Bombay High Court
State Of Mah. Thr. P.S.O., P.S. Akot vs Narayan Mahadev Pilatre And Anr on 5 April, 2018
Author: M.G.Giratkar
Bench: B.R. Gavai, M.G. Giratkar
criminal appeal 458of2009.odt 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 458 OF 2009
State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Police Station Akot,
Tq. Akot, District-Akola. ....... APPELLANT
...V E R S U S...
1] Narayan Mahadev Pilatre,
Aged about 54 years,
Occupation : Agriculturist,
R/o Gram Chandikapur,
Tq. Akot, District-Akola.
2] Smt. Sunanda W/o Narayan Pilatre
Aged about 45 years,
Occupation : Household,
R/o Gram Chandikapur,
Tq. Akot, District : Akola. ....... RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri N.R. Patil, Additional Public Prosecutor for State.
Shri S.V. Sirpurkar with Shri N.R. Tekade, Advocate for
Respondents No. 1 and 2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: B.R. GAVAI AND
M.G. GIRATKAR, JJ.
DATE: 05-04-2018
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER M.G.GIRATKAR, J.)
1] This appeal is filed by the State against the judgment of acquittal in Session Trial No. 02/2008, by which respondent- ::: Uploaded on - 06/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2018 01:32:12 ::: criminal appeal 458of2009.odt 2 accused came to be acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. The case of the prosecution against the accused (respondents) can be summarized as under:-
Deceased Prashant was married on 26-12-2005 with Seema. After marriage, he was residing alongwith his wife and his parents (accused). On 15-08-2007 in the evening at about 7 p.m., wife of deceased was cooking food. There was quarrel between the deceased and his parents and brother. There was apprehension that deceased would beat her, therefore she was taken to the house of Bhimrao Piltare. Her father-in-law, mother-in-law (accused) beat the deceased and killed the husband of complainant.
2] On the next day morning, complainant came from the house of Bhimrao, she found her husband dead inside the room. She found rope tide to his throat, she also found pull of blood and bangle piece lying there. Shri Gautam (A.P.I.) received anonymous phone call that son of Narayan Mahadev Pilatre died. He went to house of Narayan Mahadev Piltare, he enquired with accused Nararyan Mahadev Piltare and he narrated that there was quarrel with the deceased. Deceased was under the influence of liquor, ::: Uploaded on - 06/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2018 01:32:12 ::: criminal appeal 458of2009.odt 3 deceased was insisting to give his share. Therefore, they assaulted the deceased and killed him.
3] Wife of deceased lodged the report (Exhibit-41). On the report, crime was registered against both the accused. A.P.I. Shri Gautam prepared inquest panchanama, spot panchanama and sent the dead body of postmortem recorded the statement of witnesses. After completing investigation filed the charge-sheet before Judicial Magistrate First Class, who in turn committed the case to the Court of Session at Akot .
4] Trial Court framed the charge at Exhibit-15, same was read over and explained to the accused. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution has examined eight witnesses, at the conclusion of the trial; both accused are acquitted for the offence charged against them.
5] Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri N.R. Patil for the State and Shri S.V. Sirpurkar, learned Counsel for the respondent-accused.
6] The case of the prosecution solely based on ::: Uploaded on - 06/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2018 01:32:12 ::: criminal appeal 458of2009.odt 4 circumstantial evidence. Prosecution relied on the following circumstances:-
a] Extra judicial confession alleged to have been made by the accused no.1 Narayan before the complainant Smt. Seema (PW-3) and police officer A.P.I. Shri Gautam.
b] Blood stains were found on the clothes of the accused No.1 Narayan.
c] Bangle piece was found near the dead body.
d] Nylon rope was found around the neck of the deceased. Dead body was found in the house of accused.
e] Medical evidence show that death was due to strangulation.
There is no dispute that deceased was son of both the accused. He was married with complainant Smt. Seema, as per evidence of PW-3 Seema four-five days before the incident, her husband quarreled with his parents and was demanding share in the property. On the day of incident her husband was under the influence of liquor. He started quarrel with his parents. He was ::: Uploaded on - 06/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2018 01:32:12 ::: criminal appeal 458of2009.odt 5 abusing both the accused. Her brother-in-law Manoj taken her to the house of Bhimrao Piltare. In the next morning, she came to the house and found that her husband was lying dead in the room. 7] In respect of extra-judicial confession, PW-3 has stated that her father-in-law told that they killed her husband because harassment from her husband was unbearable to them. This particular evidence is not reliable, because in her report (Exhibit-41). She has stated that she came to know that due to quarrel, her father-in-law Nararyan and mother-in-law Sunanda committed murder of her husband. She has not stated in her report, that father-in-law/accused told her that they killed the deceased. Therefore, this material omission in the report show that she has made material improvement in her evidence only to rope the accused persons. Hence the circumstance in respect of extra judicial confession rightly not relied by the trial Court. 8] Shri Gautam (A.P.I) has stated in his evidence that he came to know about the incident. Therefore, he reached to the house of accused on inquiry accused no.1 confessed that due to constant harassing, they killed the deceased. This extra judicial confession before police officer is not admissible, in view of the ::: Uploaded on - 06/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2018 01:32:12 ::: criminal appeal 458of2009.odt 6 provision of Section 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 9] In respect of blood stains, the P.W.2 not stated that she found any blood stains on the cloth of her father-in- law/accused no.1, Panch witness in respect of seizure panchanama not supported to the prosecution. Moreover, the deceased died in the night of 15-08-2007. Accused could not have kept his clothes on his person. As per the evidence of A.P.I. Shri Gautam, he seized the clothes of accused on 16-08-2007 at about 5.30 p.m. Chemical Analyzer Report, though show that clothes of accused were having some blood stains but blood group of deceased was not determined. Therefore, it cannot be said that the blood found on the clothes of accused was of the deceased, hence this circumstances is not helpful to the prosecution. 10] The bangles piece was found near the dead body. It was seized at the time of panchanama. A.P.I. Shri Gautam seized bangles of accused no.2 from the comparison learned trial Court found that the said bangles was not of accused no.2 and moreover there was no any injury on the wrist of accused no.2, therefore, learned trial Court not relied this circumstance. ::: Uploaded on - 06/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2018 01:32:12 ::: criminal appeal 458of2009.odt 7 11] Prosecution relied that nylon rope was found around neck of deceased. Accused no.1 was having injury to his palm. As per medical evidence, that injury was possible while tying the rope around the neck. Dr. Rajendra Nemade, Medical Officer, (PW-8) has stated in his cross-examination that injury on the palm of accused no.1 can be possible by any hard and blunt object. There may also be various other reasons for causing injury to the palm. He was shown rope article-1 which was soft one and therefore it cannot be said that accused no.1 sustained injury at the time of incident, hence the circumstance is not proved by the prosecution. 12] Prosecution has relied on evidence of PW.8. As per his evidence, the death was due to strangulation and hanging. It is pertinent to note that cross-examination of medical officer show that injuries noted in column-19 to 22 are also available in case of hanging. Therefore, possibility cannot be ruled out that the deceased hanged himself and committed suicide. 13] Dead body was found in the house of accused and accused not given explanation about the same. This circumstance is not helpful to the prosecution, because evidence of PW-3 show that she was residing with her husband in a room separately. ::: Uploaded on - 06/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2018 01:32:12 ::: criminal appeal 458of2009.odt 8
Deceased was found lying in the same room. Therefore, it cannot be said that accused persons to give explanation as to how the dead body was in their house. It was for the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused and thereafter burden shift on the accused to explain.
14] Prosecution has failed to prove any of the circumstances relied against the accused, learned trial Court rightly recorded its finding and rightly acquitted both the accused for the offence charged against them.
Hence, we do not found any merit in the appeal. Therefore, proceed to pass following order:-
ORDER The appeal is dismissed.
Record and proceedings be sent back to trail Court.
JUDGE JUDGE
rkn
::: Uploaded on - 06/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2018 01:32:12 :::