate,timeandplaceand during the course of same transaction, accused No. 1 and 2 hatchedandenteredintocriminal conspiracy and administered or
FINDINGS
Proved
Doesnotsurvive
POINTS causedtobetakenbyDattatraya PedannaYemul certainpoisonor certain stupefying intoxicant or unwholesomedrug,withintentto cause or knowing it to be likely thattherebyhurtwillbecausedto the said Dattatraya Pedanna Yemulandtherebycommittedan offence punishable u/s. 328 r/w. Section120BofI.P.C.? .....
FINDINGS
NotProved
8 Doesprosecutionprovethatonthe aforesaid date, time, place and during the course of the same transaction,accusedNo.1and2, in furtherance of their common intention,administeredorcaused to be taken by Dattatraya PedannaYemul certainpoisonor certain stupefying intoxicant or unwholesomedrug,withintentto cause or knowing it to be likely thattherebyhurtwillbecausedto the said Dattatraya Pedanna Yemulandtherebycommittedan offence punishable u/s. 328 r/w. Section34ofI.P.C. ....... NotProved 9 Doesprosecutionprovethatonthe aforesaid date, time, place and during the course of the same transaction,accusedNo.1and2, in furtherance of their common
POINTS
FINDINGS
intention dishonestly mis appropriatedorconvertedtotheir ownusecertainpropertyi.e.cash Rs. 5,000/ and the gold ornamentsknowingthatitwasin possession of the deceased Dattatraya Yemul and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s.404r/w.Section34ofI.P.C.? ....... NotProved 10 Whatorder? Asperfinal order
22.
REASONS ORALEVIDENCE: Inordertobringhometheguiltoftheaccused,the
prosecution is relying on oral evidence of 34 witnesses. Thesewitnessesareclassifiedinfollowingsixgroups: Group(1)Onthepointoflastseen: [1] P.W.6ThewatchmanofPeshwaiCreationnamely DeepakSharmaatExh.73, [2] P.W.10TheManagerofPeshwaiCreationnamely LaxminarayanBandiatExh.80. [3] P.W.21ThesonofthedeceasednamelyAmolYemul atExh.106,
[4]
P.W.25MarutiKokaneatExh.114,whiisworking atRasawantofSamratDharwatkar,and
[5]
P.W.29ThefriendofthedeceasednamelyShri. BalasahebAmrutraoDhereatExh.118.
Group (2) On the point of showing relations between accusedNo.1and2andthepersonsknowntothem: [1] P.W.3RavikishanShivramChakradeoatExh.62 theManagerofChitaleBandhushop. [2] P.W.8MukundBalkrishnaVaidyaatExh.75who hasgivenhismobilehandsetwithSIMCardforuse toaccusedNo.1. [3] P.W. 17 Gaurav Kantilal Vora at Exh. 94, the proprietorofMedicalShop. [4] P.W.19SandeepPasalkaratExh.103,residentof thelocalityofboththeaccusedi.e.atLowerIndira Nagar,Bibvewadi. [5] P.W.24DattatrayaKhatapeatExh.113whorunsa teastallatSinhagad. [6] P.W.26AchalramChaudharyatExh.115whois theownerofshopnamelyAdarshaSweetMartfrom whereaccusedNo.1purchasedPedhaon08.03.2008.
Group(3)PanchWitnesses: [1] P.W.2SagarAwateatExh.52,thepanchwitness onthepersonalsearchpanchanamaofaccusedNo.2 AjayGhagandseizureofmobilehandsetandcash videExh.53. [2] P.W. 9 Sukhamal Dhiwar at Exh. 79, the panch witnessonarrestpanchanamaofaccusedNo.1and seizureofherSareeandtwomobilehandsetsvide Exh.79. [3] P.W.11NarsingAdepatExh.82inwhosepresence the call details were produced by Telephone CompaniesvideExh.83. [4] P.W.12JagdishGujrathiatExh.84isthepanchon memorandum panchanama of accused No.1 Anita Khandabaledated 15.03.2008 vide Exh.85,and recoveryofgoldornamentsatherinstancefromher housevideExh.86. [5] P.W. 18 Sachin Sherla at Exh. 95 is the panch witnessonthememorandumofaccusedNo.2Ajay Ghagdated18.03.2008videExh.96ofseizureofgold ornamentsathisinstancevidepanchanamaExh.97. [6] P.W. 30 Pramod Oswal at Exh. 119, the panch witnessonthepanchanamaExh.120inrespectofthe
houseofaccusedNo.2pointedoutbyaccusedNo.1in KrishnamaiSociety. Group(4)WitnessesfromTelephoneCompanies: [1] P.W.15ChetanPatilatExh.90istheNoodleofficer servinginBharatiAirtelCompanywhohandedover thecalldetails,detailsofIMEIandTowerLocation inrespectofMobileNo.9860692134fortheperiod from01.03.2008to09.03.2008videExh.83(B,C&D). [2] P.W.16DattatrayaAngreatExh.92,theNoodle officerofIndiaCellularLimitedwhosuppliedthecall details in respect of Mobile No. 9822601053 from 10.02.2008to09.03.2008videExh.83(A). Group(5)PoliceOfficers/Investigatingofficers: [1] P.W. 1 P.S.I. Shri. Maruti Yadav at Exh. 30 of SahakarnagarPoliceStationwhovisitedthespotand lodgedFIRvideExh.31andsubmittedittoSenior P.I.forregistrationofcrimealongwithhisletterExh. 32. [2] P.W.32P.I.Shri.ShailendraShindeatExh.128,is one of the Investigating Officers who recorded memorandum of accused No. 2 and recovered
ornaments and sent the seized articles for examinationtoChemicalAnalyser. [3] P.W.33Thesecondinvestigatingofficer,thethen API now working as Dy. Superintendent of Police, EconomicCrimes,StateCID,Shri.SunilKulkarniat Exh.126whoaftervisitingthespot,preparedspot panchanamaanddrewroughsketch,arrestedboth theaccusedpersons,recordedthememorandumof accusedNo.1,preparedseizurepanchanamaandalso recordedstatementsofwitnessesu/s.161ofCr.P.C. [4] P.W.34P.S.I.Shri.SachinPatilatExh.165isthe third investigating officer who collected the call detailsanddetailsofIMEInumber,towerlocations from the respective telephone numbers, prepared panchanama in respect of house of accused No.2 pointedoutbyaccusedNo.1. Group(6)Independentwitnesses: [1] [2] P.W.4JafarShaikhatExh.70,and P.W.7SameerSayyedatExh.74,aretheboyswho saw the dead body of the deceased while playing cricketatTaljaiHillcricketgroundandinformedthe police.
[3]
P.W.5NemichandThakur(Chawan)atExh.71is the photographer who snapped the photographs of deceasedatthespotofincident.
[4] [5]
P.W.13RaviKannuratExh.88,and P.W.14PradeepKurkiatExh.89arethepersons wholosttheirSIMcardatSinhagadForton2.3.2008.
[6] [7]
P.W.20SadashivDhanawadeatExh.104and P.W.23PravinkumarOswalatExh.112arethe Jwellerswhoweighedtheornamentsrecoveredasper memorandumsofbothaccused.
[8]
P.W.22Dr.AjayTawareatExh.105isthemedical officer attached to Sassoon Hospital, Pune who conductedautopsyonthedeadbodyofdeceasedand submittedpostmortemreport.
[9] [10]
P.W.27SureshRanawadeatExh.116and P.W.28SadanandSutaratExh.117areresidents ofTalukaKanakawali,DistrictSindhudurgawith whomthefatherofaccusedNo.1hadtalkedfromher MobileNo.9860692134.
[11]
P.W. 31 Smt. Asha Holkar at Exh.121 is the TahasildarwhoconductedTestIdentificationParade inCentralJail,Yerwadaon10.04.2008inwhichP.W. 29 Balasaheb Dhere identified accused No. 2 Ajay Ghag.
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]
DOCUMENTARYEVIDENCE: C.A.ReportsExh.13to19, FIRExh.31, InquestPanchanamaExh.33, PhotographsofdeceasedatArticleNo.1to12, NegativesatArticleNo.13, Personal search and seizure of cash and Mobile handsetbearingNo.9326058466fromaccusedNo.2 dated15.03.2008,atExh.53,
[7]
Personalsearchandseizureoftwomobilehandsets andSareefromaccusedNo.1dated12.03.2008,Exh. 79.
[8]
Seizure panchanama in respect of call details of Mobile No.9822601053ofIndiaCompany,Exh.84 (A1 toA10), of Mobile No. 9860692134of Airtel Company,Exh.83(B1toB7),detailsinrespectof IMEI No. 358073018958800 of Airtel Company, Exh.83 (C1 to C14), details in respect of tower locationofMobileNo.9860314076Exh.83(D1to35),
[9]
Memorandum of accused No. 1 dated 15.03.2008, Exh.85 and recovery panchanama of three gold ornamentsi.e.Goaf,braceletandaVedhaniRing Exh.86.
[10]
Memorandum of accused No. 2 dated 18.03.2008, Exh.96andseizureofgoldornamentsi.e.chain and 'Nazarana'ringandhisclothes,Exh.97.
[11]
Memorandum of accused No. 1 dated 18.03.2008, Exh.98andpanchanamaofthespotpointedoutby heratSinhagadFort,Exh.99.
[12]
PostmortemreportofdeceasedpreparedbyMedical Officer,SassoonHospital,Exh.108.
[13]
House search panchanama of accused No. 2 at KrishnamaiSociety,Exh.120.
[14]
Identification Parade memorandum prepared by Tahasildardated10.04.2008,Exh.124.
[15]
CopyofstationdiaryentryNo.13/08Exh.130,and No.17/08Exh.132.
[16] [17] [18] [19]
SpotpanchanamaExh.137, RoughSketchofsceneofoffence,Exh.138. DogSquadNilReport,Exh.139. LettersissuedtoTelephonecompaniesforcalldetails, Exh.140(lettertoIdeaCellularCompany)andExh. 141(LettertoAirtelCompany).
[20]
Thereceiptdepositingmuddemalwiththeinchargeof MuddemalofPoliceStation,Exh.145.
[21]
Notarized copies in respect of registration and insuranceof800MarutiCarbearingNo.GA01/C
7900, and notarized copy of driving license of NarsinhaAmrutraoDhere,atExh.186to191. [22] The reply letter dated 22.12.2011 from Junior Engineer(Electrical),SahakarnagarRegionalOffice, PMC, Pune, addressed to the Special Public ProsecutorShri.VijaySawant,Exh.197. 23. DEFENCEEVIDENCE: After recording statements of the accused persons
undersection313ofCr.P.C.,theydidnotadduceanyoral evidence,butcertaindocumentsinrespectof800Maruti CarbearingNo.GA01/C7900 andtwowheelerActiva Scooter No. MH12 / CM 9935 are placed on record on behalfofaccusedNo.1atExh.184and185.
ARGUMENTSOFTHELEARNEDSPECIALP.P.:
24.
The learned Special Public Prosecutor Shri. Vijay
Sawantsubmittedthattheprosecutioncasestandsonthe circumstantial evidence as there is no direct evidence regarding commission of offence. According to him, the prosecutionhasestablishedthelinkofcrimecommittedby the accused persons. It is preplanned and coldblooded murder. There is no evidence that the deceased had
provokedtheaccusedforcommittinghismurder. Onthe contrary,bydevelopingfriendshipbyaccusedNo.1withthe deceased,shecalledhimatGajananMaharajTempleand thereaftertookhimatTaljaiHillwhereaccusedNo.2was alreadypresent. FromtheevidenceofP.W.29Balasaheb Dhere, the learned Special PP pointed out regarding presenceoftheaccusedNo.2alsoatthecricketgroundof TaljaiHill.Fromtheotherwitnesses,hehaspointedthat there is evidence of last seen together the deceased and accusedNo.1. Soalso,fromthememorandumandseizure of gold ornaments belonging to deceased, the learned Special PP has submitted that no explanation has been givenonbehalfoftheaccusedpersonsastohowtheycame inthecustodyoftheornamentsofdeceased. Hehasalso pointed out the evidence regarding blood stains found on the Saree of the accused No. 1, from the seizure panchanama of Saree and the Chemical Analyser report. Fromtheevidenceoftheinvestigatingofficer,itispointed out by the learned Special PP that there are timely recordingofstationdiaryentriesandpreparingthereports toshowthatthereisnoconcoctionofprosecutionstory.He furtherpointedoutfromthearrestpanchanamaofaccused No.2 that there was injury to the finger of the hand of accusedNo.2anditwascausedatthetimeofincidentwhile
assaulting the deceased by means of knife and the contradictory submissions have come on record from the sideoftheaccusedNo.2inrespectofthesaidinjury.
25.
From the record of Telephone Companies and the
evidence of Noodle officers, the learned Special PP has made submission that the prosecution has brought on recordtheevidenceregardingtalksbetweenaccusedNo.1 andaccusedNo.2,accusedNo.1anddeceased,andaccused No.1andP.W.8MukundVaidya.Itisfurtherpointedout fromtheevidenceofP.W.19SandeepPasalkarthataccused No.1and2wereknowingeachotherandtheyusedtogoby the Hero Honda motorcycle of accused No. 2. From the statementsrecordedofboththeaccusedu/s.313ofCr.P.C., thelearnedSpecialPP pointedoutthattheyhaveflatly deniedthattheybotharehaving acquaintancewitheach other. So also, they have not given any explanation in respectofincriminatingevidencebroughtonrecordbythe prosecutionandpointedouttothemwhilerecordingtheir statementsandsoforthosenonexplainedfactswhichare within the knowledge of accused persons, an adverse inferencemustbedrawnagainstthem,ortheprosecution storyistobebelieved.
26.
Regardingidentificationoftheaccusedpersonsinthe
courtbytheconcernedwitnesseswhohadseentheaccused personsbeforetheincident,thelearnedSpecialPPurged that thesaid evidenceis substantive pieceof evidencein ordertoaccepttheprosecutionstory. Soalsothewitness P.W. 29 Balasaheb Dhere who had lastly seen both the accused persons with the deceased has also identified accusedNo.2duringtestidentificationparadeandhewas alreadyknowingaccusedNo.1sincepriortoincidentasshe was introduced to him by deceased and he has also identifiedboththewitnessesintheCourt.
27.
As per contention of the learned Special PP, no
evidence regarding enmity of the family members of the deceasedwithanyoftheaccusedpersonshasbeenbrought on record by defence, and the family members of the deceasedhavenoanyreasontoimplicateaccusedpersons falselyinthiscrime.Hehasalsopointedoutthatbywayof defence,noanysuggestionhasbeenputeithertothesonof thedeceasedorhisfriendP.W.29BalasahebDhere,orthe employees of the deceased that there was any business rivalryofthedeceasedwithanyotherpersonandthatmay bethecauseofhismurder.
28.
ThelearnedSpecialPPhasfairlyadmittedthatthe
delay was caused in recording statement of P.W. 29 BalasahebDherebytheinvestigatingofficer,butthesaid delayhasbeenexplained.Soalso,accordingtohim,there maybesomeomissionsorcontradictionsbroughtonrecord during the evidence of witnesses, but those are minor in nature and not damaging the prosecution case. On the contrary, as per submission of the learned Special PP, during cross examination of theprosecutionwitnesses on behalfofdefence,theyhavestrengthentheprosecutioncase by bringing on record certain facts favourable to prosecution.Thus,accordingtothelearnedSpecialPP,the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt andsoheprayedforconvictionofboththeaccusedpersons fortheallegedoffence. ARGUMENTOFDEFENCEADVOCATES:
(A)ADVOCATESHRI.DONGREFORACCUSEDNO.1: 29. As per contention of Advocate Shri. Dongre for the
accused No.1, as the prosecution case is based only on circumstantialevidence,itisnotsostrongandtrustworthy for coming to the conclusion that the accused and only accusedhascommittedthesaidoffence.Hetriedtopoint
out the contradictory versions of the witnesses by submitting that during the trial, the witnesses have deposedregardingfindingofActivascooterofthedeceased atthespotofincidentthoughitwasnotinthenameofthe deceasedandwasinthenameofhissonRahul,butheis alsonotexaminedbytheprosecution.Itisalsopointedout from the evidence of Police witnesses and the spot panchanama that the vehicle found at the spot was the motorcycle,nowheretheyreferredasActivascooter.
30.
Regarding the evidence of two boys who saw the
injuredordeadbodyatthespotofincidentwhileplaying cricket,itispointedoutbyAdvocateShri.DongrethatP.W. 4 Jafar Shaikh admitted in his cross examination that therewere3to4dogsbitingthedeadbodybutthisfacthas beendeniedbytheotherwitnessP.W.7SameerSayyed. Hehasdeniedthosecontentsfromhispolicestatement.
31.
Advocate Shri. Dongre has also ruled out the
possibilityofgivingmobilehandsettoanyNurseservingin the hospital and taking care of any patient, thereby he challenged the evidence of prosecution, more particularly thatofP.W.8MukundVaidyathathehasgivenhismobile handsethavingSIMCardNo.9766049110toaccusedNo.1.
32.
AspercontentionofAdvocateShri.Dongre,thereis
no evidence on record either through the panch or investigating officer that the Saree of accused No. 1 was duly sealed in a packet while preparing seizure panchanama and so he requested to discard the said evidenceregardingseizureofSaree. Soaccordingtohim, the C.A. Report regarding blood stain of the group of deceasedfoundatthesaidSareecannotbeusedagainst theaccusedNo.1.
33.
AdvocateShri.Dongrealsopointedoutthatthereis
noseizurepanchanamainrespectofthecalldetailsfrom the concerned telephone companies. So also, according to him, the concerned officers of telephone company namely SunilTiwariandSachinShindehavenotbeenexamined. SoalsoExh.83doesnotshowthecalldetailson08.03.2008 atorabout9.00pm. SothedocumentExh.83cannotbe usedagainsttheaccusedpersons. Itisfurthercontended thatasperevidenceofthepanchandinvestigatingofficer thesocalledgoldornamentsrecoveredattheinstanceof accused No. 1 were kept in plastic bag concealing in an earthen flower pot, but while preparing seizure panchanama,thesaidplasticbaghasnotbeenseized. So
also, regarding evidence of P.W. 13 Ravi Kannur, he has nowherestatedregarding thespot wherehehadlost the SIMCardandnoanyspotwaspointedoutbyhim.Sothe memorandumofaccusedNo.1pointingoutthespotandthe evidence of the tea stall owner Dattatraya Khatpe of Sinhagadisofnouse.
34.
Advocate Shri. Dongre has also raised doubt
regardinghandingoverthegoldringandwristwatchfound atdeadbodytoP.W.21AmolYemulasPolicedidnotobtain any receipt from him. He has further pointed out the admission of the Jweller P.W. 23 Pravinkumar Oswal in whichheadmittedthatwhenheweighedornaments,hedid notseeanypanch.SoaccordingtoAdvocateShri.Dongre, the recovery panchanama of the gold ornaments at the instanceofaccusedNo.1issuspiciousanddoubtful.
35.
AdvocateShri.Dongreurgedtodiscardtheevidence
of P.W. 29 Balasaheb Dhere by contending that his statement was recorded by the investigating officer on 27.03.2008i.e.afteralonggapoftheincidentwhichtook placeon08.03.2008. Accordingtohim,P.W.29beingthe friendofdeceased,heisagotupwitnessandhedidnotsee deceasedoranyoftheaccusedatTaljaiHillintheevening
of08.03.2008andsohedidnotcomeforwardtogiveany statementtothepolicethoughhegotknowledgeaboutthe murderofhisfriend,onnextdayoftheincident. Asper further contention of Advocate Shri. Dongre, though the investigatingofficerP.W.34PSISachinPatildeposedthat the accused No. 1 was called through P.W. 8 Mukund Vaidya,thisfacthasnotbeendisclosedduringtheevidence by P.W. 8 Mukund Vaidya. Thus, according to Advocate Shri. Dongre, the evidence adduced by theprosecution is fullofomissionsandcontradictionsandsuchevidencecan notbesaidtobesufficienttoconnecttheaccusedNo.1with thiscrime.SoheprayedforacquittalofaccusedNo.1.
(B)ADVOCATESHRI.BHOITEFORACCUSEDNO.2:
36.
At the outset while assailing the prosecution story
regarding identification of accused No. 2 by P.W. 29 BalasahebDhere,AdvocateShri.BhoitefortheaccusedNo. 2 contended that during his evidence, P.W. 29 did not disclosethedescriptionoftheclothesoftheaccusedNo.2 andthecauseonthebasisofwhichheidentifiedaccused No.2duringidentificationparade. Itisalsocontendedby AdvocateShri.Bhoitethatprosecutionhasnotbroughtany evidence on record regarding source of light available at
that timetoseetheaccusedNo. 2byP.W.29Balasaheb DhereatcricketgroundofTaljaiHill. Sotheevidenceof P.W.29BalasahebDhereisdoubtful.AdvocateShri.Bhoite has also raised doubt as to how in the night time it is possibletotakewalkatthehill.FromtheevidenceofP.W. 29 Balasaheb Dhere that two persons namely Dixit and Gangawane were with him while returning back towards hisMarutiCar,buthedidnotrequestthosepersonstogive pushtohiscar.Soalso,hedidnotaskDattatrayaYemulto helphim.SoaccordingtoAdvocateShri.Bhoite,presence of P.W. 29 Balasaheb Dhere at the spot of incident is doubtful. Regarding identification parade conducted by P.W.31TahsildarSmt.AshaHolkar,AdvocateShri.Bhoite contended that she has not followed the rules and guidelines as laid down by Hon'ble High Court for conducting test identification parade. The specific place whereaccusedNo.2wasstandingi.e.fromwhichside,is alsonotnotedbyTahasildarinhermemorandumExh.124. Fromthesamememorandum,hetriedtopointoutthatthe dummypersonswerenotofthesameagegroupofaccused No.2.ItisfurthersubmittedbyAdvocateShri.Bhoitethat the photograph of accused No. 2 was shown to P.W. 29 Balasaheb Dhere in the Police Station before the date of identification parade. So according to Advocate Shri.
Bhoite, the evidence on identification parade can not be believed.
37.
Advocate Shri. Bhoite further contended that the
prosecutionhasnotbroughtanyevidenceinrespectofthe so called rented house of accused No. 2 at Krishnamai Society. Duringtheallegedsearchoftheaidhouseatthe instanceofaccusedNo.1,noanydocumenthasbeenseized bythePoliceOfficerinordertoshowthattheaccusedNo.2 wasresidinginthesaidhouse.Hepointedoutthatasper prosecution story, at the instance of accused No. 2, the ornamentswererecoveredwhichwerekeptinthebarrelin frontofthesaidrentedhousefromKrushnamaiSocietyand the investigating officer states that the barrel in which ornamentswerefoundwasnotcoveredwhereasthepanch witnessstatesthatitwascoveredbysomething.According to Advocate Shri. Bhoite, no any person can keep such valuable ornaments in a public place, that too, in the dustbinwhentheaccusedNo.2hadbeentohisnativeplace whichisfarawayfromPuneCity,hewouldhavecarried thoseornamentswithhimifhehadcommittedthealleged offence. So according to him, this is improbable story of prosecution.
38.
According toAdvocateShri.Bhoite, theprosecution
has failed to bring on record, the evidence regarding so called conspiracy hatched by accused No. 1 and 2 for committingtheallegedoffence.FromtheevidenceofP.W. 19 Sandeep Pasalkar, it is contended by Advocate Shri. BhoitethathehadseenaccusedNo.1and2whilegoingon themotorcyclefromhishousewhenhewasbedriddendue tofractureofleg. Theinvestigatingofficershaveneither seizedthe said HeroHondaMotorcycle norproducedany document to show that any such motorcycle was in the nameofaccusedNo.2.AspercontentionofAdvocateShri. Bhoite,eveniftheevidenceofP.W.19SandeepPasalkaris relied,thepossibilitycannotberuledoutthattheaccused No. 2 might have given lift on the motorcycle to accused No.1. It is also contended that regarding love affairs of accused No. 1 and 2, the evidence of P.W. 19 Sandeep Pasalkarishearsay.Sohisversioncannotbeaccepted.
39.
Regarding seizure of two handsets of mobiles from
accusedNo.1,AdvocateShri.Bhoitepointedoutthatthe panchP.W.9SukhmalDhiwarcouldnotstatethemobile numbers. So also, as per contention of Advocate Shri. Bhoite, there are no call details in respect of Mobile No. 9326844274whichwasinthenameofaccusedNo.2found
with accused No. 1 to show that it was used for talking eitherwithdeceasedoraccusedNo.2byaccusedNo.1.So also,noevidencebywayofcalldetailsisproducedonrecord inrespectofMobileNo.9326058466whichwasseizedfrom the possession of accused No.2 after his arrest, to show that during the period of incident, it was used. So also according to Advocate Shri. Bhoite, there is no entry at Exh.83toshowthattherewastalkbetweenaccusedNo.1 and2 eitheron08.03.2008 oron09.03.2008. Advocate Shri.BhoitehaspointedoutthataccusedNo.2hasalready given explanation during trial and also while recording statementu/s.313ofCr.P.C.thattheinjuryfoundonhis fingerofthehandwascausedtohimwhileworkinginthe field at this native place. So considering evidence of prosecution, according to Advocate Shri. Bhoite, it is not sufficient to prove the guilt of accused No. 2 beyond reasonabledoubt,soheprayedforhisacquittal. MOBILENUMBERSREFERREDINTHECASE: 40. MobileNumbersandnamesinwhichtheSIMCards
wereregisteredasperrecordofTelephoneCompaniesare asunder:
Sr. MobileNo./ No. SIMCard
Nameoftheperson Nameoftheperson asperrecordof usingMobile/SIM Tel.Co. Card
[1] [2]
9822601053 9766049110 IMEINo. 358073018958 800
RahulYemul P.W.8Mukund Vaidya
Deceased DattatrayaYemul AccusedNo.1 Anita@Meean
[3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]
9860692134 9420206683 9860314076 9326844274 9326058466 9422037370 9822066496
P.W.14Pradeep Kurki WifeofP.W.27 SureshRanawade P.W.28Sadanand Sutar AccusedNo.2 AjayGhag AccusedNo.2 AjayGhag P.W.29 BalasahabeDhere P.W.8Mukund Vaidya
AccusedNo.1 Anita@Meena P.W.27Suresh Ranawade P.W.28Sadanand Sutar AccusedNo.1 Anita@Meena AccusedNo.2 AjayGhag P.W.29Balasaheb Dhere P.W.8Mukund Vaidya
CITATIONSRELIEDBYSPECIALPPSHRI.SAWANT: 41. In support of different points raised during
argument, the learned Special Public Prosecutor Shri. Sawantplacedrelianceonthefollowingvariousdecisionsof Hon'bleBombayHighCourtandHon'bleApexCourt. [A] [i] OnthepointofCriminalJurisprudenceand Appreciationofevidence: StateofU.P.Vs.AnilSingAIR1988S.C.1998.
TheHon'bleApexCourthasobservedthat: Inthegreatmajorityofcases,theprosecutionversion is rejected either for the want of corroboration by independentwitnesses,orforsomefalsehoodstatedor embroidery added bywitnesses. In some cases, the entireprosecutioncaseisdoubtedfornotexamining all the witnesses to the occurrence. The different attitudeofthepublicintheinvestigationofthecrimes could also be pointed. The public are generally reluctanttocomeforwardtodeposebeforeCourt. It is, therefore, not correct to reject the prosecution version only on the ground that all witnesses to occurrencehavenotbeenexaminedorforthewantof corroboration by independent witnesses if the case made out is otherwise true and acceptable. With regard to falsehood stated or embellishments added bythe prosecution witnesses, itiswelltoremember that there is a tendency amongst witnesses in our countrytobackupagoodcasebyfalseorexaggerated version. It is also experienced that invariably the
witnesses add embroidery to prosecution story perhapsforthefearofbeingdisbelieved.Butitisno groundtogroundtothrowthecaseoverboared,iftrue inthemain.Ifthereisaringoftruthinthemain,the caseshouldnotberejected.ItisthedutyoftheCourt to cull out the nuggets of truth from the evidence unless there is reason to believe that the inconsistenciesoffalsehoodaresoglaringasutterlyto destroyconfidenceinthewitnesses.Itisnecessaryto remember that a Judge does not preside over a criminaltrialmerelytoseethatnoinnocentmanis punished. AJudgealsopresidestoseethataguilty man does not escape. One is as important as the other.BotharepublicdutieswhichtheJudgehasto perform. [ii] InspectorofPolice,TamilNadu Vs.JohnDavid 2011Cri.L.J.3366(SupremeCourt)
InPara38ofthesaidJudgment,theHon'bleApexCourt has referred it's earlier Judgment reported in AIR 2000 S.C.185inwhichitisheldthat, The court must have predominance and pre eminenceincriminaltrialsovertheactiontakenby theinvestigatingofficers.Criminaljusticeshouldnot bemadeacasualtyforthewrongscommittedbythe investigatingofficersinthecase. Inotherwords,if thecourtisconvincedthatthetestimonyofawitness totheoccurrenceistrue,theCourtisfreetoactonit. So the minor loopholes and irregularities in the investigationprocesscannotformthecruxofthecase.
[iii]
StateofPunjabVs.KrnailSingh2003(3)Crimes 292(SupremeCourt).
Itisobservedthat Exaggerateddevotiontotheruleofbenefitofdoubt must not nurture fanciful doubts or lingering suspicionandtherebydestroysocialdefence.Justice cannotbemadesterileonthepleathatitisbetterto let hundred guilty escape than punish an innocent. Lettingguiltyescapeisnotdoingjusticeaccordingto law.Prosecutionisnotrequiredtomeetanyandevery hypothesisputforwardbytheaccused. [B] [i] OnthepointofCircumstantialEvidence: RamesjbhaiMohanbhaiKoliVs.StateofGujrat 2010(4)Crimes325(SupremeCourt).
Itisobservedthat A false plea taken by an accused in a case of circumstantialevidenceisan additionallink inthe chainofcircumstances. [ii] Aftab Ahmad Anasari Vs. State of Uttaranchal 2010(1)Crimes97(SupremeCourt) Regarding circumstantial evidence, it has been observed that Theremustbeachainofevidencesofarcompleteas not to leave any reasonable ground for conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability, the act must have been done by the accused.
[C]
Onthepointofrecovery/discoveryU/s.27of EvidenceAct:
[i] DineshBhulakhiHarijanVs.State 2009(1)Mh.L.J.(Cri.)185 AspersaiddecisionofourHon'bleHighCourt, Discovery of a fact in pursuance of information received from a person accused of an offence inthe custodyofapoliceofficertriggerstheapplicationof Section27,thatpartoftheinformationwhichrelates distinctlytothefacttherebydiscoveredcanbeproved. [D] [i] OnthePointofStatementofaccusedu/s.313Cr.P.C. WilfredRozarioFernandesVs.StateofMaharashtra 2011(1)Bom.C.R.(Cri.)282
Inthiscase,whilerecordingstatementu/s.313ofCr.P.C., the accused could not offer any explanation about blood stainedclothesorhisabsconding,itisheldthat Allcircumstancestakentogetherwereclearpointers towardsguiltofaccused. Itisfurtherobservedthat Falseanswergiventoquestionsinhisexamination u/s.313ofCr.P.C.furnishedadditionallinkagainst theaccused.Theaccusedisrequiredtoprovethefacts whichwereentirelywithinhisspecialknowledgeu/s. 106oftheEvidenceact.
[ii] ShivannaBhimsenLokhandeVs.Stateof Maharashtra2009(2)Mh.L.J.(Cri.)529 It is on the point of allegations by accused regarding tampering of the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer.Ithasbeenobservedthat There is no material on the record to indicate the possibility or likelihood of the evidence collected to have been tampered with or interpolated. No such suggestion has been put to the Investigating Officer duringthecourseofcrossexamination.Noprejudice isestablishedorshown. InPara8oftheJudgment,ithasbeenobservedthat U/s.313ofCr.P.C.,theaccuseddeniedrecoveryofhis clothes. There was no explanation of the circumstancesinwhichthebloodstainshadappeared onhisclothes. So the conviction of the conviction of the accused on the basisofcircumstantialevidencewasconfirmed. [iii] SanatanNaskarVs.StateofWestBengal 2010(3)Crimes201(SupremeCourt)
Aspersaiddecision Answers by the accused u/s. 313 of Cr.P.C. are of relevantforfindingoutthetruthandexaminingthe veracity of the case of prosecution. The scope of
Section313Cr.P.C.iswideandisnomereformality. The said provision provides the accused an opportunity to explain incriminating circumstances appearing against him and at the same time also permithimtoputforwardhisownversionorreasons if he chooses in relation to his involvement or otherwise in the crime. However, if the statement madebytheaccusedarefalse,theCourtisentitledto drawadverseinferenceandpassconsequentialorders asmaybecalledforinaccordancewiththelaw. However,itisfurtherobservedthat Convictionoftheaccusedcannotbebasedmerelyon thestatementmadeu/s.313ofCr.P.C.asitcannotbe regardedasasubstantivepieceofevidence. [E] OnthepointofIdentificationoftheaccusedatthe timeoftrial RanjyotsinghGurudayalsinghVs.Stateof Maharashtra2009(1)Mh.L.J.(Cri.)134
[i]
ItisobservedbyDivisionBenchofourHon'bleHighCourt that Identificationofanaccusedatthetrialissubstantive evidence,thoughtheevidenceofidentificationintest identificationparadeisnotsubstantiveevidencebut isonlycorroborativeevidence. [H] OnthepointofentriesinstationdiarybyPolice officers
[i]
StateofMaharashtraVs.GaneshShamraoAndekar 2007(1)Mh.L.J.(Cri.)756
AsperthisdecisionofDivisionBenchofourHon'bleHigh Court, Sequenceofeventsandthespeedwithwhichentries came to be recorded differently, rules out the possibilityofconcoctionandfabrication. [ii] Maqbool@Zubir@ShahnawasVs.StateofA.P. 2010(3)Crimes149(SupremeCourt)
Consideringtheevidenceregardingtheentriestakenbythe Police Officers inthe Station diary, it has been observed that TheextractsfromStationDiaryprovidesubstantial supporttothecaseofprosecution. [I] Onthepointofminordiscrepanciesandimprovement intheevidencebythewitnesses BharwadaBhoginhbhaiHirjibhaiVs.Stateof Gujrat1983Cri.L.J.1096(1)(SupremeCourt)
[i]
Aspersaiddecision, overmuch importance can not be given to minor discrepancieswhichdonotgototherootofthematter andshakethebasisversionofthewitnesses.
[ii] RameshBaburaoDevaskarVs.Stateof Maharashtra2004(2)Bom.C.R.(Cri.)928 IthasbeenheldbyHon'bleHighCourtthat If Police do not question the witness in relation to something which may have happenedandtherefore, there is no answer which is reduced into writing u/s.161ofCr.P.C.,witnesscannotbediscreditedfor notstatingsomethingwhichhestatesinCourt.Such statementinCourtwithouttherebeingcorresponding statement u/s. 161 of Cr.P.C. can not be termed as improvement.Ifitpertainstoinsignificantfactwhich has no bearing on facts and evidence of that case, minor improvements, contradictions and omissions areliabletobeignoredwhileappreciatingevidenceof witnessasawhole. CITATIONS : RELIED BY ADVOCATE SHRI. DONGREFORACCUSEDNO.1 [i] Mustkeem @ Sirajudeen Vs. State of Rajasthan 2011(3)Crimes118(SupremeCourt)
TherelianceisplacedontheobservationsofHon'bleApex Courtinrespectofcircumstantialevidence,inPara25of theJudgment,whichsays Itistoowellsettledinlawthatwherethecaserests squarelyoncircumstantialevidence,theinferenceof guiltcanbejustifiedonlywhenalltheincriminating factsandcircumstancesarefoundtobeincompatible withtheinnocenceoftheaccusedortheguiltofany
otherperson.Nodoubt,itistruethatconvictioncan be based solely on circumstantial evidence but it shouldbedecidedonthetouchstoneoflawrelatingto circumstantial evidence which has been well settled bythisCourt. TheHon'bleApexCourthasreferredthefeatureswhichare required to be complied with while appreciating circumstantialevidenceaslaiddowninthecaseofSharad Birdhichand SardaVs.StateofMaharashtra reportedin 1984(4)SCC . 116 [ii] DasuandothersVs.StateofMaharashtra 1985Cri.L.J.1933(BombayHighCourt) Inthesaidcase,thebloodstainedclotheswerenotwrapped and sealed immediately after seizure in the presence of panchas. Sowhileappreciatingthesaidevidence,Hon'ble HighCourthasobservedthat Itisboundtoaffectprobativevalueofthefindingsof thechemicalanalyser. CITATIONSRELIEDBYADVOCATESHRI.BHOITE FORACCUSEDNO.2 [A] OnthepointofCircumstantialevidence [i] ChandanmalVs.StateofRajastan AIR1976S.C.917.
[ii]
JagannathDamjiVs.StateofMaharashtra 2002AllMR(Cri.)2231(BombayHighCourt) Asperthesedecisions,whenthecasebasedentirelyon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy threetests.Firstly,thecircumstancesfromwhichthe inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established. Secondly, those circumstances should be of definite tendency unerringlypointingoutguiltofaccused.Thirdly,the circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from conclusion that within all human probability, the crimewascommittedbytheaccusedandnoneelse. Thatistosaythecircumstancesshouldbeincapable ofexplanationonanyreasonablehypothesissavethat oftheaccused'sguilt.
Itisfurtherobservedthatthe Falsity of defence of failure to give reasonable explanation can not be substituted as proof, particularly,whenprosecutionhasfailedtoestablish theoffenceagainstaccusedbeyondreasonabledoubt. Thecircumstancesmayatthemostraisedsuspicion against the accused but suspicion howsoever strong can not displaces the proof which is required to be establishedbytheprosecution.
[B] [i]
Onthepointofconspiracy: Rajendra@RajuNetrapalVs.StateofMaharashtra 2010AllMR(Cri.)449.
Aspersaiddecision,thechargeofconspiracycanbe proved by direct as well as circumstantial evidence and most of the times, direct evidence to prove the charge of conspiracy is not available because conspiracy is generally hatched under secrecy and executedindark.However,evenwhendirectevidence toprovethechargeofconspiracyisnotavailable,itis necessaryfortheprosecutiontoestablishthecharge beyondreasonabledoubt forwhichprosecutionmay rely on the circumstantial evidence. When the prosecutionreliesoncircumstantialevidence,chainof all circumstances must be complete to rule out any hypothesisofinnocence. [C] [i] Aspersaiddecision,theevidenceoflastseenisweak type of evidence, however, if it is convincing, trustworthy, inspires confidence and is corroborated byotherprosecutionevidence,itcansafelyberelied upon. [D] [i] Onthepointofidentificationofaccused BablyaBaliramMadhviVs.StateofMaharashtra 2011AllMR(Cri.)3302 In the said case, three witnesses identified two accused boys during test identification parade conducted by Tahasildar. However, statement of Tahasildar in cross examination shows that identification parade was not conducted as per Onthepointoflastseentogether TukaramVithalBhangareVs.StateofMaharashtra 2011AllMR(Cri.)2407.
procedureinlaw.Sotheconvictionoftwoboysonthe basisofidentificationparadehasbeensetaside. [ii] ShaikhUmarAhmedShaikhVs.Stateof Maharashtra1998Cri.L.J.2534(SupremeCourt)
IthasbeenobservedbyHon'bleApexCourtthat There was strong possibility of the accused having been shown to the witnesses before identification parade. Soconvictionrecordedbyrelyingonidentificationof theaccusedbythesaidwitnessesinthecourtisheld asnotjustifiedandtheiridentificationinthecourtis meaningless. [ii] HabalShaikhVs.State1991Cri.L.J.1258 (BombayHighCourt) Inthesaidcase,witnessesintheirstatementsorinoral evidenceneithergiveanydescriptionoftheaccusedwhom theyallegedtohaveidentifiedinthecommissionofcrime nor do the witnesses give any identification marks viz. statuaryoftheaccusedorwhethertheywerefatorthin,or offairorblackcomplexion.Soitisheldthat Itwillbeunsafetoconvictanyaccusedonthebasis of a single identification as in such case, the reasonablepossibilityofmistakeinidentification,can notbeexcluded.
In the said case, delay of 4 to 5 months was caused in conducting identification parade and no explanation was givenfordelayinholdingtestidentificationparade,soit wasalsodoubted. [E] [i] Onthepointofappreciationofevidence SunilBhagwanBhendeVs.StateofMaharashtra 2002AllMRCri.217
Aspersaiddecision,fortheproofofseriousoffenceof murder by two or more persons in furtherance of common intention, the evidence must be adduced which must satisfy the tests of proof beyond all reasonabledoubts.Togreaterthecharge,thestricter has to be proof. The evidence can not be shaky in correctbutmustpositivelypointoutthattheauthors ofcrimewerenoneotherthantheaccused. In the said case, according to eye witnesses, 50 have assembled.Soitisheldthat Findingofguiltcannotbebasedbeyondassumption or presumption, particularly, when the evidence of witnesswhowasessentialwitnessandherevidence would have been thrown light upon genesis, motive and links in the chain of circumstances leading to sureconclusion,butthesaidevidencewaswithheld bytheprosecution.
[F]
Onthepointofomission
[i] LahanuWamanVs.StateofMaharashtra 2011AllMR(Cri.)3371. Ithasbeenobservedthat Omissionsandcontradictionsgoingtotherootofthe matter and certainly diminishing credibility of testimony of witnesses and held that such defective testimony can not be relied upon to the basis of convictionagainsttheaccused. [G] OnthePointofdelayforrecordingstatementduring investigation Bablya@BaliramShivramMoreVs.Stateof Maharashtra2010AllMR(Cri.)2677
[i]
Asperfactsofthesaidcase,severalvillagerswerepresent atthespotandvirtuallytheyreceivedknowledgeaboutthe incident on the same day or within 2 / 3 days of the occurrencei.e.on 26.05.2007. However,thestatementof oneoftheeyewitnesseswasrecordedafter14to15days who was educated upto 10th standard and working as AnganwadiSevika.Thetripsofpolicepersonnelinvillage inrelationtotheinvestigationofthecrimewasgoingon. Onthisbackground,Hon'bleHighCourtheldthat
Suchdelayedrecordingofstatementwithoutproper explanationisverydifficultforacceptanceanditis not safe to rely on the said witness to confirm the convictionoftheappellant. [F] [i] Onthepointofrecoveryordiscoveryu/s.27ofthe EvidenceAct InspectorofPoliceTamilNaduVs.JohnDavid 2008AllMR(Cri.)3257(SupremeCourt) (AlreadyreferredbylearnedSpecialPPShri.Sawant) The various requirements of Section 27 of Evidence Actinrespectoftherecoveryordiscoveryofthefact have been summed up in this decision, such as, it must be relevant in issue, it must have been discovered, discovery must be in consequence of the informationreceivedfromtheaccused,hemustbein policecustodyetc. [ii] ThimmaVs.StateofMysore1971S.C.1871.
Asperthisdecision, U/s. 27 of Evidence Act, a fact already discovered fromothersourcecannotbediscoveredafreshevenif relevantinformationisextractedfromtheaccused. [iii] StateofMaharashtraVs.BharatRambhauShisat 2006AllMR(Cri.)826
Asperthisdecision, Panchanamaofseizureu/s.27oftheEvidenceAct, not bearing signatureofaccused, isa wealpiece of evidence.
[iv]
StateofRajasthanVs.Talevar 2011AllMR(Cri.)2340(SupremeCourt) It was the case of dacoity and the stolen properties were recovered from the accused. Considering the provisionsofSection114ofEvidenceAct,ithasbeen observedthatwhereonlyevidenceagainsttheaccused is recovery of stolen properties, then though the circumstancesmayindicatethatthetheftandmurder mighthavebeencommittedatthesametime,itisnot safetodrawaninferencethatthepersoninpossession of stolen property had committed murder. It also depends on the nature of the property so recovered whether it was likely to pass readily from hand to hand.Suspicionshouldnottaketheplaceofproof.
[iv]
DevrajDejuSuvarnaVs.StateofMaharashtra 1994Cri.L.J.3602(BombayHighCourt)
Inthesaidcase,recoveryofthechopperwasmadewhile accusedwashandcuffed.Itisheldthat, It could not be said beyond reasonable doubt that recovery was voluntary and not result of duress, threatorpressurebypoliceauthorities. [v] StateofMaharashtraVs.AshokHanumant 2006AllMR(Cri.)15 Inthesaidcase,theDivisionBenchofHon'bleHighCourt did not accept the evidence regarding recovery of bloodstainedclothesastrustworthyandsoitisheldthat
The evidence with regard to Chemical Analyser's report looses its importance and it has to be discarded. ASTOPOINTNOS.1TO9:
42.
Asallthesepointsthoughareinrespectofdifferent
offences punishable under different sections of I.P.C., for coming to the conclusion of all the points, the common evidence needs to be discussed. So in order to avoid repetition of facts and evidence by discussing each point separately,Ihavetakenlibertytodiscussallthesepoints together. 43. Themainallegationoftheprosecutionisregarding
the criminal conspiracy by both the accused in order to commit different offences of which the main offence is of murder, punishableu/s.302androbbery, punishableu/s. 394ofIPC. Section120(A)ofI.P.C.definesthecriminal conspiracy whereas in Section 120(B), the punishment is providedforcriminalconspiracywhichisequivalenttothe punishmentprovidedfortheallegedoffence.
44.
Hon'ble Apex Court in the landmark Judgment of
StateofTamilNaduVs.Naliniandothers i.e.regarding
assassination of the then Prime Minister Shri. Rajeev Gandhi,reportedin AIR1999SupremeCourt2640, the criminal conspiracy has been discussed with reference to variousearlierdecisionsofHon'bleApexCourt.Ithasbeen saidthat Every one of the conspirators need not have taken activepartinthecommissionofeachandeveryoneof theconspiratorialactsfortheoffenceofconspiracyto be made out. The offence of criminal conspiracy consistsinameetingofmindsoftwoormorepersons foragreeingtodoorcausingtobedoneanillegalact oranactbyillegalmeans,andtheperformanceofan actintermsthereof. Generally,aconspiracyishatchedinsecrecyandit maybedifficulttoadducedirectevidenceofthesame. Theprosecutionwilloftenrelyonevidenceofactsof various parties to infer that they were done in referencetotheircommonintention.Theprosecution will also more often rely upon circumstantial evidence. Theconspiracycanbeundoubtedlyproved by such evidence direct or circumstantial, but the Court must inquire whether the two persons are independently pursuing the same end or they have cometogetherinthepursuitoftheunlawfulobject.It is essential that the offence of conspiracy requires some kind of physical manifestation of agreement. However,no expressagreement oractual meeting of twopersonsortheactualwordsofcommunication,is necessary. The evidence as to transmission of thoughts sharing the unlawful design may be sufficient.
A conspiracy thus, is a continuing offence and continues to subsist and committed whereverone of theconspiratorsdoesanactorseriesofacts.Solong asitsperformancecontinues,itisacontinuingoffence tillitisexecutedorrescindedorfrustratedbychoice ornecessity. 45. Thus, in the light of above observations of Hon'ble
ApexCourtinrespectof'criminalconspiracy'anddecisions referred by respective Advocates and the learned Special PP, itisnecessarytoscrutinizetheevidenceproducedon record,thattoo,minutelyastheentireprosecutioncaseis basedononlycircumstantialevidence. 46. It would be just and proper to discuss first the
evidence regarding acquaintance of accused No. 1 and 2 with each other as during the trial and while recording theirstatementsu/s.313ofCr.P.C.,theyhavedeniedthat theyhaveanysuchacquaintanceortheyareknowingeach other. Thisevidenceisintheformoforalevidenceofthe witnessesandthedocumentaryevidencebywayofseizure ofthemobilehandsetsandthecalldetailscollectedfrom therespectivetelephonecompanies.
47.
AsperoralevidenceofP.W.19SandeepPasalkar,
heisresidentofLowerIndiranagar,Bibvewadi.According
tohim,sincelastabout25years,heisresidingthereand sincelongback,accusedNo.1Anitaresidesonehouseafter hishouse. Soalso,accordingtohim,theaccused No.2 AjayGhagresidedinthesaidlocalityforabout4to5years and so he knows both the accused persons. His further evidenceshowsthattherewastheloveaffairsbetweenboth theaccusedpersonsandthisfactwasalsoknowntoother persons from the locality. For about 5 to 6 times, this witness had seen both the accused persons going on motorcycleofaccusedNo.2.Hehasalsodisclosedthathe washavingcordialrelationswithboththeaccusedpersons andevenhehadoccasiontotalkwiththem.
48.
Theevidenceofthiswitnesshasbeenchallengedon
behalfofaccusedpersonsonthegroundthattheaccused No.1wasalreadymarriedandonlyafterseeingboththe accused persons going on motorcycle, the witness was deposingregardingtheirloveaffairsandhehadneverseen themwhilegoingfromthehouseoftheaccusedNo.1. So also,thesaidwitnessneverdisclosedaboutthesaidlove affairs either to the husband or parents of accused No.1. During his examinationinchief, the witness suomotu disclosed that the motorcycle of accused No. 2 was Hero Hondaandthisfactwasstatedbyhimtothepolicewhile
recordinghisstatementandthesaidfactisnotappearing in his statement recorded by the Investigating Officer. However,thesaidomissionhasnotbeenbroughtonrecord duringcrossexaminationoftheInvestigatingOfficerwho recorded his statement. So it can not be said in view of decisioncitedbythelearnedSpecialPublicProsecutorthat thisisexaggerationoffact.Thepossibilitycannotberuled outthatthePoliceOfficermighthaveforgottentomention the said fact or in order to show that the witness has knowledge about the company of motorcycle, he suomotu disclosed the company of motorcycle in the Court. Regarding the aforesaid contention raised on behalf of defence, I do not think that the evidence adduced by the witness in respect of going together on the motorcycle of accusedNo.2,isfalseand/ornottrue.Thewitnesshasno reason to speak against the accused persons as he was havingcordialrelationswiththem.Atthemostthefactof loveaffairsmaynotbeconsidered,butfromthisevidence,it canbesafelycometotheconclusionthatboththeaccused personswereknowingeachothersincepriortotheincident. Itwasnotnecessaryforthiswitnesstodiscloseaboutthe loveaffairstothehusbandorparentsofaccusedNo.1ashe was neverasked by them. So also nonproductionof the documents to show that any Hero Honda motorcycle is
owned by accused No. 2 or nonseizure of the said motorcycle, does not affect the prosecution case. The witnessisawarethataccusedNo.1wasservingasNurse andherfinancialconditionwaspoor. Itshowsawareness regarding entire family of accused No. 1 by this witness. Thus,consideringallthesecircumstances,Idonotfindany reasontodisbelievetheversionofthiswitness.
49.
The second witness on this point, is P.W. 2
DattatrayaKhatapewhoisrunningtheteastallnearfour wheeler parking at Sinhagad. According to him, on 18.03.2008, Police had come at his stall for inquiry. One lady was with them. He identified accused No. 1 inthe court as the same lady. He has further deposed that on inquiry withthePolice,he hadtoldthatbefore about 15 days,thesaidladyhadcomewithonemanatSinhagadand afterdrinkingteaathisteastall,theywentaway.During the trial, he identified the accused No. 2 as the same personwhohadcomewiththeaccusedlady. Duringhis crossexamination,hehasdeniedthathecannotrecollect astowho/customerhadcomeathisteastallandwhen.So fromthisanswer,inferencecanbedrawnthatthememory of this witness is so strong that he can remember his customers by face. During cross examination of the
AdvocateonbehalfofaccusedNo.2,thewitnesshasmade verymuchclearthatonSunday,about100customersvisits athisstallandoneveryday,thestrengthislessthan50.So he remember each and every customer who are visiting otherthanSunday.Asperprosecutioncase,onthedayon whichboththeaccusedpersonsvisitedtheteastallofthis witness,accusedNo.1gotoneSIMCardbelowatreenear fourwheelerparkingatSinhagad.ThesaidSIMcardwas belongingtoP.W.14PradeepKurkiwhichwasgivenbyhim forusetohisfriendP.W.13RaviKannur.Asperevidence of these witnesses, they had been to Sinhagad on 02.03.2008andatthattime,theSIMCardwaslostthere. Duringcrossexaminationofthesewitnesses,nothinghas beenbroughtonrecordthaton02.03.2008,itwasSunday. Soitwasoddday.P.W.2DattatrayaKhatpewasableto remember faces of his customers and accordingly he identified accused persons in the Court. Thus, he has corroboratedtheversionofP.W.19SandeepPasalkarthat bothaccusedpersonsusedtogotogetherbymotorcycleof accused No.2. Otherwise, this witness has no reason to implicatefalselyortoidentifyaccusedpersons.
50.
Onthispoint,thelastoralevidenceisthatofP.W.29
BalasahebDhere,whohadseenbothaccusedpersonsat
thesametimeinpresenceofdeceasedatTaljaiHillinthe night of incident i.e. at about 9.30 pm on 08.03.2008. Accordingtohim,accusedNo.1hadcomewiththedeceased onhisActivascooter,whereas,accusedNo.2hadcomeby hismotorcycleandatsomedistance,hewasstandingand thegesturewasgoingonbetweenaccusedNo.1and2while hewastalkingwiththedeceased.Iamgoingtodiscussthe evidenceofthiswitnessindetailinsubsequentpart. At thisjuncture,fromtheevidenceofthesethreewitnesses,it can be said that the prosecution has brought on record evidencebeyondreasonabledoubtshowingacquaintanceof accusedNo.1and2witheachother.
51.
Regardingdocumentaryevidenceproducedonrecord
regarding acquaintance, it is the call details of Mobile phones.
52.
Regarding said call details, the objection has been
raised on behalf of defence that there is no any seizure panchanama prepared by the investigating officer while collecting the call details from the offices of telephone companies, and the concerned Noodle Officers have not been examined. But I do not find any substance in this contention. Forthepurposeofcollectingcalldetailsfrom
the respective telephone companies, the Investigating Officer is not required to seize those documents and to prepare panchanama accordingly. The panchanama filed onrecordExh.83hasbeendulyprovedduringtheevidence of the panch witness P.W. 11 Narsing Adep. The said panchanamais regardingcall detailsalreadycollectedby P.W.34PSIShri.S.D.Patilandthosecalldetailswere seized in this crime by the another Investigating Officer, P.W.33APIShri.S.G.Kulkarni(nowworkingasDy.S.P.) fromP.W.34Shri.S.D.Patil. Thosecalldetailswere already collected by Shri. S. D. Patil from the respective telephonecompanies.Moreover,thosecalldetailsvideExh. 83(A1toA10)havebeendulyprovedduringtheevidence of P.W. 16 Noodle Officer of Idea Cellular Company namelyMr.DattatrayaAngreandtheothercalldetailsExh. 83(B1toB7,C1toC4,andD1toD5)havebeenduly provedfromtheevidenceofP.W.15theNoodleofficerof Bharati Airtel Company namely Mr.Chetan Patil. These documents also include the letters received from ACP, callingthosecalldetailsfromtherespectivecompanies.As perevidenceofthesewitnesses,theircomputersystemis automaticregardingincomingandoutgoingcallsinrespect ofSIMCardsoftheircompanyandthereisnopossibilityof tamperingthecomputerizedrecord.Afterreceivingletters
fromtheconcernedACP,theyhavesubmittedtherequired information.Duringtheircrossexamination,Idonotfind anythingtodisbelievetheirevidenceasonthebasisoftheir office record, the required information was sent to the PoliceOfficers.ItistruethattheNoodleOfficersworking at the relevant time, have not been examined by the prosecution, however, considering the concerned technical record of the office and nonpossibility of tampering the record,theevidenceofthesewitnessesistobeacceptedand thecalldetailssubmittedbythemhavetobebelieved.
53.
AsperevidenceofP.W.8Mr.MukundVaidya,while
hisAuntwasadmittedinthehospital,theaccusedNo.1 wasworkingthereasNurseandservingthesaidpatient. Considering theservices tenderedbyherandinorderto contactherwheneverrequired,MukundVaidyahadgiven his mobile handset having SIM Card No. 9766049110 to accusedNo.1MeenainthemonthofNovember2007.The mobile handset having IMEI No. 358073018958800 is of Nokiacompanyhavingblackcolour.P.W.8MukundVaidya didnottakebackthesaidmobilefromaccusedNo.1.Asper hisevidence, wheneveraccused No.1wantedtotalk with him,shewasgivingmissedcall.
54.
Duringcrossexaminationofthiswitness,ithascome
on record that he was having another mobile handset bearingNo.9822066496.Duringcrossexamination,ithas come on record that while recording statement by the Police,thewitnessdidnotstatethataccusedNo.1usedto give him missed call to contact him. But he has given explanation that police did not ask him about it. This explanationcanbeacceptedandforthesaidomissioninhis police station, the version of this witness can not be discardedinviewofthedecisioncitedsuprabythelearned SpecialPublicProsecutor.
55.
AsperevidenceoftheInvestigatingOfficer,withthe
helpofthiswitness P.W.8MukundVaidya,theaccused No. 1 was called near Natraj Hotel on 12.03.2008 in SwargateChowkandafterthearrest,herSareeandtwo mobilehandsetswereseizedfromher;oneofwhichwasof blackcolourNokiamobilehandsetbearingNo.9766049110. The evidence of the Investigating Officer has been corroborated by the panch witness P.W. 9 Sukhamal Dhiwar.Admittedly,thiswitnesscouldnotstatethemobile numbersoftheseizedtwomobilehandsetsanditisquite impossible for any person to remember such number of other persons having no contact and that too after the
period of two years. However, the said witness has identifiedthetwohandsetsshowntohimfromMuddemal Property. Moreover, he has stated regarding sealing of thosehandsetsandputtinghisthumbimpressionthereon. ThepanchanamaExh.79alsobearshisthumbimpression. During his cross examination, he has denied that at the timeofpanchanama,thosehandsetswerealreadylyingon thetableinPoliceChowky.Onthecontrary,hehasstated specifically about the presence of accused No. 1 and also identifiedherintheCourt.SoIdonotfindanyreasonto discardhisversion.
56.
As per said panchanama Exh. 79, another mobile
handset was of Reliance Company having silver colour bearingNo.9326844274.Itistruethatinthepanchanama, itisnowherementionedastohowtheInvestigatingOfficer cametoknowaboutthenumbersofthismobileatthetime of preparing panchanama. But as per evidence of the InvestigatingOfficer,atthesametime,thenumberswere tracedout.ThelearnedSpecialPPhassubmittedthatitis veryeasytotraceoutthenumberofotherworkingMobile handsetbygivingmisscallfromthesaidMobiletoanother Mobile.Sothereiseverypossibilitythatbygivingmisscall on the Mobile of the investigating officer, those numbers
havebeentracedout.Moreover,P.W.8MukundVaidyawas the persontodisclosethenumber of his mobilegiven by himtoaccusedNo.1.
57.
After the arrest of accused No. 2 Ajay Ghag on
15.03.2008, one mobile handset was seized from him bearingNo.9326058466. Theseizurepanchanamaofthe saidmobilehandsetandthecashofRs.1900/ foundwith theaccusedNo.2atExh.53hasbeendulyprovedfromthe evidenceofoneofthepanchwitnessesP.W.2SagarAwate and the Investigating Officer P.W. 33 Shri. Sunil Kulkarni.Itispertinenttonotethatthepanchwitnesshas disclosedthenumberoftheMobilefoundwiththeaccused No.2,inhisexaminationinchief recordedon05.11.2009 andalsoincrossexaminationrecordedon12.01.2010. He hasspecificallydeposedthatheisinapositiontoremember mobilenumberinhismemory onceitis toldtohim and moreparticularlyifanysuchnumberisimportant.Hehas also disclosed in his cross examination that he felt the numbertobeimportantashewasactingaspanchandso hehasstatedthesaidnumberduringtheevidence.Hehas specificallymentionedthatthesaidmobilenumberwasnot told to him during the period between preparing panchanama and recording his evidence. Thus, during
crossexaminationonbehalfofaccusedpersons,theversion ofthiswitnesshasnotbeenshakenbyanymeans.Hehas noreasontospeaklieagainsttheaccusedNo.2.
58.
As per the record of telephone companies i.e. call
detailsatExh.83(C1toC14),thereareentriesinrespect of talk taken place from or with Mobile No. 9766049110 withorfromMobileNo.9822066496(whichisinthename ofandwasinuseofP.W.8MukundVaidya)andMobileNo. 9326844274 whichisinthenameofaccusedNo. 2Ajay Ghag andsubsequentlyitwasseizedfromthecustodyof accusedNo.1Meena.Theentriesinrespectofthesephone numbers of accused No. 2 are of dated 07.02.2008, 11.02.2008,15.02.2008,21.02.2008and25.02.2008.
59.
The same document shows that there was talk in
between two mobile numbers i.e. 9766049110 and 9326058466 which has been seized from the custody of accusedNo.2onhisarrestvideExh.53. Theconcerned entries at Exh. 83 (C1 to C14) are dated 23.02.2008 (Seven entries), dated 26.02.2008 (three entries), dated 27.02.2008 (five entries), dated 28.02.2008, dated 29.02.2008(twoentries),dated01.03.2008(twoentries)and dated10.03.2008.
60.
AsperevidenceofP.W.18SachinSherlaandthe
investigating officer P.W. 33 Shri. Sunil Kulkarni, while accusedNo.1Meenawasinpolicecustodyon18.03.2008in presenceofpanchas,shegavememorandumdisclosingthat she found SIM Card at Sinhagad and showed the willingness to show the said spot and accordingly her memorandum Exh. 98 was recorded. Then she took the panchasandpoliceonSinhagadandshowedthespotwhere SIMcardwasfoundwhichwasnearfourwheelerparking below the Suru Tree and accordingly, panchanama was prepared vide Exh.99. As per evidence of P.W. 13 Ravi Kannur and P.W. 15 Pradip Kurki, the said SIM card bearingNo.9860692134waslostatSinhagad.
61.
Thereisoralanddocumentaryevidenceproducedby
theprosecutiontoshowthatthesaidSIMcardwasbeing used by accused No. 1. For that purpose, two witnesses P.W.27SureshRanawadeandP.W.28SadanandSutar both from Taluka Kanakawali, District Sindhudurga, havebeenexamined.Theirhouseisadjoiningtothehouse offatherofaccusedNo.1atthevillagewhichwasunder repairs. SowhilethefatherofaccusedNo.1wasresiding atPunealongwithaccusedNo.1,hehadtelephonedboth
thesewitnessesaskingprogressintheworkofrepairsof the house and he had telephoned to these witnesses on theirmobilesfromthemobileofaccusedNo.1bearingNo. 9860692134. Regarding the talks, the call details are producedonrecordvideExh.83(C1toC14). Theentry dated03.05.2008bearingcorrespondtotheversionofthese two witnesses. The calls were received by them on the respective mobile Nos. 9420206683 (P.W.27) and 9860314076 (P.W.28). So this evidence also corroborates thattheaccusedNo.1wasusingMobileNo.9860692134.
62.
AsperExh.83(D1toD5),thelastcallsreceivedon
themobileofthedeceasedbearingNo.9822601053 were from Mobile No. 9860692134. There are six last entries dated08.03.2008from12noonto9.17pm. Theseentries showthattheaccusedNo.1hadlasttalkedonthedayof incidentwithdeceased.
63.
Duringthetrialandevenwhilerecordingstatements
u/s. 313 of Cr.P.C., it is nowhere challenged on behalf of accused persons that they were not using the aforesaid mobile numbers. So also inspite of aforesaid oral and documentary evidence produced on record on behalf of prosecution,nosubmissionismadeonbehalfoftheaccused
as to how and why they used totalk witheach other on telephone when according to them, they were not having anyacquaintance. Sothisevidenceadducedonbehalfof prosecutionissufficientforcomingtotheconclusionthat boththe accusedpersons werehaving acquaintancesince priortothedateofincidentandtheywereincontactwith eachother,manytimesinaday.Soalsotheyusedtomeet eachotherandusedtoremaininthecompanytogether.
64.
The fact regarding homicidal death of the deceased
has been proved from the postmortem report and the evidenceoftheMedicalOfficerP.W.22Dr.Taware.Asper his evidence, on 09.03.2008, in Sassoon Hospital, he conductedpostmortemexaminationonthedeadbodyand hefoundseveralchop,stab,incisedwoundsalloverbody.So also,correspondinginternalinjurieswerealsofoundduring examinationoftheHeadandThorax.Exceptoneinjuryi.e. lacerationfromleftforeheadtoleftshoulderverticallyleft chintoleftoccipitalregion,alltheotherinjurieswerefresh andantemortem.Theapproximatetimeofthedeathwas within12to18hoursbeforepostmortemexamination.The postmortem examination was conducted between 4.30 to 5.45 pm on 09.03.2008. So the death must have been caused before 4.30 am of 09.03.2008, i.e. in the night of
08.03.2008and09.03.2008. Atthetimeofpreparingspot panchanama Exh.137, a knife, a nylon rope having blood stainsandastoneplacedonthebackofthedeadbodyetc. were seized. These articles were shown to Dr. Taware duringthetrialandasperhisopinion,incaseanylonrope istiedaroundtheneckofapersonandheisdragged,then the multiple linear abrasions over the neck, below right Pina and in front of right tragus as mentioned in postmortem report vide injury No. 12, 14 and 15 are possible.Atthesametime,thelacerationunderrightangle of mandible and chin vide injury No. 6 and 7 are also possibleifapersonisdraggedunderthissituation. The stabandincisedwoundsmentionedatSr.No.8,9,10,11, 22and23ofColumnNo.17ofPostmortemReportcanbe causedbytheseizedarticleknifeandinjuryNo.1i.e.chop woundoverrightoccipitalregionofhead,bonedeepwith fractured underlines bone and Injury No. 21 chop wound overpalmeraspectofrightindexfingercanbecausedin casetheseizedstoneisthrownonthebodyofaperson.In the opinion of Dr. Taware, the external injuries cumulatively with internal injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. As per postmortemreportExh.108,intheopinionoftheMedical Officer, the death was caused due to traumatic and
hemorrhagic shock due to chop injury and blunt injuries overheadwithstabinjuriesoverneck.
65.
Duringargument,fromtheevidenceofaboywhosaw
thedeadbodywhileplayingcricket,itwastriedtopointout thattheDogswerebitingthedeadbodyandsoindirectlyit wastriedtosuggestthatthedeathmighthavebeencaused by biting of any such animal. But no evidence has been brought on record on behalf of defence by putting suggestiontoanyof theprosecution witnessesthatthere canbepresenceofanywildanimalatTaljaiHill. Sothe possibilityofdeathbywildanimalhasbeenruledout.Itis quite possible that after seeing dead body lying there in lonelyplace,Dogsmighthavegatheredthereandwereseen bythewitnesseswhilebitingthedeadbody. Moreover,as perevidenceofthemedicalofficerDr.Taware,therewere several stab, incised and chop wounds which can not be possible by biting of any wild animal. So I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the death of DattatrayaYemulwashomicidal.
66.
Itistheallegationoftheprosecutionthattheaccused
personshatchedconspiracyinordertocommitmurderof the deceased and to rob his ornaments. Regarding
ornaments whichwerealways remainedon the personof thedeceased,thereisevidenceofthesonofthedeceased P.W.21AmolYemul. Ithasbeenprovedthatonthedead body,onlyoneornamenti.e.goldringwasfoundinthering finger.AsperevidenceofP.W.21Amol,hisfatherusedto weartwogoldchains,outofwhich,onewasGoaf,abracelet on which the name of the deceased as 'Dattatraya' was embossed, and 4 gold rings, out of which, one was of 'Nazarana' pattern, one Vedhani and other two were of ordinaryrings.Thus,whenthedeadbodywasfound,the goldornamentsi.e.onechain,goaf,onebracelet,andthree ringsweremissing.
67.
Inordertoprovetheguiltoftheaccusedregarding
conspiracyforcommittingtheseoffences,theprosecutionis relyingontheevidenceoftheownerofMedicalStoreand theowneroftheSweetHome. AsperevidenceofP.W.17 GauravVora,theproprietorofMedicalShop,on08.03.2008, accusedNo.1purchasedfourtabletsofAtivan2mg.At thattime,accusedNo.1hadshownhimherphotoidentity card in respect of her service as Nurse. So without prescription,hedeliveredtheAtivantabletstoher. 68. AsperevidenceofpanchP.W.12JagdishGujrathi
and the investigating officer P.W. 33 then API Shri.
Sunilkumar Shinde, in view of memorandum given by accusedNo.1on15.03.2008videExh.85,astripcontaining twoAtivantabletshasbeenrecovered.Fromthesaidstrip, out of four tablets, two were used. Accordingly, seizure panchanamawaspreparedvideExh.86.
69.
AsperevidenceoftheownerofAdarshSweetHome
i.e. P.W. 26 Achalaram Chaudhary, on 08.03.2008, at about12noon,accusedNo.1hadbeentohisshopbyscooty and she purchased 4 Pedhas for Rs.10/. Both these witnessesidentifiedaccusedNo.1inthecourt.
70.
Accordingtoprosecution,theaccusedNo.1hasused
thePedhaforadministeringtwoTabletstothedeceasedso thatthefurtheractcanbecommitted.However,fromthis only aforesaid evidence, no inference can be drawn that thoseTabletswereadministeredtothedeceased.Thesaid possibilityhasbeenruledoutinviewofthereportreceived fromtheForensicLaboratoryinrespectofthebloodofthe deceased,videExh.19.Aspersaidreport,thegeneraland specific chemical treating does not reveal any poison. Moreover, as per another report of Forensic Laboratory Exh.18inrespectofseizedtwoTabletsofAtivan2mg,the tranquilizerlarazepavanwasdetected.Theprosecutionhas
not examined any Expert or during the evidence of the MedicalOfficerDr.Tawarewhoconductedthepostmortem examinationandtheProprietorofMedicalStore,ithasnot beenbroughtonrecordthatthesaiddrugi.e.Ativan2 mg,moreparticularly,twotabletsweresufficienttocause drowsinesstothedeceasedafteradministration. Soalso, regarding the period of effect of the said Tablets after administration,thereisnoevidence.Suchtranquilizersare being used by the Medical Officers for making people/ patientsfeelcalmortohelpthemsleep.Sothesaiddrug cannotbesaidtobethe poisonous. Soalso,nothinghas beenbroughtonrecordastohowmuchminimumtablets arerequired forgiving effect of drowsiness for patient or whethertwotabletsaresufficientforthesaidpurpose.So considering the evidence brought on record, and non productionoftherequiredevidence,itisdoubtfulwhether thosetabletswerepurchasedbytheaccusedNo.1,forthe purposeofcommittinganycrime.Sotheevidenceofthese two witnesses P.W. 17 and P.W. 26 is of no use to the prosecutioninordertoprovetheconspiracyforcommitting anyoffence.TwotabletsofAtivan2mgdonotcomeunder any substance required for Section 328 of I.P.C. Thisdrugisnotdangeroustothehealth. Inviewofthis discussion,Iholdthatprosecutionhasfailedtomakeout
the case against the accused persons for the offence punishableu/s.328ofIPC.
71.
Theprosecutionhasalsonotbroughtonrecordany
evidence that the articles i.e. Nylon Rope and the knife which have been found at the spot of incident were purchasedbytheaccusedpersons,moreparticularly,forthe purposeofcausingmurderofthedeceased.Thesearticles mighthavebeenwithaccusedNo.2.
72.
In order to bring the act of accused persons under
offence punishable u/s. 404 of IPC, the only evidence requiredisthattheaccusedpersonstookouttheornaments fromthedeadbodyandcommittedmisappropriation.Itis notthefactofourcasethatafterseeingdeadbodylyingat the spot of incident, the accused persons removed the ornaments. The prosecution has come with specific allegationsthattheaccusedpersonscommittedmurderof thedeceasedandthenrobbedtheornamentsfromthedead body. Sonocaseisalsoprovedbytheprosecutionforthe allegedoffencepunishableu/s.404ofIPC.
73.
Nowrevertingbacktothepointofornamentsofthe
deceasedwhichwerenotfoundonthedeadbodyandthose
ornaments are one gold chain, one gold goaf, one gold bracelet, one Nazarana Ring, one Vedhani ring and one ordinaryring. Though,duringthetrialandargumentit wascontendedonbehalfoftheaccusedpersonsthatnoany goldringwasfoundonthedeadbodyandwhatevergold ringisintheMuddemalwiththecourtitwasproducedby thesonofthedeceasedtofavourthepolice, however,the learnedSpecialPublicProsecutorShri.Sawanthaspointed out from photograph A4 and A6 that the said ring is appearing in the ringfinger of the deceased. Those photographshavebeendulyprovedduringtheevidenceof thePhotographerP.W.5NemichandChavan.Moreover,his evidence is not much challenged by the accused persons. Thenegativesofphotographsarealsoproducedonrecordat Exh. A13. So from these evidence, the possibility of creating false evidence against the accused persons by giving ring to police during investigation by the son of deceased, has been ruled out. I do agree with the submission of the learned Special Public Prosecutor that theaccusedpersonscouldnotremovethesaidringfromthe ringfingerofthedeceasedandsoitremainedthere.
74.
AsperevidenceofP.W.12JagdishGujrathiandthe
investigating officer P.W. 33 then API Shri. Sunil
Kulkarni,afterthearrestofaccusedNo.1whileshewasin policecustodyon15.03.2008,shemadevoluntarystatement inpresenceofthepanchasi.e.P.W.12JagdishGujrathi and Pankaj Misal showing willingness to produce ornamentsconcealedbyherattheterraceofherhousein earthenflowerpotandaccordingly,thememorandumExh. 85 was recorded. Their evidence further shows that thereafter,theaccusedNo.1tookthepoliceandpanchasto herhousei.e.atRoomNo.17,inaChawl,bythejeep.The waywaspointedoutbytheaccusedNo.1.Bytakingthem attheterrace,shetookouttheornamentskeptinearthen flowerpot. Atthesametime,theGoldsmith/JwellerP.W. 23 Pravinkumar Oswal was called who weighed the ornaments and accordingly, seizure panchanama Exh. 86 wasprepared. Aspertheirevidenceandthepanchanama Exh.86,thoseornamentsareonegoldbraceletof143.710 gram,onegoldgoafof 48.60 gram and onegoldVedhani ringof8.390gram. Onthebracelet,therewasthename embossedas'Dattatraya'i.e.thenameofthedeceased.It hasalsocomeintheevidenceofsonofthedeceasedP.W.21 Amol that at one time, three bracelets were prepared in separatenamesi.e.oneinthenameofDattatraya,second inthenameofAmolandthirdisinthenameofhisbrother Rahul.
75.
During arguments, Advocate Shri. Dongre for the
accusedNo.1contendedthatasperevidenceofP.W.12 JagdishGujrathihewasalreadyawarebeforeproceedingto thehouseofaccusedNo.1thattheornamentsconsistingof bracelet,goafandringweretobeseized.Itispertinentto notethatinthememorandumExh.85,thesaidfactwas alreadydisclosedbytheaccusedNo.1herselfandsothose ornaments have been referred in her memorandum. Actually, it was required to be stated by this witness during hisexamination in chief whiledeposing regarding memorandum, but by bringing it on record during cross examination, the accused No. 1 has strengthen the prosecutioncase.
76.
It is true that as per evidence of this witness, the
ornamentswerekeptinaplasticbaganditwasalsosoiled asthepotwaswetduetowaterandtheinvestigatingofficer did not seize the said plastic bag. For the purpose of investigationandtrialofthecase,thesaidplasticbagwas notofmuchimportantandsoeventhoughithasnotbeen seized, it does not spoil the prosecution case. Regarding weighing of the ornaments, the Jweller P.W. 23 Pravinkumar Oswal has stated in detail in his evidence. Duringhiscrossexamination,certainomissionshavebeen
brought on record which he stated on oath, but are not formingthepartofhispolicestatement. Thoseomissions are(1)hewasbroughtinIndiranagari.e.atthehouseof accused by Police Constable, (2) when he went at the terraceofthehouseoftheaccused,theworkofpreparing panchanamawasgoingon,and(3)ornamentswereseized and sealed by Police in his presence, etc. Those are the minoromissions,sodonotaffecttheprosecutioncase.He isnotthepanchwitnessintheseizurepanchanama.Asper hisevidence,hewasnotknowingthedeceasedorsonsof thedeceased.Sohehasnoreasontofavourthesonofthe deceasedorthePolice. Duringtheevidenceofthepanch witness,nothinghasbeenbroughtonrecordtodisbelieve hisversion.Sofromthisevidence,theprosecutionhasduly provedtheseizureofthoseornamentsfromthecustodyof accused No. 1 in view of her memorandum. Those ornamentshavebeenidentifiedbythesonofthedeceased duringinvestigationinthePoliceStationandalsointhe courtduringthetrial.
77.
As per evidence of P.W. 18PanchSachinSherla
andtheinvestigatingofficerP.W.32P.I.Shri.Shailendra Shinde,whileaccusedNo.2Ajaywasinpolicecustodyon 18.03.2008, he gave memorandum to take out the
ornaments concealed by him and accordingly the memorandumExh.96wasrecorded.Theirevidencefurther shows that accused No. 2 had also disclosed the type of ornaments i.e. gold chain and gold ring and has given memorandumshowingwillingness totakeout hisclothes i.e.pantandshirthavingbloodstainskeptinaplasticbag inanironbarrelbythesideofcompoundwallofanorchard infrontofhisrentedhouseatKrishnamaiSociety. Their evidencefurthershowsthatafterrecordingmemorandum, theaccusedNo.2 tookthepanchasandpolicetothesaid spoti.e.atKrishnamaiSocietyatDhankawadi.Thewayfor goingtothesaidspotfrompolicestation,waspointedout by the accused No. 2 himself. The witnesses have also deposed as to by which way they proceeded. They have furtherdeposedthataftergettingdownfromthevehicle, accusedNo.2tookthemthroughirongateandshowedhis rentedhouse. Thenhetookthemonthefrontsidewhere therewasanorchardandfromanironbarrelkeptbythe side of the compound wall, he took out a plastic bag containing gold chain and gold ring and his clothes i.e. creamcolouredpantandBlueYellowishcolouredfullshirt having blackish strips. The evidence of both these witnesses further shows that in the chain, there was a Pendent of'Swastik' inthe middle. Accordingly, seizure
panchanama Exh. 97 was prepared. For the purpose of weighingornaments,theGoldsmithwascalled.
78.
AsperevidenceofP.W.32theinvestigatingofficer
P.I. Shri. Shailendra Shinde, the seized ring was the 'Nazarana'ring. Thepanchidentifiedboththeornaments during the trial. So also, the evidence of these two witnesses has been corroborated by P.W. 20 Sadashiv Dhanawade,theGoldsmith/Jweller.Accordingtohim,on 18.03.2008,hewascalledbyPoliceinKrishnamaiSociety, Dhanakawadi where panchas, police staff, accused No. 1 Ajaywerepresent. AttheinstanceofPolice,heweighed ornaments and the weight of gold chain having 'Swastik' Pendentwasfound25.590gramandthatof'Nazarana'ring 19.710 gram. He also identified those ornaments from Muddemali.e.ArticleNo.34and35respectively.
79.
Advocate Shri. Bhoite of accused No. 2 during
argumentpointedoutthatbeforereachingtoPoliceStation, thepanchwastoldbyP.I.Shri.Shindewewanttogofor seizure panchanama of gold ornaments and clothes. So also,AdvocateShri.Bhoitecontendedthat,beforerecording memorandumofaccused,howitwaspossibletoknowthat Police wanted to prepare seizure panchanama of gold
ornamentsandclothesandinviewofdecisioncitedbyhim, therecoveryattheinstanceofaccusedwhileinhandcuffis not admissible as there is possibility of threatening or pressurebypolice.Itispertinenttonotethatinthesaid decisionreliedbyAdvocateShri.Bhoite,thehandcuffingof accusedwhilerecordingmemorandumorrecoverywasnot theonlyparttodisbelievetheprosecutioncase,therewere severalotheraspects,butithasbeenobservedbyHon'ble ApexCourtthatThereispossibilityofunderpressureof theaccusedbypoliceifheisinhandcuff. Itisnowhere specificallymentionedthatrecordingofmemorandumwhile accusedisinhandcuff,isnotadmissibleanditisillegal. NoanyratiohasbeenlaiddownbyHon'bleApexCourton thatpoint. Sotheaccusedcannotgetbenefitofthesaid decision. It is usual practice of the police to take the accused in handcuff even for recovery by way of precautionarymeasure.
80.
Regarding another point raised by Advocate Shri.
Bhoite in respect of information from accused in anticipation by Police Officer, it can be said that if any accused expresses willingness to make any statement positivelyhesaysastowhatisthenatureofhisstatement and then the investigating officer calls the panchas in
whose presence again accused makes statement in detail and then it is going to be recorded as his memorandum. Otherwise, the investigating officer has always to keep remainpresentthepanchasinpolicestationandtowaitas to when accused expresses his willingness to make any statement. Regarding disclosure of statement by way of memorandum,theevidenceofpanchappearstobetrueand genuine.
81.
AdvocateShri.Bhoitealsopointedoutcontradictory
evidence of the panch and the investigating officer. The panchwitnesssaysthatthebarrelinwhichtheornaments andclotheswerekeptwascoveredbysomething,whereas, theinvestigatingofficerhasdeniedthisfact. Thelearned specialPublicProsecutorexplainedthesaidevidenceofthe panchwitnessbysubmittingthatafterkeepingornaments and the clothes, some other article may be paper or any pieceofclothesetc.mighthavebeenkeptandsothepanch hasstatedthatitwascoveredbysomething. Thelearned Special Public Prosecutor pointed out that neither the panch was asked that the barrel was covered by any lid, nor the panch has stated as such. Moreover, the investigating officer was not suggested during cross examinationthatthebarrelwascoveredbyanylid.SoIdo
notthinkthatthereisanysuchcontradictionsduringthe evidence of these two witnesses so as to disbelieve their version. It is pertinent to note that during cross examination, the panch witness has specifically stated aboutthelocationandplacewherethebarrelwaskeptand thelocationofthehouseoftheaccused.Nothinghasbeen broughtonrecordeitherthroughpanchortheGoldsmith thattheyhaveanyaffinitywiththedeceasedorhisfamily memberssoastofavourthem.Thesearetheindependent witnessesandtheirversionshavenotbeenshakenbyany means during cross examination. Moreover, these ornamentsarealsoidentifiedbythesonofdeceasedP.W.21 Amol Yemul. So from this evidence, the prosecution has succeeded in proving the memorandum of accused No. 2 Exh.96andseizureoftwoornamentsi.e.goldchainand 'Nazarana' Ring, and clothes of the accused No.2, vide panchanamaExh.97.
82.
AdvocateShri.Bhoitefurthervehementlysubmitted
that as per panchanamaExh. 120, saidhouseofaccused No. 2 in Krishnamai Society was already pointed out by accused No.1 and thus, police were already aware about locationofthesaidspot.Itispertinenttonotethatasper saidpanchanama, Policehadbeentothesaidhouse and
onlytooksearchofthesaidhouseanddidnottakesearchof the area surrounding the house. The iron barrel was pointedoutbyaccusedNo.2.Itwasawayfromhishouse. Soitcannotbesaidthatthesaidspotwasalreadyknown tothePolice. 83. Moreover, I do not find any substance in the
contention of Advocate Shri. Bhoite that without keeping ornamentsindustbin/barrel,theaccusedNo.2wouldhave carriedthemtohisnativeplace.Thepossibilitycannotbe ruledoutthataccusedNo.2wasunderapprehensionthat incasehisnameisdisclosedtothePoliceeitherbyaccused No.1oranyotherpersonpointinghisinvolvementinthis crime,Policecantakesearchofhisrentedpremisesandthe houseatnativeplace,sohedidnotkeeptheornamentsand hisbloodstainedclothesinanyhouseandconcealedthose articlesinunusedbarrel.
84.
As per evidence of the panch P.W. 9 Sukhamal
DhiwarandtheinvestigatingofficerP.W.33thenAPIShri. SunilkumarKulkarni,afteraccusedNo.1wasapprehended on 12.03.2008 near Natraj Hotel, Swargage, two mobile handsets and her saree were seized. On the said Saree, there were red spots of blood. Accordingly, panchanama
Exh.79wasprepared.Ihavealreadydiscussedregarding the said panchanama earlier. So it is just and proper to avoidrepetition.
85.
As per evidence of the investigating officer P.W. 32
Shri. Shailendra Shinde, he sent the clothes of both the accusedpersonsalongwithotherarticlestotheChemical Analyserforexaminationon24.03.2008videletterExh.32. As per Chemical Analyser report Exh. 15, seven sealed parcels and two sealed envelops of which, the seals were intact, were received as per covering lette datetd 24.03.2008 and on examination of those articles, more particularly,SareeofaccusedNo.1i.e.Exhibit6andPant andshirtofaccusedNo.2i.e.Exhibit8&9werestained withbloodatplacesandthatwasofhumanoriginhaving BGroup.Undisputedly,thebloodgroupofthedeceased wasB.Thesamebloodwasfoundontheotherarticlesi.e. on the clothes of the deceased, sample of earth, pair of chappelofdeceased,anylonropeandknife,videExh.16.
86.
As per report of Chemical Analyser Exh.13, the
group of sample of the blood of the accused No. 2 Ajay receivedwithcoveringletterdated19.03.2008,Exhibit1 can not be determined as the result are inconclusive.
However,asperreportExh.14,thebloodsampleofaccused No.1Anitareceivedwithcoveringletterdated17.03.2008 isofbloodgroupO.ThebloodgroupBofthedeceased isalsoprovedduringtheevidenceofP.W.10Laxminarayan Bandi,themanagerofPeshwaiCreation.Accordingtohim, hisowneri.e.deceasedhaddonatedbloodtohimduringhis needofBgroupandthegroupofthebloodofdeceased wasBpositive.
87.
Duringthetrial,ithasbeennowherechallengedon
behalfofaccusedpersonsthatthebloodgroupofdeceased wasBGroupandthatofaccusedNo.1wasO.Itisnot thecaseoftheaccusedNo.2Ajaythatheisalsohaving bloodgroupofB. Sowhateverstainswerefoundonthe clothesofboththeaccused,wereofBloodGroupBmore particularly that of the deceased. Thus, in view of this evidence,theprosecutionhassucceededinprovingbeyond reasonable doubt that at the instance of both accused persons, the recovery of ornaments of the deceased have beenmadeandthebloodhavingGroupBofthedeceased was found on the clothes of both theaccused. So it was necessaryfortheaccusedpersonstoexplainthefactswhich werewithintheirknowledgei.e.howtheygotcustodyofthe ornaments of the deceased and how the blood of the
deceasedappearedontheirclothes.However,theydidnot furnishanyexplanationasrequiredu/s.106oftheEvidence Act. As per submission of the learned Special Public Prosecutor, the presumption can be used u/s. 114 of the Evidence Act, against both the accused persons having found in possession of the ornaments of the deceased, in order to draw an adverse inference that they have committedthemurderofthedeceased.However,according toAdvocateShri.Bhoite,inviewofdecisionof 2011All MR(Cri.)2340(citedsupra),nosuchadverseinferencecan bedrawnonthebasisofsuchrecovery.Thatwasthecase ofdacoityandtheHon'bleApexCourtobservedthatitis notsafetodrawinferencethatthepersoninpossessionof thestolenpropertyhadcommittedmurder.Italsodepends onthenatureofthepropertysorecoveredwhetherithas likelytopassreadilyfromhandtohand.Inthatcase,the murderwascommittedon17.12.1996andtherecoverywas madeondisclosurestatementoftheaccusedon26.01.1997 aftermorethanonemonthi.e.notsoontheafterdacoity andmurder.Soconsideringlonggap,thesaidobservation hasbeenmade.
88.
Inourcase,aftercommissionofmurderinthenight
of08.03.2008and09.03.2008,thereisimmediaterecovery
within short period from the accused persons after their arresti.e.on15.03.2008and18.03.3008.Soitwasexpected to give explanation as to how the accused persons got possession of those ornaments of the deceased and so considering the circumstances of our case, an adverse inferenceneeds tobedrawn u/s. 114of theEvidenceAct againstboththeaccusedpersons.
89.
I have already discussed that the prosecution has
failed to prove conspiracy to commit murder of the deceased,butafterhavingacquaintancewiththedeceased, accused No. 1 and 2came to know that deceased was in habitofwearingvaluableornamentsonhispersonoftenly andsotheyplannedtorobhimandaftercontactinghimon 08.03.2008,atabout8.30to9pm,theaccusedNo.1called him near Gajanan Maharaj Temple. It has come in the evidence of the Manager of Peshwai Creation P.W. 10 LaxminarayanBandithatintheeveningon08.03.2009,he was told by the deceased that he wanted to help some personandhehasbeencalledwithcashofRs.5,000/and accordingly,thedeceasedwentawayonhisactivascooterby takingcashofRs.5000/.
90.
Thereafter,thedeceasedandaccusedNo.1wereseen
by P.W. 25 Maruti Khopade as, at his Rasawanti, they drunk sugarcane juice. He has specifically deposed that thereafteron thescooter ofthe deceased,theybothwent awaytowardsTaljaiHill.Onthatday,deceasedwaslastly seenbyhissonP.W.21Amoland the watchmanP.W.6 DeepakSharma,atabout8.45to9.00pm.
91.
At Taljai Hill, at the cricket ground where evening
walkerscomebytheir4wheelers parktheirvehicles,the deceased and accused No. 1 were seen by P.W. 29 Shri. BalasahebDhere.Asperhisevidence,atthesametime,he also saw accused No. 2 on his motorcycle. His evidence furthershowsthathehadtalkedwiththedeceasedandat thattime,hewastoldthatinsearchofthePurseofMeena i.e.accusedNo.1,theyhadcomethere. Hewasalready knowingaccusedNo.1Meena.Hesawthegesturegoingon betweenaccusedNo.1and2whilehewastalkingwiththe deceased.
92.
Itiscontendedonbehalfoftheaccusedpersonsthat
asperprosecutioncase,itwasnighttime,i.e.atabout9.30 to10pm,andnoevidencehasbeenbroughtonrecordthat therewasanysourceoflightsoastoseethefacesofeach otherandthisfactwasalsonotdisclosedbyP.W.29Shri.
Balasaheb Dhere. However, it is pertinent to note that duringhiscrossexamination,hewasnotaskedregarding thesourceoflightwhetheravailableornotandifyes,what wasit.Thefactisnotindisputethatatpresent,thestreet lightsareavailablebythesideoftheroadofthesaidcricket ground. Admittedly, no any prosecution witness has deposedthatthosestreetlightswerealsoinexistenceatthe time of incident in March 2008. So after this point was raisedduringtheargumentbythedefenceadvocates,the learned Special Public Prosecutor produced the documentaryevidenceonrecordwiththepermissionofthis Court by way of the letter reply received from M.S.E.B. JuniorEngineerofthesaidareadated22.12.2011Exh.197. ThesaidconcernedJuniorEngineerhasnotbeenexamined bytheprosecutionasthedefenceAdvocateshaveadmitted thesaidletter. Asperthesaidletter,in2003,thestreet polesof9metersinheightwereraisedonwayfrombottom ofTaljaiHilluptoTaljaiTempleandthedistancebetween twopolesisabout25to28meter.Onthosepoles,thereare Sodium vapour lights of 250 watt and their flex level is about15to17lumen.Soasperthisevidence,itcannotbe nowdisputedthatthestreetlightswerealreadyavailable atthetimeofincidentandthoseweresufficienttoseethe faces of the persons standing in the cricket ground.
Moreover,asperroughsketchofsceneofoffencedrawnby theinvestigatingofficervideExh.138,thespotwherethe deceasedandP.W.29BalasahebDherewerehavingtalk, was justbytheside oftheroadand sothere was ample light to see the faces of the persons standing nearby the saidspot.Sointhesaidlights,P.W.24hadoccasiontosee thefaceofaccusedNo.2also.
93.
As per evidence of P.W. 29 Shri. Balasaheb Dhere
and P.W. 31 Tahasildar Smt. Asha Holkar, during test identificationparadeconductedon10.04.2008,theaccused No. 2 was identified by P.W. 29. Accordingly, the memorandum was prepared vide Exh. 124. As per contentionofAdvocateShri.Bhoite,duringthestatement recordedbypoliceandduringtheevidenceonoathinthe court,P.W.29Shri.BalasahebDhere hasnowheregiven descriptionofthepersonalityortheclothesoftheaccused and so it was not possible for him to identify the said accusedduringtheidentificationparade. Soalso,asper his contention, the Tahasildar has not followed the guidelines laid down by Hon'ble High Court, while conducting test identification parade, so the evidence of boththesewitnessesonthepointofidentification,istobe discarded.
94.
ItistruethatP.W.29Shri.BalasahebDherehasnot
givenanysuchidentificationandasperdecisionofHon'ble CalcuttaHighCourtin1991Cri.L.J.1258(citedsupra) itwillbeunsafetoconvicttheaccusedonthebasisofsingle identificationasinsuchcasethereasonablepossibilityof mistakeinidentificationcannotbeexcluded.
95.
In our case, the prosecution is not simply placing
reliance on such identification. The evidence of identificationiscorroborativetotherecoveryofornaments ofthedeceasedfromthecustodyoftheaccusedNo.2and hisacquaintancewiththeaccusedNo.1fromwhomalso theremainingornamentshavebeenrecovered. Moreover, thereisothermuchevidenceagainstaccusedNo.1showing her involvement in this case and last seen together with deceased. So it was also necessary for her to give explanationastowhyshehadbeenwiththedeceasedin theeveningof08.03.2008 atTaljaiHillandwhowasthe anotherpersononthemotorcyclewithwhom,hergestures were going on. So considering the facts of our case, the accusedNo.2willnotgetanybenefitofthesaiddecision.
96.
AdvocateShri.Bhoitealsocontendedthatthedummy
persons called for the purpose ofidentificationparade by
the Tahasildarwerenot having same type ofpersonality, complexion,orwerenotofthesameagegroupandsothe saidevidencemustbediscarded. Undisputedly,theageof the accused No. 2 is shown in the identification memorandumas30yearsandthedummiesareof19,20, 24,27and42yearsold.Thoughtwoofthemarelessthan 10yearsandoneiselderthan12years,stillatthisstage, onecannotsaythatthosepersonswerenothavingsimilar personality with the accused No.2. The Tahasildar has specifically deposed that she chosen those dummies consideringthepersonalityoftheaccused.Moreover,inthe memorandum, she has specifically stated as to how in a row, the dummies were asked to stand and then as per choiceofaccusedNo.2,hewasallowedtostandanywhere amongst the dummies. The evidence of both these witnessesshowthatduringthesaididentificationparade, P.W.29Shri.BalasahebDhere pointedoutaccusedNo.2. Theidentificationparadewasconductedinpresenceoftwo panchas. Nothing has been specifically suggested to Tahasildar as to what typeof guidelines ofHon'bleHigh Courthasnotbeenfollowedbyher.SoIdonotthinkthat any irregularities or illegality has been committed by Tahasildarwhileconductingtestidentificationparade.
97.
Noanyevidencehasbeenbroughtonrecordonbehalf
ofaccusedpersonstoadmitthecontentionraisedontheir behalfthattheaccusedNo.2orhisphotographwasalready showntoP.W.29Shri.BalasahebDherebeforeconducting testidentificationparade.Onthecontrary,asperevidence of P.W. 29 Shri. Balasaheb Dhere and the investigating officer,P.W.29Shri.BalasahebDherewasnotavailableat Pune. Immediatelyonnextday,hewasrequiredtogoat Sangli due to death of his Niece and till all religious ceremonieswerecompletedforabout13dayshewasthere. So the investigating officer also could not record his statementimmediatelyaftertheincident. Itistruethat P.W.29Shri.BalasahebDhere hasadmittedinhiscross examination that on next day from newspaper, he got knowledge about the murder of his friend Dattatraya Yemul,butduetoaforesaidreason,hecouldnotcontactthe Police.Soalsoduringthatperiod,hismentalconditionwas disturbed.Soinviewofexplanationgivenbyhim,Idonot thinkthatthedecisionreliedbyAdvocateShri.Bhoiteon thepointthatdelayinrecordingstatementofthewitnesses bytheinvestigatingofficer,isusefultotheaccusedNo.2.In thatcase, thewitnesseswereavailableinthevillageand almost daily the investigating officers were visiting the
villageandstillthestatementsofthewitnesseswerenot recorded.
98.
Advocate Shri. Bhoite also doubted the presence of
P.W. 29 Shri. Balasaheb Dhere at the relevant time at TaljaiHillbycontendingthatitisnotpossibletotakewalk inthenight.ButfromtheevidenceofP.W.29,itappears thatnotonlyhe,butdeceasedsometimesandmanyother personsdailyusedtocomethereforeveningwalk. They used to bring their vehicles either twowheelers or four wheelers upto the cricket ground and by parking the vehiclesthere,theyusedtogoforwalk.
99.
AspercontentionofAdvocateShri.Dongre,thesaid
MarutiCarclaimedtobeownedbyP.W.29Shri.Balasaheb Dhere isnotbelongingtohim anditisinthenameof NarsinhaA.Dhere. ThenameofP.W.29asdisclosedby himwhilerecordingthestatementbyPoliceorevidencein the court is as Balasaheb Amrutrao Dhere. As per submission of the learned Special Public Prosecutor, BalasahebandNarsinharaoDhereisthesamepersoni.e. P.W.29.ButonrecordhisnameisNarsinhaandbeingthe memberofCongressCommittee,heisknownasBalasaheb and so he has stated his name as Balasaheb. He has
producedonrecordcertaindocumentsatExh.186to191 whichincludethedrivinglicenseanditisinthenameof NarsinhaAmrutraoDherehavingphotographofP.W.29.So also,therearedocumentsregardingidentitycardissuedby theSecretaryofDistrictCongressCommitteeanditisin thenameofBalasahebDhere.Theotherdocumentsarethe truecopiesofregistrationcertificate,insurancepolicyofthe saidMarutiCarbearingNo.GA01/C7900.Theoriginal documents ofthe vehiclearewithP.W.29. Sofromthis documentary evidence, I have no hesitation to hold that P.W.29isthesamepersonwhoistheregisteredownerof thesaidvehiclei.e.NarsinhaAmrutraoDhere.Hehasalso identifiedboththeaccusedpersonsinthecourtduringthe trial and in view of decisioncited by thelearnedSpecial Public Prosecutor, the identification in the court by the witnessesisthesubstantiveevidence.
100.
Thus, in view of the aforesaid evidence, the
prosecutionhasestablishedthelinkbywayofthechainof circumstantialevidencetoprovethattheaccusedpersons hatchedconspiracytocommittherobberyinrespectofthe goldornamentsofthedeceasedandaccordingly,theycalled him at Taljai Hill and in the night of 08.03.2008 and 09.03.2008 they committed his murder. From the
photographsandthespotpanchahnamadulycorroborated bythepostmortemreport,itappearsthattheycommitted brutal murder with the help of knife by stabbing on the severalpartonthebodyofthedeceasedandbysmashing hisheadbymeansofabigstonewhichwasfoundonthe backofthedeceasedwhilethedeadbodywaslyingfacingto theground.Aftercausingdeathorbeforethedeceaseddied after sustaining severe injuries, the accused persons removedhisornamentswhichwerepossibletoberemoved, buttheycouldnotsucceedinremovingoneofthegoldrings fromringfinger,whichwasfoundonthedeadbody.There appearsnouseoftheAtivanTabletsasthedeceaseddrove hisscooteruptoTaljaiHillandthereafterhetalkedwith P.W. 29 Shri. Balasaheb Dhere. But it appears that in ordertocommittherobberyoftheornaments,thedeceased mighthavebeenattackedbyaccusedNo.2bystabbinghim bymeansofknifeandtheremightberesistancefromthe sideofthedeceasedandsotheaccusedpersonscommitted hismurder. Atinitialstageofcommissionofcrime,they may not have the intention to kill him, but considering resistanceonthepartofthedeceased(nottheprovocation), theaccusedpersonsmighthavethoughttofinishhimand at the spur of moment, they killed him. So this act of accusedpersonsdoesnotcomeunderhatchingofconspiracy
tocommitmurder.Itcomestheircommonintentionu/s.34 of the Indian Penal Code. Otherwise, they would have brought any poison to administer to the deceased at the spotsoastocausedeathwithinshortperiodautomatically orwouldhavebroughtabigweaponlikesickle,satturetc. tokillhim.Itappearsthatbywayofprecaution,theyhad broughtanylonropeandknifetouseincaseofneedand this shows absence of hatching conspiracy to commit murder,butthesearticleswereusefulforcausinginjuryto thedeceasedforcommittingrobberyandwithpreparation ofcommittingrobberybyhatchingcriminalconspiracy,both theaccusedpersonshadcalledthedeceasedatthespotof incidentandinthenightatlonelyplace,aftercommitting hismurder,theyfledawaywiththeornaments.
101.
AbscondingofaccusedNo.2fromPuneCityandhis
native place after the incident is also incriminating circumstanceagainsthim. Thoughasperhisdefence,his motherwasillandsoheleftthejobofChitalyBandhuand wentawaytohisnativeplaceBelsahi,TalKhed,District Ratnagiri,nobodywasfoundinhishouseduringthevisitof I.O. P.W. 33 Shri. Kulkarni at Belsahi. After getting informationthataccusedNo.2wastocomeatKatraj,the trap was led and he was apprehended by police. While
resigningfromthejob,accuseddidnotinformhisemployer thatduetoillnessofhismother,hewasrequiredtoresign. Earliertotheincident,heremainedabsentfromthejobas per evidence of the Manager of Chitale Bandhu P.W. 3 RamkrishnaChakradeo.Sothisconductofaccusedshows his involvement in the crime and to flee away from the Police.
102.
None of the citations referred by the Defence
Advocates are useful to the accused persons considering factsandcircumstancesofourcase.Asperevidenceofthe Investigating officers, timely entries are taken in Station Diaryaboutinvestigation.Allcircumstancestakentogether areclearly pointing towards guilt of the accusedpersons. Thechainofevidenceiscompleteanditdoesnotleaveany reasonable ground for conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it shows that within all probability, the act must have been done by the accused persons.Thustheprosecutionhasprovedthattheaccused persons have committed criminal conspiracy in order to commitrobbery,punishableu/s.120ofIPCandcommission of murder of the deceased with common intention, punishableu/s.302r/w.Section34ofIPCandtheoffence of robbery, punishable u/s. 394 r/w. 120B of IPC.
Accordingly,IanswerPointNo.1partlyintheaffirmative, PointNo.3and5intheaffirmativeandPointNo.2,7,8 and9inthenegative.Inviewofthesefindings,thePoint Nos.4and6donotsurvive.
103.
In view of my finding that the guilt of accused
persons has been proved beyond reasonable doubt by prosecution, it is necessary to hear the accused, their advocates and learned Special Public Prosecutor on the point of sentence, so I stopped dictating Judgment for hearingthem. Pune. Date:20.01.2012 (D.R.Mahajan) 8 AdditionalSessionsJudge,Pune.
th
104.
Icalledupontheaccusedpersonstosayonthepoint
of sentence, but they did not make any submission by sayingthattheirAdvocateswillmakesubmission. Asper submissionof boththeAdvocates of the accusedpersons, theaccusedarenotthehabitualcriminalsandareyoung aged.TheaccusedNo.1resideswithherhusbandandtwo schoolgoingchildrenatthehouseofherfather. Sothey prayedforleniencyinrespectofoffencepunishableu/s.394 ofI.P.C.
105.
ThelearnedSpecialPublicProsecutorShri.Sawant
consideringtheobservationsandfindingsofthisCourtand circumstances of the case, did not pray for capital punishment for the offence of murder, but in respect of offenceofrobbery,heprayedformaximumpunishmentof life.
106.
Consideringthefactsandcircumstancesofourcase,
thoughitcannotbedisputedthattheaccusedpersonshave committed the brutal murder of the deceased Dattatraya Yemul,thiscasecannotbesaidtobetherarestofrarecase forcapitalpunishment. Sofortheoffenceofmurder,the onlypunishmentisimprisonmentforlife.
107.
Consideringthefactthattheaccusedpersonshaveno
any criminal record and this is their first offence and considering their young age, I do not think it just and propertoimposethepunishmentoflifefortheoffenceof robbery.Rigorousimprisonmentfor10yearswouldsuffice thepurpose.Itisalsonecessarytoimposefineamountfor boththeoffences. Accordingly,Iproceedtopassfollowing order:
[1]
ORDER
AccusedNo.1Anita@MeenaRajendraKhandabaleand AccusedNo.2AjayAnantGhag,areherebyconvictedu/s. 235(2)ofCr.P.C.fortheoffencepunishableu/s.120Br/w. Section394,andu/s.302r/w.Section34ofI.P.C. Fortheoffenceofcriminalconspiracypunishableu/s.120B ofI.P.C.,boththeaccusedaresentencedtosufferR.I.for10 YearsandshallpayfineofRs.2,500/each,indefaultto sufferR.I.for6monthseach. Fortheoffenceofmurderpunishableu/s.302r/w.Section 34 of I.P.C., both accused are sentenced to suffer Imprisonment for Life and shall pay fine of Rs. 2,500/ each,indefaultofsufferR.I.for6monthseach. Fortheoffenceofrobberypunishableu/s.394r/w.Section 120BofI.P.C.,boththeaccusedaresentencedtosufferR.I. for10YearsandshallpayfineofRs.2,500/each,indefault tosufferR.I.for6monthseach. AccusedNos.1and2areherebyacquittedu/s.235(1)of Cr.P.C.fortheoffencepunishableu/s.120Br/w.Section 302,328and404ofI.P.C.,andu/s.328and404r/w.Section 34ofI.P.C. Allthesentencesshallrunconcurrently. Boththeaccusedareinjailsincethedateofarrest,soset offu/s.428ofCr.P.C.begiventothem. Out of the seized muddemal, Gold ornaments of the deceasedbehandedovertohissonAmolDattatrayaYemul, seizedthreemobilehandsetsareforfeitedtoStateandbe
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6] [7]
[8]
soldinpublicauctionandsaleproceedsbecreditedtothe Government and remaining property being valueless be destroyedafterappealperiodisover. [9] CopyoftheJudgmentbegiventoboththeaccusedFreeof costs. Issueconvictionwarrants.
[10]
Pune. Date:20.01.2012
(D.R.Mahajan) 8thAdditionalSessionsJudge,Pune.
SESSIONSCASENO.418/2008
StateofMaharashtra Vs. Anita@MeenaRajendraKhandabale andanother
..
Complainant
..
Accused
[1]
OPERATIVEORDER AccusedNo.1Anita@MeenaRajendraKhandabaleand AccusedNo.2AjayAnantGhag,areherebyconvictedu/s. 235(2)ofCr.P.C.fortheoffencepunishableu/s.120Br/w. Section394,andu/s.302r/w.Section34ofI.P.C. Fortheoffenceofcriminalconspiracypunishableu/s.120B ofI.P.C.,boththeaccusedaresentencedtosufferR.I.for10 YearsandshallpayfineofRs.2,500/each,indefaultto sufferR.I.for6monthseach. Fortheoffenceofmurderpunishableu/s.302r/w.Section 34 of I.P.C., both accused are sentenced to suffer Imprisonment for Life and shall pay fine of Rs. 2,500/ each,indefaultofsufferR.I.for6monthseach. Fortheoffenceofrobberypunishableu/s.394r/w.Section 120BofI.P.C.,boththeaccusedaresentencedtosufferR.I. for10YearsandshallpayfineofRs.2,500/each,indefault tosufferR.I.for6monthseach. AccusedNos.1and2areherebyacquittedu/s.235(1)of Cr.P.C.fortheoffencepunishableu/s.120Br/w.Section 302,328and404ofI.P.C.,andu/s.328and404r/w.Section 34ofI.P.C.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6] [7]
Allthesentencesshallrunconcurrently. Boththeaccusedareinjailsincethedateofarrest,soset offu/s.428ofCr.P.C.begiventothem. Out of the seized muddemal, Gold ornaments of the deceasedbehandedovertohissonAmolDattatrayaYemul, seizedthreemobilehandsetsareforfeitedtoStateandbe soldinpublicauctionandsaleproceedsbecreditedtothe Government and remaining property being valueless be destroyedafterappealperiodisover. CopyoftheJudgmentbegiventoboththeaccusedFreeof costs. Issueconvictionwarrants.
[8]
[9]
[10]
Pune. Date:20.01.2012
(D.R.Mahajan) 8 AdditionalSessionsJudge,Pune.
th
IaffirmthatthecontentsofthisPDFfileJudgmentaresame wordtowordasperoriginalJudgment. NameofSteno: Mrs.S.S.Yengul CourtName: Shri.D.R.Mahajan DistrictJudge8&Addl.SessionsJudge,Pune. Date : 20.01.2012 JudgmentsignedbyPresidingOfficeron:20.01.2012 Judgmentuploadedon:20.01.2012.

Dattatraya Yemul Murder Case Pune Judgement

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Dattatraya Yemul Murder Case Pune Judgement

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

(1)SessionsCaseNo.

Receivedon: Registeredon: Decidedon: Duration:

26.06.2008 26.06.2008 20.01.2012 Ys.Ms.Ds. 030624

INTHECOURTOF8ADDL.SESSIONSJUDGE,PUNE, th AT:PUNE (PresidedoverbyD.R.Mahajan) SESSIONSCASENO.418/2008 EXH.NO.199

StateofMaharashtra (ThroughP.I.Sahaharnagar PoliceStation,Pune). V/S. [1]

Anita@MeenaRajendraKhandabale Age34Yrs.OccuService, R/atB21/10,LowerIndiraNagar Bibvewadi,Pune. AjayAnantGhag Age30Yrs.OccuNil, R/at20/10,LowerIndiraNagar, Bibvewadi,Pune. .. ACCUSED

CHARGE: Offencepunishableu/s.120B,302,328,394,404,109,114 r/w.Section34ofI.P.C. APPEARANCE: LearnedSpecialPublicProsecutorShri.VijayS.Sawant AdvocateShri.DongrefortheaccusedNo.1. AdvocateShri.BhoitefortheaccusedNo.2.

According to prosecution, both the accused persons

The friend of the deceased namely Shri. Balasaheb

The Medical Officer of Sassoon Hospital Dr. Ajay

On 08.03.2008, it was a Birthday of son of the

As the Mobile of the deceased was not found, the

It was also informed by the Telephone Company to

It was also revealed during interrogation with the

While the accused No.1 was in police custody, she

Again while she was in the police custody, accused

SUBMISSIONOFCHARGESHEET: 16. After completion of the investigation, the charge

30.06.2008.Itwasreadoverandexplainedtotheaccused personsinvernaculartowhichtheypleadednotguiltyand claimedtobetriedvideExh.3and4respectively.

Thereafter, another Presiding Officer of this Court

POINTSFORDETERMINATION: 21. IheardtheargumentsofthelearnedSpecialPublic

ProsecutorShri.VijaySawantfortheprosecution,advocate Shri.DongreforaccusedNo.1andAdvocateShri.Bhoite foraccusedNo.2,atlength.Theyplacedrelianceonvarious decisionsofHon'bleHighCourtsandHon'bleApexCourt. FollowingpointsariseformydeterminationtowhichIhave recordedmyfindingsthereon,asunder:

Provedonly offence punishableu/s. 120Br/w.394 IPC.

REASONS ORALEVIDENCE: Inordertobringhometheguiltoftheaccused,the

P.W.5NemichandThakur(Chawan)atExh.71is the photographer who snapped the photographs of deceasedatthespotofincident.

P.W.13RaviKannuratExh.88,and P.W.14PradeepKurkiatExh.89arethepersons wholosttheirSIMcardatSinhagadForton2.3.2008.

P.W.20SadashivDhanawadeatExh.104and P.W.23PravinkumarOswalatExh.112arethe Jwellerswhoweighedtheornamentsrecoveredasper memorandumsofbothaccused.

P.W.22Dr.AjayTawareatExh.105isthemedical officer attached to Sassoon Hospital, Pune who conductedautopsyonthedeadbodyofdeceasedand submittedpostmortemreport.

P.W.27SureshRanawadeatExh.116and P.W.28SadanandSutaratExh.117areresidents ofTalukaKanakawali,DistrictSindhudurgawith whomthefatherofaccusedNo.1hadtalkedfromher MobileNo.9860692134.

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

Personalsearchandseizureoftwomobilehandsets andSareefromaccusedNo.1dated12.03.2008,Exh. 79.

Memorandum of accused No. 2 dated 18.03.2008, Exh.96andseizureofgoldornamentsi.e.chain and 'Nazarana'ringandhisclothes,Exh.97.

Memorandum of accused No. 1 dated 18.03.2008, Exh.98andpanchanamaofthespotpointedoutby heratSinhagadFort,Exh.99.

House search panchanama of accused No. 2 at KrishnamaiSociety,Exh.120.

Identification Parade memorandum prepared by Tahasildardated10.04.2008,Exh.124.

[16] [17] [18] [19]

SpotpanchanamaExh.137, RoughSketchofsceneofoffence,Exh.138. DogSquadNilReport,Exh.139. LettersissuedtoTelephonecompaniesforcalldetails, Exh.140(lettertoIdeaCellularCompany)andExh. 141(LettertoAirtelCompany).

Notarized copies in respect of registration and insuranceof800MarutiCarbearingNo.GA01/C

The learned Special Public Prosecutor Shri. Vijay

From the record of Telephone Companies and the

As per contention of the learned Special PP, no

(A)ADVOCATESHRI.DONGREFORACCUSEDNO.1: 29. As per contention of Advocate Shri. Dongre for the

Regarding the evidence of two boys who saw the

Advocate Shri. Dongre has also ruled out the

Advocate Shri. Dongre has also raised doubt

At the outset while assailing the prosecution story

Bhoite, the evidence on identification parade can not be believed.

Advocate Shri. Bhoite further contended that the

According toAdvocateShri.Bhoite, theprosecution

Regarding seizure of two handsets of mobiles from

Sr. MobileNo./ No. SIMCard

Nameoftheperson Nameoftheperson asperrecordof usingMobile/SIM Tel.Co. Card

9822601053 9766049110 IMEINo. 358073018958 800

RahulYemul P.W.8Mukund Vaidya

Deceased DattatrayaYemul AccusedNo.1 Anita@Meean

[3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]

9860692134 9420206683 9860314076 9326844274 9326058466 9422037370 9822066496

CITATIONSRELIEDBYSPECIALPPSHRI.SAWANT: 41. In support of different points raised during

ItisobservedbyDivisionBenchofourHon'bleHighCourt that Identificationofanaccusedatthetrialissubstantive evidence,thoughtheevidenceofidentificationintest identificationparadeisnotsubstantiveevidencebut isonlycorroborativeevidence. [H] OnthepointofentriesinstationdiarybyPolice officers

Aspersaiddecision, overmuch importance can not be given to minor discrepancieswhichdonotgototherootofthematter andshakethebasisversionofthewitnesses.

Onthepointofconspiracy: Rajendra@RajuNetrapalVs.StateofMaharashtra 2010AllMR(Cri.)449.

procedureinlaw.Sotheconvictionoftwoboysonthe basisofidentificationparadehasbeensetaside. [ii] ShaikhUmarAhmedShaikhVs.Stateof Maharashtra1998Cri.L.J.2534(SupremeCourt)

Asperthisdecision, Panchanamaofseizureu/s.27oftheEvidenceAct, not bearing signatureofaccused, isa wealpiece of evidence.

Hon'ble Apex Court in the landmark Judgment of

The second witness on this point, is P.W. 2