Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra vs Kamlakar Tanaji Shinde on 7 September, 2010
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2010 BOM 2
Author: V.K. Tahilramani
Bench: Ranjana Desai, V.K. Tahilramani
conf4-09.doc
rma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CONFIRMATION CASE NO. 4 OF 2009
The State of Maharashtra ] Appellant
(Org. Complainant)
Vs
Kamlakar Tanaji Shinde ]
Age - 25 Years, Occ - Agriculturist ]
R/o. Babhalgaon, Tal. Barshi, ]
Dist. Solapur. ] Respondent
(Org. Accused)
ig WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1078 OF 2009
Kamlakar Tanaji Shinde ]
Age - 25 Years, Occ - Agriculturist ]
R/o. Babhalgaon, Tal. Barshi, ]
Dist. Solapur. ] Appellant
(Org. Accused)
Vs
The State of Maharashtra ] Respondent
Mr. Jaydeep D. Mane for the Accused
Mr. S.S. Pednekar, APP for the State
CORAM : SMT. RANJANA DESAI &
SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ.
DATE OF RESERVING THE
JUDGMENT :08.07.2010 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT : 7th September, 2010.
1 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:18 :::conf4-09.doc JUDGMENT [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] :
1. By judgment and order dated 06.10.2009 in Sessions Case No. 251 of 2007, the learned Adhoc Addl Sessions Judge, Solapur convicted the accused - Kamlakar Tanaji Shinde for the offence under section 302 of I.P.C and sentenced him to capital punishment of death and fine of Rs. 5000/- in default to undergo imprisonment for two years. By the very same judgment and order, the accused Kamlakar also came to be convicted under section 364 of I.P.C and sentenced to R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs. 2000/- in default to undergo further imprisonment for three months. As the accused came to be sentenced to death, the learned Sessions Judge made a reference to this Court under section 366 of Cr.P.C. for confirmation of death sentence. The appellant - original accused being aggrieved by the very same judgment and order, preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1078 of 2009. As both the confirmation case and the appeal were directed against the same judgment and order, hence, both these matters were heard together.
2. The prosecution case briefly stated is that Draupadi Shinde was residing at Babhalgaon with her husband. Draupadi had three sons PW 19 Vijaykumar, PW 7 Sarjerao and 2 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:18 ::: conf4-09.doc Rajendra. They were all residing separately at Barshi.
Accused Kamlakar was the nephew of Draupadi. He was also resident of Babhalgaon. On 26.07.2007, Draupadi came to Barshi to take darshan of Lord Bhagvant and to meet her children. In the morning at about 9.00 a.m., Draupadi along with one Vimal Shinde came to the house of her son PW19 Vijay. At that time, PW 17 Vandana wife of Vijay was at home. They had tea, then Draupadi and Vimal left to visit the other sons of Draupadi and to go to the temple for darshan.
Draupadi went to the house of her son PW 7 Sarjerao at about 11.30 a.m. Thereafter, Draupadi went and met her other son Rajendra. In the meanwhile, At about 2.00 to 2.30 p.m., accused - Kamlakar came to the house of Vandana and Vijay.
At about 4.00 p.m., Draupadi came back to the house of Vandana after darshan. Vandana served her tea. After having tea, Draupadi said that she would return to Babhalgaon, therefore, Draupadi, accused Kamlakar and Vandana came out of the house. Kamlakar stopped at the shop of one Lata Bharate (PW12) to make a telephone call from the coin box. Thereafter, Kamlakar told Vandana that he and Draupadi would go to Babhalgaon and he told Vandana to return back to her house.
On the next day i.e on 27.07.2007 at about 6.00 p.m., PW 3 Nandkumar Netake who was a resident of Babhalgaon and had a shop at Barshi received a telephone call from 3 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:18 ::: conf4-09.doc Babhalgaon asking him to find out whether Draupadi had arrived at the house of PW19 Vijay or not. Accordingly, he went to the house of Vijay. He made enquiry with PW17 Vandana Shinde who was present at home, whether Draupadi had arrived there or not, whereupon, Vandana informed him that Draupadi had already left on the earlier day at about 05.00 p.m for Babhalgaon. At about 07.00 p.m, Vijay - husband of Vandana came home. Vandana informed him that his mother had not reached Babhalgaon. They made inquiry with PW7 Sarjerao and Rajendra Shinde whether their mother Draupadi had come to their house. Sarjerao and Rajendra informed that Draupadi had not come to their house after 04.30 p.m. Vijay, Sarjerao and others searched for Draupadi but she could not be traced, therefore, on 29.07.2007 at about 11.35 a.m., PW 19 Vijay lodged missing report [Ex 60] at Barshi Police Station. In the said missing report, it is stated that at about 4.30 to 5.00 p.m. when Draupadi was returning with Kamlakar to Babhalgaon, while Kamlakar stopped to make a telephone call, Draupadi went little ahead and thereafter, she could not be found. The description of Draupadi was stated in the missing complaint that she was slim built, height about 5 ft and had wheatish complexion,. It was also stated that she had black and white hair and she wears spectacles. The description of clothes and ornaments on the person of Draupadi was also given i.e yellow Solapuri saree with red colour blouse and 4 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:18 ::: conf4-09.doc she was wearing Mangalsutra, two gold patalies [ type of bangles ], two gold rings and gold tops.
The missing complaint was entrusted to PW5 ASI Doke. He made enquiry. During enquiry, it transpired that when last seen, Draupadi was on her way to Babhalgaon with accused Kamlakar, hence ASI Doke suspected accused Kamlakar and therefore, took him into custody. ASI Doke interrogated Kamlakar about the whereabouts of Draupadi whereupon Kamlakar told ASI Doke that he would show the spot where he had thrown the dead body of Draupadi, hence ASI Doke called two Pancha witnesses including ig PW1 Bhaskar Patil. Accused Kamlakar in the presence of Police and Pancha stated that he would point out the place where he had thrown the dead body of Draupadi. Kamlakar then led them to Ramling forest and showed the spot. At the spot, grass was found in a disturbed condition. They interalia found one human skull and mandible, two long piece of bones, black and white hair, piece of yellow colour saree, piece of red blouse with red button, piece of petticoat, one spectacle case, purse, pair of chappals, one pink colour button. PW 7 Sarjerao and PW 19 Vijay identified the piece of saree, piece of blouse, purse, slippers and spectacle case as belonging to their moher.
After viewing the spot, ASI Doke was convinced that Kamlakar had murdered Draupadi, hence he lodged his complaint (Exh
36). On the basis of the FIR of ASI Doke, PW6 Dilip Rede-
5 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:18 :::conf4-09.doc Patil registered C.R. No. 128 of 2007 for the offence under sections 302 and 364 of I.P.C. Investigation came to be entrusted to PW21 PI Pethe.
During the course of investigation, ornaments of the deceased i.e two gold tops, two gold rings and one gold Mangalsutra came to be recovered at the instance of the accused vide panchanama Exh 50A and 50B in the presence of Panch PW13 Arvind Shinde. The clothes which were on the person of the accused at the time of incident also came to be recovered at his instance ig vide panchanama Exh 43A and 43B.
One button on the shirt of the accused was found to be missing. The said shirt and one button found at the spot were sent to Chemical Analyzer. As per CA report [Ex. 64] the button found at the spot of incident tallied with the button on the shirt of the accused.
3. In the meanwhile, the bones found at the spot were sent to PW11 Dr. Peerzade who was working in Anatomy department of the Government Medical College at Solapur. After examining the bones, he gave his opinion (Ex. 47) that the skull belongs to a human being of female sex who was above 50 years of age and that the mandible and the skull belong to the same person. The black and white hair found at the spot was also sent to the chemical analyzer. As per Chemical Analyzer 6 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:18 ::: conf4-09.doc Report [Ex 63 Pg 110], hair found on the spot was found to be human hair. After completion of investigation, charge sheet came to be filed under sections 302 and 364 of I.P.C.
4. Charge came to be framed against the accused Kamlakar for the offence under sections 302 and 364 of I.P.C. The accused pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed to be tried. The defence of the accused is that of total denial and false implication on account of dispute relating to land. The accused did not examine any defence witness.
After going through the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused as stated in para 1 above.
5. We have heard Mr. Jaydeep Mane, the learned advocate for the accused and Mr. S.S. Pednekar, learned APP for the State. We have perused the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge and the evidence in this case. After carefully considering the matter, for the reasons stated below, We are of the opinion that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly convicted the appellant - original accused under sections 302 and 364 of I.P.C.
6. There is no eye witness in the present case and the case depends only upon circumstantial evidence. In order to 7 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:18 ::: conf4-09.doc prove its case, the prosecution has relied on the following circumstances:
i From about 5 pm on 26.07.2007, the deceased was missing.
ii That the deceased was last seen with the accused on 26.07.2007 at about 5.00 p.m. iiiThe accused showing the spot where articles of deceased, some human bones and black and white hair was found.
iv The bones found at the spot shown by accused were sent to PW11 ig Dr. Peerzade who was working in Anatomy department of the Government Medical College at Solapur. After examining the bones, he gave his opinion (Ex. 47) that the skull belongs to a human being of female sex who was above 50 years of age and that the mandible and the skull belong to the same person. Age of Draupadi was about 51 years.
v Draupadi had black and white hair and Black and white hair was found at the spot.
vi Recovery of shirt [Art 17] of the accused wherein one button was found missing which button was found at the scene of the incident [panchanama Exh.26]According to the CA report, the button found at the spot tallied with the buttons on the said shirt.8 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:19 :::
conf4-09.doc viiRecovery of ornaments of Draupadi at the instance of the accused.
viiiEvidence of PW9 Sanjay Bhosale who was working in a jewelery shop who has stated that on 27.07.2007 at about 2.30 p.m., the accused came to the shop and sold two gold patlis [Article 15] weighing about 40 grams to him. Witnesses have identified the patlis as belonging to Draupadi.
7. Where the entire case hinges on circumstantial evidence, great care must be taken in evaluating circumstantial evidence to ensure that the circumstances on which the prosecution relies are wholly consistent with the sole hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. When a case rests on circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy oft quoted tests viz: (1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; (2) those circumstances should unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused; (3) the circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probabilities the crime was committed by the accused and none else; (4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent 9 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:19 ::: conf4-09.doc with the guilt of the accused but should also be inconsistent with his innocence.
8. Legal principles with regard to circumstantial evidence in criminal trial have been explained by the Supreme Court time and again. A recent case in a long line of cases being Pawan and Ors Vs State of Uttaranchal, 2009(3) Bom.C.R. (Cri.) 194.
In an earlier decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shankarlal Gyarasilal Dixit Vs State of Maharashtra, 1980 Criminal Law Journal 325 : 1981(2) SCC 35, the Supreme Court observed as under:
"....It is not to be expected that in every case depending on circumstantial evidence, the whole of the law governing cases of circumstantial evidence should be set out in the judgment.
Legal principles are not magic incantations and their importance lies more in their application to a given set of facts than in their recital in the judgment. The simple expectation is that the judgment must show that the finding of guilt, if any, has been reached after a proper and careful evaluation of circumstances in order to determine whether they are compatible with any other reasonable hypothesis."
It needs to be emphasized that while evaluating circumstantial evidence, which of course has to be done carefully, the circumstances must be of such a nature as to 10 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:19 ::: conf4-09.doc be capable of supporting the exclusive hypothesis that the accused is guilty of the crime of which he is charged and the circumstances so shown by the prosecution are compatible with no other reasonable hypothesis. Keeping these principles in mind, we have evaluated the evidence.
9. As far as the first circumstance as stated above is concerned, it is not disputed by the defence that from 26.07.2007, Draupadi was missing. However, Mr. Mane, the learned counsel for the accused submitted that the accused is not responsible for ig her murder. He highlighted inconsistencies and improbabilities in the version of the witnesses to bolster up his contention that the evidence led by the prosecution needs to be rejected. We shall deal with his submissions a little later.
10. On the aspect of last seen, the prosecution has examined five witnesses i.e PW17 Vandana who is daughter in law of Draupadi, PW12 Lata Bharte who is a shopkeeper in Barshi, PW15 Faruq Pathan, PW20 Gopal Nagtilak and PW14 Rajendra Gaikwad. The learned counsel for the accused pointed out that the trial court has not relied on the evidence of PW14 Rajendra. We are also inclined to take the same view. Hence, we shall not advert to his evidence and shall proceed to deal with the evidence of PW17 Vandana 11 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:19 ::: conf4-09.doc Shinde, PW12 Lata Bharte, PW15 Faruq Pathan and PW20 Gopal Nagtilak only.
11. PW17 Vandana is the first witness on the aspect of last seen. She has stated that on 26.07.2007, the accused came to her house at 2.00 to 2.30 p.m. Her mother in law Draupadi came to her house at about 4.00 p.m. Draupadi informed that she would return to Babhalgaon, therefore, Vandana, Kamlakar and her mother-in-law Draupadi came out of the house. There was a telephone coin box on the road. Kamlakar tried to contact someone on that coin box for about 10 to 15 minutes.
Thereafter, Kamlakar told Vandana to return home and that he and Draupadi would go to Babhalgaon, hence Vandana returned home. On 27.07.2007 at about 6.00 p.m, Vandana learnt from PW3 Nandkumar that her mother-in law Draupadi had not reached Babhalgaon.
12. Mr. Mane, the learned counsel for the accused submitted that the evidence of this witness is full of omissions and hence, the evidence of this witness on the aspect of last seen cannot be relied upon. However, though there are a few omissions in the evidence of this witness, it is to be noted that the evidence of PW17 Vandana as reproduced by us above does not suffer from any omissions or contradictions. Hence, we have no hesitation in relying on evidence of Vandana on 12 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:19 ::: conf4-09.doc the aspect of last seen. The evidence of Vandana shows that on 26.07.2007 at about 4.45 p.m, deceased Draupadi was last seen in company of Kamlakar.
13. PW12 Lata Bharate is the second witness on the aspect of last seen. This witness has a grocery shop in Barshi.
Her shop is on the road. There is a telephone coin box in front of her shop. Lata used to sit at the counter of her shop. Lata has stated that on 26.07.2007 at about 4.45 p.m, Draupadi, Kamlakar and Vandana came to her shop.
Kamlakar had to make
ig a phone call from the coin box.
Draupadi and Vandana were standing on the road and Kamlakar was contacting someone on phone from the coin box.
Thereafter, Kamlakar told Vandana to return home, therefore, Vandana went home. Thereafter, Kamlakar and Draupadi both went together. The evidence of this witness shows that on 26.06.2007 at about 4.45 p.m, Draupadi, Vandana and Kamlakar were near her shop. Then Vandana on being directed by accused Kamlakar returned home and Kamlakar and Draupadi went away together. This witness knew Vandana, Draupadi as well as Kamlakar. She knew Kamlakar as he used to come to house of Vijay and Vandana. She is an independent witness and she does not have any close ties with the family of Vijay nor does she have any enmity with the accused. We see no impediment in relying on her testimony.
13 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:19 :::conf4-09.doc
14. As far as the evidence of PW 12 Lata Bahrate is concerned, Mr. Mane submitted that her statement has been recorded belatedly. This fact shows that she is a got up witness. He submitted that in such case, her evidence cannot be relied upon. Mr. Mane pointed out that according to PW 12 Lata, she saw the deceased and accused on 26.06.2007.
However, her statement has been recorded by the police on 06.08.2007. He submitted that had Lata actually seen the accused and the deceased going together at about 4.45 p.m., her statement would have been recorded much earlier. In the present case, it is seen that the FIR is registered on 05.08.2007 at about 10.20 p.m. It is apparent that only in the afternoon of 05.08.2007 the police were reasonably sure that the accused had committed murder of Draupadi. This was after the accused led the police and panchas to the spot where he had thrown dead body of Draupadi. The panchnama came to be completed at the spot at about 3.00 pm. Thereafter, the police along with panchas returned to the police station. The FIR was lodged only at about 10.20 p.m. on 05.08.2007. Thereafter, the investigation was handed over by PW 6 Dilip Rede-Patil to PW 21 PI Pethe. Thus, earliest in point of time, the police could record the statement of witnesses in C.R. No. 128 of 2007 was only on 06.08.2007 and the statement of Lata has been recorded in C.R. No. 128 14 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:19 ::: conf4-09.doc of 2007 on 06.08.2007. It is not expected that the police would call a lady witness to the police station at midnight or go her house at midnight to record her statement. Thus, we do not find any force in this submission.
15. PW15 Faruq is the next witness on the aspect of last seen. This witness has stated that on 26.07.2007 at about 4.45 p.m., he was waiting for ST Bus to go from Barshi to Pangari. He stated that if one has to go to Pangari from Barshi, one has to catch the Barshi-Yedashi-Barshi bus. He saw one lady aged about 50 to 55 years waiting at the ST stand. She was wearing spectacles. There was yellow greenish saree on her person. One boy of blackish colour aged about 25 years was with that lady. At about 5.00 pm, Barshi-Yedashi bus came to the spot. Faruq was sitting beside the seat of the conductor which is provided for three persons. He was sitting on the window side of the seat which was meant for three persons. The lady and the boy who was with her also came in the bus and sat near his seat. The lady told him that she had vomiting sensation, therefore she wanted to sit at the window seat. Faruq inquired with the lady where she was going, at that time, the boy who was sitting with the lady told Faruq that they had to go to Yedashi. Faruq gave his seat at the window side to the lady as his stop was earlier to their stop. Thereafter, he got 15 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:19 ::: conf4-09.doc down at Pangari ST stop and the two persons i.e lady and the boy went ahead in the same bus. This witness has identified the photograph of Draupadi to be the same person to whom he gave his seat in the bus. He has also identified the accused as being the same person who was along with that lady.
16. The learned counsel for the accused pointed out that PW15 Faruq identified the accused for the first time in the court. He submitted that Faruq had not seen the accused at any time before 26.07.2007. He submitted that no test identification parade was held prior to the identification in the Court and as such, the evidence of Faruq directly identifying the accused in the court without any previous TIP cannot be relied upon. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on a decision of this court in case of Sadashiv Bajrang Sutar Vs The State of Maharashtra, 1982 CRI.L.J. 2056 wherein it is observed that all the witnesses, who claimed to have seen the accused last in the company of the deceased on the day in question identified the accused according to their own version, for the first time in the open court after the date of the incident. The charge against the accused was u/s 302 IPC. None of these witnesses had seen the accused any time before the day in question. It was held that the failure to hold identification parade cuts at the very root of the testimonials of witnesses and the very 16 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:19 ::: conf4-09.doc circumstance that the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused is not established at all.
We have carefully perused the above judgment. In the said decision, it appears that the witness had only fleetingly seen the deceased in the company of the accused.
It becomes at once clear that the aforesaid observations were made in the light of the prevailing facts and circumstances of the said case and hence, these observations appear to have been made.
However, the Supreme Court has considered the evidentiary value of identification of accused by a witness in the court for the first time in a case where the eye witness did not know the accused earlier and where no TIP had been held. The Supreme Court observed that real credence of such evidence would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. It was so observed in the case of Ramanbhai Naranbhai Patel and Others Vs State of Gujarat, (2000)1 SCC
358. In the said case, it was held that in absence of TIP, it cannot be said that the evidence of an eyewitness would become inadmissible or totally useless.
17. In the case of Ramanbhai also, two witnesses directly identified the accused in the court but without any previous TIP. The Supreme Court negatived the contention that such identification is of no assistance to the prosecution. The 17 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:19 ::: conf4-09.doc Supreme Court observed that as the witnesses were injured in the incident, they could have easily seen the faces of the persons assaulting them and the appearance and the identity would remain printed in the minds of witnesses especially when there were assaulted in broad day light.
18. Mr. Mane, the learned counsel for the accused again argued that so far as identification of the accused by PW 15 Faruq at the time of trial without his participation in test identification parade is concerned, such identification is worthless and therefore, ig that part of evidence should be excluded from consideration and thus a vital link in the chain of circumstances would be missing. Due to this, conviction on the basis of such identification ought to be set aside.
19. In connection with the above arguments of Mr. Mane, we may make useful reference to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ronny alias Ronald James Alwares and Ors Vs State of Maharashtra, (1998) 3 Supreme Court Cases 625. In the said decision, it is observed that the statement of the witness made in the court is substantive evidence whereas the evidence of identification in the TIP is not a substantive evidence but it is only corroborative evidence. It falls in the realm of investigation. The purpose of test 18 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:19 ::: conf4-09.doc identification parade is to test the observation, grasp, memory, capacity of a witness to recapitulate what he has seen earlier, the strength or trustworthiness of the evidence of the identification of an accused and to ascertain if it can be used as reliable corroborative evidence of the witness identifying the accused at his trial in court. But if a witness has seen an accused earlier in such circumstances which lend assurance to identification by him in court and if there is no inherent improbability or inconsistency, his statement in court about the identification of accused should be relied upon as any other acceptable but uncorroborated testimony. The identification of the accused by a witness if he had an opportunity to interact with him or to notice his distinctive feature lends assurance to his testimony in court and absence of corroborative evidence by way of test identification parade would not be material.
20. In the case of Ronny (Supra), the prosecution had relied on the evidence of two witnesses i.e PW29 and PW34.
Both these witnesses had directly identified the accused for the first time in court. The evidence of both these witnesses was relied upon by the prosecution to show that the accused persons had come to the bungalow of the deceased on the night of the incident. The evidence of both these witnesses was accepted by both the trial court as well as the 19 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:19 ::: conf4-09.doc High Court that the accused persons were seen entering the bungalow of the deceased on the previous night. The Supreme Court has observed that both the courts below had rightly accepted the identification of the accused by these two witnesses. The accused persons were not known to both PW 29 and PW 34 prior to the date of incident, however, both these witnesses had a talk with the accused when the accused came to the bungalow. Some talk took place between the witnesses and the accused for about 7-8 minutes. Thereafter, the accused persons entered into the bungalow. On the next day, the inmates of the bungalow were found dead. The Supreme Court held that identification of the accused by a witness if he had an opportunity to interact with him or notice his distinctive features lends assurance to his testimony in court and that the absence of corroborative evidence by way of TIP would not be material.
21. In the present case also, PW15 Faruq had an opportunity to interact with the accused and deceased and he had traveled with them for a period of almost one hour. Thus, there was every opportunity for him to observe these two persons i.e accused and the deceased and to correctly identify the accused later on. The evidence on record shows that PW15 Faruq was traveling in the same bus as the deceased and the accused. He was occupying the window seat in the bus. The 20 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:19 ::: conf4-09.doc deceased and the accused came and sat next to him on the very same seat as it was a seat meant for three people. Draupadi informed Faruq that she had vomiting sensation, hence she requested witness Faruq to allow her to sit at the window seat. The evidence shows that some conversation took place between Draupadi and this witness and also with the accused.
On query by this witness, it was the accused who replied that they were going to Yedshi. It is also pertinent to note that Yedshi is the stop where a person has to alight in order to go to Ramling Forest. This witness got down at Pangari ST stop which is situated between Barshi and Yedshi.
ig It has come on record through the evidence of PW5 PSI Doke that distance between Barshi and the scene of offence is about 25 kms. According to Faruq, distance between the Pangari and Yedashi is about 11 kms. Thus, at least for a distance of about 13-14 kms, the accused, deceased and this witness traveled together in the same bus, sitting on the same seat next to one another. To travel by ST Bus for a distance of about 13-14 kms would take at least an hour. In such situation, looking to the special circumstance that the deceased had requested this witness to exchange his seat with her and the fact that this witness had conversation with Draupadi as well as the accused, it can be said that he had sufficient opportunity to observe these two persons. It is not as if he had a fleeting glimpse of a few seconds or even 21 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:19 ::: conf4-09.doc a few minutes of the accused and the deceased. This witness would have been able to observe the accused for at least an hour during which they traveled together sitting on the same seat. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, not holding of a TIP would not be fatal to the prosecution.
22. As far as PW15 Faruq is concerned, he is an independent witness. He is not even a resident of Barshi or Babhalgaon, hence, he had no occasion to know either the deceased or accused prior to the incident.
ig In such case, there was no question of him having any previous enmity or grudge against the accused person or any affinity towards the deceased and family of the deceased. It has come on record through his evidence that he suo motu went to Barshi Police station and narrated the incident to the police on 06.08.2007. The occasion for him to do so is that on 06.07.2007, when he was reading the paper, he came to know that the lady who traveled on that day in the bus was murdered. Hence, he approached the police station of his own accord. He identified the photograph of that lady to whom he had given a seat as being the same lady to whom he gave a seat. This conduct of the witness shows that he is a conscientious citizen who did his best to help unravel the case.
22 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:19 :::conf4-09.doc
23. The last witness on the circumstance of last seen is PW20 Gopal Nagtilak. This witness used to graze cattle in Ramling sanctuary. He has stated that on 04.07.2007, when he went to Ramling jungle to graze cattle, he saw police jeep standing there and the police had brought one accused with them. The accused was pointing the spot to the police.
On seeing this, he told the people who had gathered there that he has seen the accused earlier at about 6.00 p.m while going to the jungle with a woman. The woman had worn spectacle and she was wearing irkal saree. Mr. Mane, the learned counsel for ig the accused again reiterated his contention that in this case also, no TIP had been held, hence identification of the accused in the court is valueless. As far as this contention is concerned, it is to be noted that this witness has seen the accused hardly 10 days after the incident. There is no such long gap that the memory of this witness would be obliterated. It has come on record that road leading to Ramling Sanctuary is not busy.
As far as Ramling Sanctuary is concerned, PW20 Nagtilak has stated that only five persons came to graze cattle in the jungle and these persons came at 9.30 a.m and returned back 6 to 6.30 p.m. The spot of incident is at a distance of about 1 1/2 kms from the main road. In view of the fact that hardly any person besides the local villagers came to the Sanctuary for grazing their cattle, obviously, when some 23 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:19 ::: conf4-09.doc outsiders were seen by this witness in the jungle and specially a woman accompanied by a man, it would attract his attention and this would cause him to remember their appearance for a period of 10 days. Both PW15 Rafiq and PW20 Nagtilak had the occasion to see Draupadi as well as the accused in broad day light. It would be unusual that a lady and a man would be walking around in the jungle at about 6.00 p.m., hence it being an unusual event, PW 20 Nagtilak would definitely remember their presence and be able to identify the accused a few days later.
24. As far as the circumstance of last seen and the circumstance that it was the accused who pointed out the spot where dead body was thrown from where pieces of dead body of Draupadi were found, Mr. Mane submitted that Draupadi was missing since 26.07.2007 and the dead body of Draupadi was found on 04.08.2007. He submitted that when there was too much interval between the date that Draupadi was missing and finding of her dead body, in such case, it cannot be said that any link existed to connect the accused with the crime.
In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the decision in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs Annappa Bandu Kavatage, 1979 CRI.L.J. 1089 = AIR 1979 SUPREME COURT 1410 wherein it was observed in para 2 as under:
"....As there was sufficient interval between the death of the boy and the recovery of the body, 24 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:19 ::: conf4-09.doc the link in the chain of the circumstantial evidence does not appear to be fully complete."
25. On the aspect of last seen, Mr. Mane placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Lakhanpal Vs State of M.P. reported in AIR 1979 SUPREME COURT 1620. He pointed out that the said case also rested on circumstantial evidence and one of the main circumstance relied upon against the accused was the circumstance of last seen. The Supreme Court observed that the circumstance of last seen in the said case was not sufficient ig to prove conclusively that the appellant committed murder of the deceased. In the said case, there were only two circumstances against the accused, first circumstance was that of last seen and second circumstance was extra judicial confession made by the accused before one Sukhlal. As far as the extra judicial confession was concerned, Sukhlal in his substantive evidence stated that no confession was made before him. Thus, the circumstance of extra judicial confession could not have been relied upon and the only circumstance which remained was last seen. In these circumstances, it was observed by the Supreme Court that mere fact that the accused and the deceased were last seen together in the field prior to the occurrence does not by itself lead to the irresistible inference that the accused must have murdered the deceased. The facts in the 25 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:19 ::: conf4-09.doc case relied upon being entirely different from those in the present case, the said decision would not apply to the facts of the present case. In this case, 'last seen' is not the only circumstance relied upon by the prosecution but it is only one of the many circumstances proved against the accused.
26. On the aspect of last seen, Mr. Mane relied on the observations in Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy and Anr. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2006) 10 S.C.C. 172, which are reproduced below:
"The last seen theory, furthermore, comes into play where the time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were last seen alive and the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible. Even in such a case, the courts should look for some corroboration."
Mr. Mane submitted that the time gap between the point of time when the deceased was last seen alive with the accused and the point of time the dead body was found, is large, hence, there is every possibility that someone else committed the murder. Moreover, he stressed that in the present case, it is extremely difficult to give the exact time of death of the deceased. He further pointed out that 26 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:19 ::: conf4-09.doc as the body was not sent for postmortem it was not possible to ascertain the exact time of death of the deceased, he argued that in such case, it cannot be said that the accused was responsible for the death of Draupadi. Mr. Mane relied on the decision in the case of Ramreddy (Supra) wherein the accused came to be acquitted as the exact time of death of the deceased could not be stated. We have carefully gone through the said decision and we find that it was not the sole ground on which the accused came to be acquitted. The circumstances in the said case were not reliable and clinching to prove the guilt of the accused and the ig said observations were made in the peculiar facts of the said case. Such is not the case in the present case.
27. Learned APP submitted that though the gap between the point the deceased and the accused were last seen together and the dead body being found was of about one week, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the possibility of another person coming in between and committing murder was not just extremely remote but is well nigh impossible. He submitted that in fact the possibility of another person coming in between and committing murder of Draupadi in the facts of the present case is non-existant. We find much merit in his submission.
27 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:19 :::conf4-09.doc
28. The next circumstance on which reliance is placed by the prosecution is the evidence of PW9 Sanjay Bhosale. The prosecution is strongly relying on the evidence of PW9 Sanjay Bhosale who was working in a jewelery shop. Sanjay has stated that on 27.07.2007 at about 2.30 p.m., the accused came to the shop and sold two gold patlis [Article 15] weighing about 40 grams to him. Witnesses have identified the patlis as belonging to Draupadi. Sanjay was working as a salesman in the shop of R.D. Deshmukh who is a goldsmith. On 27.07.2007, while he was sitting at the counter of the shop, at about 2 to 2.30 p.m, accused Kamlakar came to his shop.
Kamlakar informed Sanjay that his father (father of Kamlakar) is ill and is to be admitted in Solapur hospital, hence he is in need of money. Kamlakar told Sanjay that he had brought two gold patlis (bangles) belonging to his mother for selling. Sanjay told Kamlakar to bring the receipt of those gold patlis. However, Kamlakar told him that he is in a hurry to go to Solapur and he would bring the receipt on the next day. As this witness knew Kamlakar and had faith in him, believing him, he purchased two patlis weighing about 40 gms and gave Kamlakar Rs. 35,600/-. After taking the amount, Kamlakar left the shop and did not return thereafter. Later on, after reading the newspaper, Sanjay came to know that gold patlis which were sold by the accused to him belong to Kamlakar's Aunt Draupadi, hence, on 06.08.2007, he went to 28 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:19 ::: conf4-09.doc Barshi police station along with the gold patlis. Police seized the gold patlis under Panchanama. Sanjay has identified gold patlis (Muddemal Article 15) as being the same gold patlis. He has also identified accused Kamlakar as the same person who had come to his shop to sell patlis.
It is mentioned in the cross-examination of this witness that there is an entry in the record of his shop relating to purchase of two patlis. The witness has also stated that when the transaction took place between him and the accused, the owner of the shop was not present, hence, he consulted the owner of the shop and only thereafter, he purchased the gold patlis.
29. Mr. Mane, the learned counsel for the accused stated that the evidence of PW 9 Sanjay cannot be relied upon because his averment that later on, after reading the newspaper, Sanjay came to know that gold patlis sold by the accused Kamlakar to him, belong to Kamlakar's Aunt Draupadi, is found to be an omission. He submitted that in which case,there was no reason for Sanjay to go to the police station. However, assuming that it is an omission, we find that this omission has not been got duly proved by the defence and the fact that it does not appear in the police statement has not been brought to the notice of this witness nor has he been asked any explanation as to why such a 29 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:19 ::: conf4-09.doc statement is not there in the police statement. On going through the cross-examination of this witness, we do not find that any omission has been tried to be proved by the defence.
Even assuming that it is an omission, we find that it is not such a material omission as would affect the prosecution case because the evidence of this witness that on 27.07.2007 at about 2 to 2.30 p.m, the accused came to the shop and sold two gold patlis to him has not been shaken in the cross-
examination.
30. It is also pertinent to note that these gold patlis have been identified by PW17 Vandana and PW19 Vijay as belonging to their mother. Thus, the sale of these two patlis belonging to the deceased by the accused to PW9 Sanjay shows that he had come in possession of ornaments belonging to the deceased on the very next day of her disappearance and therefore, it would be one of the links in the chain to show that the accused is responsible for her murder.
31. The learned advocate for the accused submitted that the evidence of PW 9 Sanjay regarding sale of gold patlis cannot be relied upon because the prosecution has not led corroborative evidence by examining R.D. Deshmukh who was the owner of the shop. It has clearly come on record that when the accused came to sell the patlis in the shop, R.D. 30 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:19 ::: conf4-09.doc Deshmukh was not in the shop, hence examining R.D. Deshmukh could not have taken the prosecution case any further. Mr. Mane argued that no receipt or any other documentary proof has been produced by PW 9 Sanjay to support the case that the accused came and sold him two gold patlis. As far as this aspect is concerned, the evidence of Sanjay shows that he asked the accused for the receipt of gold patlis, however, the accused told him that he was in a hurry to go to Solapur, hence he will bring the receipt on the next day. Believing him, PW 9 Sanjay purchased two gold patlis. However, the accused did not come to the shop on the next day with the receipt. Thus, as far as producing receipt or any other document is concerned, it is seen that Sanjay was waiting for the accused to come back on the next day with the receipt, therefore, no receipts were prepared by this witness. We have also noticed that there is no suggestion put to PW9 Sanjay that he was not working in any such shop i.e R.D. Deshmukh Saraf nor there is any suggestion put, that no such jewelery shop is in existence. It is to be noted that Sanjay in his cross-examination has stated that there is an entry in the record of his shop relating to purchase of the gold patlis. Thus, this argument does not help the defence in any manner.
32. PW8 Vinayak who is the pancha relating to PW9 Sanjay 31 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:19 ::: conf4-09.doc producing the two gold patlis before the police which came to be seized under panchanama (Exh 40) has stated that on 06.08.2007, he was called by Barshi Police Station. Sanjay, the munim of goldsmith was present there. Sanjay produced two gold patlis before the police in his presence. Police seized the patlis under panchanama (Exh 40). The police got the patlis weighed and they were found to weigh about 40 gms.
He has identified two gold patlis (Article No. 15) to be the same patlis.
33. The learned counsel for the accused argued that the patlis were not seized from PW9 Sanjay at Barshi Police Station but in fact, they were found in Ramling forest and hence, PW9 Sanjay as well as panch witness PW8 Vinayak are got up and concocted witnesses. In support of this contention, he has placed reliance on the cross-examination of PW8 Vinayak wherein he has stated as under:
"PSI Pethe told me that panchanama is relating to the ornaments of deceased lady which was found in Ramling jungle, I was not knowing Sanjay Bhosale previously. So also, I was not knowing R.D. Deshmukh. It is not true to say that no any golden bangles were weighed by police in my presence nor they were seized."
We have carefully gone through the cross-examination of PW8 Vinayak. However, we are not persuaded to accept that the above statement shows that the ornaments were found in 32 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:19 ::: conf4-09.doc Ramling jungle. This sentence cannot be read in isolation but it has to be read with the rest of the evidence of this witness. Even if we consider this sentence in isolation, it does not mean that the ornaments were found in Ramling jungle but it means that it relates to the ornaments of deceased lady who was found in Ramling jungle. We have also seen the original Marathi evidence of this witness. On going through the Marathi version, we found that the panchanama is relating to ornaments of deceased lady and "Tee" (Marathi) was found in the jungle. If the same pertained to ornaments, the word used would have beenig "Tey" which would mean "they" or the "ornaments" found in the jungle. In the context of this sentence, the word "Tee" means "she" and if we see the Marathi version, it can relate to the deceased lady only.
Thus, we find no merit in this submission.
34. Thereafter, Mr Mane attacked the evidence of PW8 Vinayak stating that he is an interested witness and hence, he has deposed in favour of the prosecution. In support of this contention, he has drawn our attention to the evidence of PW8 Vinayak who has stated that he knows the deceased as well as her husband and her sons. The fact that this witness knew the deceased or her relatives or that he was from the same village would not be of any help to the defence in absence of any further evidence to show that he was extremely 33 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:19 ::: conf4-09.doc close or on good terms with the deceased and her family.
These are rural places and not metropolitan cities like Mumbai and in rural places, almost everyone is known to each other,hence, much capital cannot be made of the fact that PW8 Vinayak knew the deceased and her family.
35. On the circumstance of pieces of body of Draupadi being recovered at the instance of the accused, Mr. Mane submitted that for any recovery to be taken into consideration, the accused has first of all to be under arrest. He pointed out that the recovery of dead body of Draupadi is made at the instance of accused on 04.08.2007 in the afternoon whereas as per the evidence of PW 21 P.I. Meenkshi Pethe, the accused was arrested on 05.08.2007 He submitted that on 4.8.2007 when the accused made a statement before the police and panchas, the accused had not been arrested and hence, it could not be said that there was any discovery at the instance of the accused. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohamed Inayatulla Vs The State of Maharashtra, AIR 1976 SUPREME COURT 483. He submitted that the two conditions necessary for bringing section 27 of the Evidence Act into operation is discovery of relevant fact in consequence of any information received from a person accused of an offence and that the said accused while making the statements, should 34 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:19 ::: conf4-09.doc have been arrested and in custody.
We have carefully perused the decision in the above case. In relation to discovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the Supreme Court has observed in para 1 as under:
"Section 27 is in the nature of an exception to the preceding sections particularly Sections 25 and 26. The first condition necessary for bringing this section into operation is the discovery of a fact, albeit a relevant fact, in consequence of the information received from a person accused of an offence. The second is The third that the discovery of such fact must be deposed to. is that at the time of the receipt of the information the accused must be in police custody. The last but the most important condition is that only "so much of the information" as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered is admissible."
Looking to the evidence on record, we find that the first condition is satisfied that is the accused had given information in presence of panchas and police, thereafter he led police and panchas to the spot in Ramling Forest where pieces of bones and other articles of deceased were found.
The police and panch witnesses have deposed about this fact.
At the time that the accused made the statement he was accused of an offence. He was also in custody which fact is clear from the evidence of PW5 ASI Doke as well as panchanama [Exh 26] wherein it is mentioned that the suspected accused 35 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:19 ::: conf4-09.doc led the Police and panchas to the spot where he had thrown the dead body of Draupadi. As a consequence of the information received from the accused, pieces of dead body of Draupadi and some articles belonging to her came to be seized. As far as admissibility of the information given by the accused is concerned, we have only taken into consideration that portion of it which relates distinctly to the facts discovered. The rest of the information i.e the accused told Draupadi that they would go to darshan in Ramling Forest and thereafter he took her by S.T to Ramling Forest where he strangulated ig her by pressing her neck, thereafter, he removed all her ornaments, has been excluded by us.
The fact that the accused when he made the statement was in custody of the police is very clear from the Panchanama [ Exh 26 ] wherein it is clearly stated that the suspected accused had made the statement. No doubt,he was only a suspected accused in Barshi Police Station missing report 21 of 2007 but nevertheless,he was an accused and he was in the custody of police. This fact is also clear from the evidence of PW5 ASI Doke who has stated that during his enquiry in the missing complaint, it transpired that Draupadi and the accused started to go to Babhalgaon, thereafter, she disappeared, therefore, ASI Doke suspected accused Kamlakar and took Kamlakar in custody and interrogated him. In this 36 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:19 ::: conf4-09.doc interrogation, he confessed to the crime and showed his willingness to show the spot where Draupadi was murdered.
This fact is further supported by the evidence of PW21 Investigating Officer PI Pethe who stated that ASI Doke had taken the accused in his custody. No doubt, PW 21 PI Pethe has stated that she arrested the accused on 05.08.2007 at 10.30 a.m.,however that arrest was made in C.R. NO. 128 of 2007 which came to be registered on the complaint given by PW5 ASI Doke on 05.07.2007 at 10.20 p.m.
36. In order to better appreciate the controversy, it would be necessary to reproduce Section 27 of the Evidence Act which reads as under:
"Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved."
A necessary ingredient of section 27 is that a person should be accused of an offence and he should be in the custody of the Police. The section does not stipulate that the person should have been formally arrested but it stipulates that he should be in the custody of Police.
37 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:19 :::conf4-09.doc
37. In Maharani Vs Emperor reported in AIR 148 All 7 : 48 Cr. L. J. 939, the word 'custody' used in Section 27 of the Evidence Act is discussed as follows :
" The word 'custody' in Section 26 or Section 27 does not mean formal custody but includes such state of affairs in which the accused can be said to have come in the hands of a police officer or can be said to have been under some sort of surveillance or restriction."
In another case : Aghnoo Nagesia Vs State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 110 : 1966 Cr. L.J. 100, the Supreme Court considered this question and observed thus:
"For the purpose of the case we shall assume that the appellant was constructively in police custody and therefore the information contained in the First Information Report leading to the discovery of the dead bodies and the tangi is admissible in evidence."
In that case, the information was given by the accused by lodging the First Information Report soon after the murder was committed and by the time the information was recorded, he was not formally arrested. Learned Judges of the Supreme Court in these circumstances, held that at the time when the information was passed on by the accused he will be deemed to be constructively in custody. The doctrine of constructive custody applied by the Supreme Court is applicable to the 38 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:19 ::: conf4-09.doc circumstances of the present case. In view of the normal meaning of the word `custody' actual or physical imprisonment of a person both legal and illegal amounts to his being in custody.
38. The word "custody" is defined on page 745 in the Law Lexicon by P.M.Bakshi Former Member, Law Commission of India, 2005 Edition as follows:
"It is observed that a person can be in a custody not merely when the police arrests him, produces him before the Magistrate and gets a remand to judicial or other custody and the word 'custody' embraces both legal imprisonment as well as illegal imprisonment." Thus, in view of Section 27 of the Evidence Act and in view of Section 46 of Cr. P.C., in order to construe normal meaning of word 'custody'. We do not think that it is at all necessary to restrict the meaning of the word 'custody' to a formal arrest or to legal imprisonment only.
39. Learned APP relied on a decision of Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs Deoman Upadhyaya reported in AIR 1960 SC 1125. In the said case, the Supreme Court observed that Section 46 of Cr.P.C. deals with how an arrest is to be made. As per Section 46 of Cr. P.C., the only requirement for making an arrest is the police officer or other person 39 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:19 ::: conf4-09.doc making the same shall actually touch or confine the body of the person to be arrested,unless there be a submission to the custody by word or action. The Supreme Court has observed that Section 46 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not contemplate any formality before a person can be said to be taken in custody : submission to the custody by word or action by a person is sufficient.
40. Mr. Mane submitted that the evidence of PW 5 ASI Doke shows that Kamlakar was taken into custody, he interrogated the accused and the accused made confessional statement. Mr. Mane submitted that when the accused had been taken into custody, an arrest panchanama would have been prepared but there is no arrest panchanama on record which is admitted by PW5 ASI Doke. When ASI Doke took the accused in custody on 05.08.2007, at that time, he was only enquiring into the missing complaint. No C.R. had been registered by him. It was only because during inquiry by ASI Doke. he learnt that Draupadi and Kamlakar were last seen walking towards Barshi bus stop, hence he suspected the accused and took him in custody. At that point of time, he had no material against the accused to arrest him. After taking the accused in custody, he interrogated the accused and the accused gave 40 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:19 ::: conf4-09.doc confessional statement and showed willingness to point out the spot where he had murdered Draupadi. Even at that point of time, there was no admissible and reliable material before ASI Doke to arrest the accused. It was only after the accused led them to the spot in Ramling forest and there they found, pieces of bones and other articles of Draupadi, which were identified by her sons at the place, that on returning back to the police station, ASI Doke lodged his report against the accused and FIR came to be registered. At the time when ASI Doke took the accused into custody, no C.R. had been registered and ig hence, it appears that no arrest panchanama was prepared by him. This fact by itself is not such as to cast a cloud on the entire prosecution case.
41. On going through the evidence in this case, especially the evidence of PW 5 PSI Doke and the Investigating Officer PW 21 PI Minakshi Pethe, it is clear that at the time when the information was given by the accused, he was in the custody of police, hence, we are of the opinion that there is no impediment in relying on the evidence of PW 5 ASI Doke, PW 1 Bhaskar Patil and Panchnama [Exh.26] which shows that the accused pointed out the place of offence. The finding of skull bones and articles of deceased at the spot further corroborates the prosecution case.
41 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:19 :::conf4-09.doc
42. According to the learned APP, fact discovered embraces the place from where the object is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to this. He relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Inspector of Police, Tamilnadu Vs Bala Prasanna reported in (2008) 11 Supreme Court 645. In the said decision, in relation to Section 27 of the Evidence Act, it is observed as under:
"The scope and ambit of Section 27 of the Evidence Act had been stated and restated in several decisions of this Court. However, in almost all such decisions reference is made to the observation of the Privy Council in Pulukuri Kotayya v. Emperor (AIR 1947 PC
67). It is worthwhile to extract such quoted observation:
"It is fallacious to treat the 'fact discovered' within the section as equivalent to the object produced; the fact discovered embraces the place from which the object is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to this and the information given must relate distinctly to this fact. Information as to past user or the past history, of the object produced is not related to his discovery in the setting in which it is discovered. Information supplied by a person in custody that 'I will produce a knife concealed in the roof of my house' does not lead to the discovery of the knife; knives were discovered many years ago. It leads to the discovery of the fact that a knife is concealed in the house of the informant to his knowledge, and if the knife is proved to have been used in the commission of the offence, the fact discovered is very relevant.......42 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:19 :::
conf4-09.doc It was further observed :
"At one time it was held that the expression "fact discovered" in the section is restricted to a physical or material fact which can be perceived by the senses, and that it does not include a mental fact, now it is fairly settled that the expression "fact discovered"
includes not only the physical object produced, but also the place from which it is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to this, as noted in Pulukuri Kottaya's case (supra).
From the above decision, it is clear that fact discovered also covers the place.
ig Thus, on going
through Section 27 of the Evidence Act and various
judgments, the necessary requirements of section 27,
which can be summed up are as follows:
(1) The fact of which evidence is sought to be
given must be relevant to the issue. It must be
borne in mind that the provision has nothing
to do with the question of relevancy. The
relevancy of the fact discovered must be
established according to the prescriptions
relating to relevancy of other evidence
connecting it with the crime in order to make
the fact discovered admissible.
(2) The fact must have been discovered.
(3) The discovery must have been in consequence of
some information received from the accused and not by the accused's own act.
(4) The person giving the information must be accused of any offence.
(5) He must be in the custody of a police
officer.
43
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:19 :::
conf4-09.doc
(6) The discovery of a fact in consequence of
information received from an accused in
custody must be deposed to.
(7) Thereupon only that portion of the
information which relates distinctly or strictly
to the fact discovered can be proved. The rest
is inadmissible."
If we consider the requirements of Section 27 which have been culled out from various decisions of the Supreme Court, we find that all the requirements have been met in the present case. Thus, the circumstance of the accused pointing the place can certainly ig be taken into consideration.
Moreover, the fact that certain articles of the deceased and bones of deceased were found at the spot lends further corroboration to the prosecution's case.
43. The learned counsel for the accused stated that there is no separate memorandum statement of the accused stating about the information, hence, this panchanama Exh 26 cannot be relied upon to show that the spot was pointed out by the accused. However, on going through the panchanama [Ex 26], we find that it is a composite panchanama of the information given by the accused and the accused leading the police and panchas to the spot and pointing out the spot. Thus, we find this submission to be devoid of any merit.
44. In the facts of the present case, it cannot be said 44 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:19 ::: conf4-09.doc that articles found at the spot were planted. It would be impossible for the police to plant a skull and mandible of a female aged about 50 years at the spot. We may mention here that PW 11 Dr. Peerzade has stated in his opinion (Exh 47) that the skull and mandible belongs to a female aged about 50 years.
45. Mr. Mane submitted that this panchanama is a fabricated panchanama as the police already knew that pieces of body were lying in Ramling forest. He submitted that in such case, it cannot be said that the pieces of body of Draupadi and other articles came to be seized at the instance of the accused. In order to buttress this contention, he placed reliance on the evidence of PW 7 Sarjerao wherein he has stated that many villagers had gathered at the spot. This evidence, according to him, shows that everybody already knew that pieces of body were in Ramling forest and hence, they had gathered at the spot, in such case, it cannot be said that the spot was discovered at the instance of the accused.
This sentence of PW 7 Sarjerao cannot be torn and read out of context. It is to be read along with the other evidence. PW 7 Sarjerao has stated that after about 4 to 5 days of his mother being missing, police called him to Barshi Police Station. Then, he along with his brothers and panchas went to Ramling forest at Yedshi. Police seized pieces of clothes 45 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:19 ::: conf4-09.doc of saree and other articles from the spot. It is seen that after PW 5 ASI Doke took the accused in custody, he interrogated the accused, thereafter the accused gave confessional statement before him and showed his willingness to show the spot where Draupadi was murdered. It appears that after this statement was made by the accused, PW 7 Sarjerao and his brothers were contacted and probably the father who was also residing at Babhalgaon. Thereafter, the police, panchas and the accused along with PW 7 Sarjerao and his brothers left from Barshi Police Station. They became aware from the information given by the accused that the spot was near the stream in Ramling forest. It being a small place, news of this nature spreads quickly and easily and hence, it is possible that other villagers also followed the police and panchas to the spot. Thus, the presence of villagers at the spot does not show that the spot was already known to the police and it was not discovered at the instance of the accused.
46. Mr. Mane, then submitted that Draupadi had come to Barshi along with Vimal, hence, Vimal is a very important witness. However, the prosecution has not examined Vimal.
Due to this, adverse inference ought to be drawn against the prosecution. PW 17 Vandana and PW 19 Vijay have made a reference to Vimal. PW 17 Vandana has stated that on 46 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:20 ::: conf4-09.doc 26.07.2007 at about 9.00 am, her mother-in-law Draupadi and aunt Vimal came to her house. After she served them tea, Draupadi and Vimal both went to temple of Lord Bhagvant. At about 2.00 to 2.30 pm, accused Kamlakar came to her house.
Thereafter, her mother-in-law Draupadi returned to her house at about 4.00 pm. Draupadi disclosed that she would go to Babhalgaon, hence, Kamlakar and Draupadi left her house.
Kamlakar told Vandana that he and Draupadi would go to Babhalgaon. Thus, it is seen that Draupadi came back to the house of Vandana at about 4.00 pm. At that time she was not accompanied by Vimal. ig Vimal does not know the further events which took place,hence, examining Vimal would be of no help to the prosecution. As far as non-examination of Vimal is concerned as Vimal had not seen the accused and Draupadi together, hence, examining her would not taken the prosecution case any further. In such case, we are of the opinion that no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution for non-examination of Vimal.
47. Another circumstance which connects the accused with the crime is that the ornaments belonging to Draupadi and which were on her person at the time when she was last seen, were recovered at the instance of the accused. PW13 Arvind Shinde is the pancha relating to this recovery. He has stated that on 10.08.2007, he was called to Barshi Police 47 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:20 ::: conf4-09.doc station. The accused made a voluntary statement in his presence that he would produce tops (earrings), two gold rings and one gold Mangalsutra which was hidden in his house under a plank. Thereafter, the accused led all of them to Village Babhalgaon. The accused led them to his house. In the house, there was a row of brass pots kept one after another. Behind these pots, there was a wooden plank. The accused removed the ornaments which were hidden under the wooden plank near the brass pots. The said ornaments were Mangalsutra (Article 21), two gold rings (Article 19), two ear rings (Article 20).
48. Mr. Mane assailed the evidence of pancha witness PW 13 Arvind by pointing out that the complainant Vijay and accused both are from his brotherhood. We find that this admission in the cross-examination of this witness would not help the accused because it has also come on record that the house of this witness is situated very near to the house of the accused and prior to the incident, he used to go to the house of the accused very often. Nothing has been brought on record that there was any enmity between PW13 Arvind and the accused. Moreover, no reason has been brought on record why he should favour the complainant and depose against the accused. In fact, the averments in the cross-examination of this witness show that he had extremely cordial relations 48 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:20 ::: conf4-09.doc with the accused. In absence of any material to suggest that this witness had any grudge or enmity with the accused, we are not persuaded to discard his evidence.
We may mention that Mr. Mane generally submitted that almost all the panchas are teachers or from brotherhood of the family of Draupadi. As far as this aspect is concerned, it is to be borne in mind that the accused was the nephew of deceased Draupadi and cousin of PW 19 Vijay and PW 7 Sarjerao, therefore, if as per his contention the witnesses were from the brotherhood of Vijay, they would be equally related to the accused. Nothing has been elicitated in the cross-examination of any witness to show that they had any animus against the accused so as to falsely implicate the accused. In connection with the submission that most of the panchas were teachers and as PW 19 Vijay is a teacher, they have supported the prosecution case, we may state that only the fact that they are teachers, without anything more would not persuade us to discard their evidence. Moreover, we may point out that there is nothing to show that they were on extremely good terms with Vijay or were on enemical terms with the accused.
49. Mr. Mane submitted that a conviction cannot be based only on recovery of stolen property. In order to substantiate his submission he relied on a decision of the 49 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:20 ::: conf4-09.doc Supreme Court in case of Hukum Singh Vs State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 1977 SUPREME COURT 1063 = 1977 CRI. L.J. 639.
In the said case, only three circumstances were relied upon by the High Court to reverse the acquittal of the accused.
In order to reverse the acquittal, discovery of 'kesala' was heavily relied upon by the High Court. Mr. Mane pointed out the paras therein where the Supreme Court observed that "no doubt that the appellant was found in possession of stolen property soon after the incident but there has to be something more to connect the appellant with murder than mere possession of ornaments and other articles belonging to the deceased because it is quite possible that the appellant may have had nothing to do with the murders and he might have merely stolen the ornaments and other articles belonging to the deceased after the murders were committed by some others". Thus, Mr.Mane submitted that mere possession of the ornaments and articles belonging to the deceased does not indicate that the accused is responsible for the murder of Darupadi. Mr. Mane reiterated that recovery of ornaments of Draupadi at the instance of the accused cannot be said to be such a circumstance that it would connect him to the murder of Draupadi. He further submitted that no conviction for murder can be based on this circumstance of recovery.\
50. The decision relied upon relates to a case of house 50 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:20 ::: conf4-09.doc trespass, robbery and murder. we have noticed that the accused and deceased were not related. In fact, the accused and the deceased were not even known to one and other. In the present case, the accused is the nephew of Draupadi. In such case, the accused being in possession of the ornaments of his aunt for which he cannot offer any explanation is an incriminating circumstance. Moreover, selling of ornaments belonging to the deceased on the very next day to PW 9 Sanjay is also an incriminating circumstance against the accused because he has not offered any explanation as to how he came in possession of ornaments of the deceased.
ig The evidence in the present case is such that it cannot even remotely support the theory that the accused innocently came in possession of ornaments of the deceased after her death. Nor can it be said that the accused must have stolen the ornaments belonging to the deceased after her murder was committed by someone else.
51. Thereafter, Mr. Mane, attacked the evidence relating to recovery of these gold ornaments at the instance of the accused by stating that the investigating agency has shown that recovery has taken place by going to the spot in a private jeep. Mr. Mane, submitted that this shows that the events as stated in the panchanama did not take place but the panchanama was drawn in the police station itself. He submitted that had it been a true panchanama, the police 51 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:20 ::: conf4-09.doc would have gone to the spot in a police vehicle. He submitted a log book is maintained in respect of every police vehicle wherein the movement of vehicle is stated in detail. Mr. Mane contended that the log book of the vehicle at Barshi Police Station would not show that it had gone to the house of accused, hence all the witnesses are stating that a private jeep was used. However, as far as this aspect of use of private jeep is concerned, we find that no question has been put to the Investigating Officer as to why on 10.08.2007, a private jeep was used. In absence of any question to the Investigating ig Officer or any explanation being sought from the Investigating Officer, we are of the opinion that no mileage can be gained from the averments that a private jeep was used on 10.08.2007 to effect the recovery.
52. Mr. Mane, again reiterated that the panchanama was drawn at the police station only and they had not gone to the house of the accused as alleged. In order to support his contention, he has placed reliance on the admissions given by Investigating Officer that the statements of jeep owner or the driver had not been recorded. In cases of this nature, it is not the practice to examine the jeep owner or the driver but in order to show the recovery,it is only necessary to examine the pancha witnesses and thereafter the officer relating to the said recovery. Such witnesses have been 52 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:20 ::: conf4-09.doc examined, hence, there is no necessity of recording the statements of the driver or owner of the vehicle or examining them. Thus, these admissions by the Investigating Officer do not really come to the aid of Mr. Mane.
53. On going through the evidence of Panch witness PW 13 Arvind Shinde, we find that there is nothing therein which creates any doubt about the truthfulness of his version, hence, we can safely rely on his testimony to show that at the instance of the accused, the ornaments of the deceased came to be recovered.
54. Mr. Mane submitted that the recovery of ornaments has taken place on 10.08.2007 from the house of the accused whereas on 08.08.2007 itself, the police along with panchas had gone to the house of the accused for recovery of clothes of the accused. He submitted that on 08.08.2007, the police would have thoroughly searched the house of the accused and therefore, it cannot be believable that on 10.08.2007, recovery of ornaments took place at the instance of the accused from his house. As far as this contention is concerned, it is noticed that the ornaments were not lying in a cupboard or in a box in the house but they were hidden under a plank of wood. The situation of the plank is such that on entering the house of the accused, a row of brass 53 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:20 ::: conf4-09.doc pots was kept one after another, behind these pots there was a wooden plank and the accused removed the ornaments which were hidden under the wooden plank. Therefore, even if the house of the accused was minutely searched on 08.08.2007, nothing would have been found because the police would not visualize that the ornaments had been hidden under a wooden plank behind a row of brass pots kept one after another.
Thus, we find no substance in this submission.
55. Mr. Mane, thereafter submitted that the house of the accused was open, as it was open and accessible to anyone, in such case recovery from a place which is open and easily accessible to anyone cannot be relied upon. In support of this submission, he pointed out the evidence of PW10 Agalave wherein he stated that the accused pointed out his house and they entered in the said house. As far as this aspect is concerned, there is nothing to show that the house was open and there was no one in occupation of the said house. In any event, it was a residential house and hence, it cannot be said that it was open and accessible to any person from the public.
56. The next circumstance against the accused is that the clothes of the accused came to be recovered at his instance.
PW 10 Agalave is the panch witness relating to this aspect.
54 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:20 :::conf4-09.doc PW10 has stated that accused Kamlakar showed his willingness to produce his own clothes which he had kept at his house at Babhalgaon. He further disclosed that he had hidden those clothes behind some bags in a niche. Accordingly, this statement was reduced to writing. Thereafter, they all proceeded to Babhalgaon. The accused led the police and panch to his house. They all entered in the house. The accused produced a pink shirt (Article 17) and brown colour pant (Article 18) from a niche which was behind a heap of bags. There were six buttons in the front portion of the shirt. There was no second button from the collar.
ig It was observed that the pocket of the shirt was partially torn.
The said shirt and pant came to be seized and sealed. The panchanama relating to the said discovery is at Exh 43A and Exh 43B. No doubt, no blood stains were found on any of the clothes of the accused, however, what is pertinent to note is that one button from that shirt was missing i.e. the second button from the collar. The pocket of the shirt was also found to be partially torn. This suggests that some scuffle took place between the accused and the deceased during which the pocket was torn and the button also came off. It is pertinent to note that this button was found at the spot which was pointed out by the accused during the Panchanama Exh 26. Both the shirt as well as button found at the spot were sent to the chemical analyzer. The C.A. report (Exh.
55 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:20 :::conf4-09.doc
64) shows that pink color button found at the spot tallied with the buttons on the shirt of the accused which came to be recovered at his instance. Thus, finding of button of shirt of the accused at the spot, is another circumstance which connects him with the crime.
57. The next contention raised by Mr. Mane is that there is no evidence to show that the bones found at the spot shown by the accused were those of Draupadi. He submitted that no special technique was used by the prosecution like superimposition in order to show that the skull was ig that of Draupadi. He also submitted that no tests like DNA test was conducted in order to show that the bones belong to Draupadi.
He submitted that keeping in mind this failure of the prosecution, no inference can be drawn that the bones belong to Draupadi. In support of this contention, he has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs Bhajan Singh and Others, AIR 1975 SUPREME COURT 258. Mr. Mane pointed out that in the said case, the dead bodies were found in such a decomposed state that the features of the persons were unrecognizable. In the said case, the two dead bodies were not sent to the Anatomy department in order to ascertain the cause of death. In such case, the Supreme Court held that the accused cannot be made to suffer because of the omission of the prosecution and the 56 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:20 ::: conf4-09.doc prosecution cannot be given benefit of that omission.
As far as the present case is concerned, the dead body of Draupadi was not found but what was found at the spot was only some bones i.e. skull, mandible and two long bones. In such situation, there was no question of performing any postmortem so as to ascertain the cause of death. However, the investigating agency has taken care to send the bones to the Anatomy department. PW11 Dr. Peerzade was working in the Anatomy department of Government Medical College at Solapur. On 07.08.2007, bones were sent by Barshi Police station to him. After examining the bones, he gave his opinion (Ex. 47) that the skull belongs to a human being of female sex who was above 50 years of age and that the mandible and the skull belong to the same person.
58. With regard to the contention that there is no material to show that the bones found at the spot were that of Draupadi, we may state that at the spot only bones were not found but besides the bones, other articles were also found at the spot which came to be seized. As far as bones are concerned, PW11 Peerzade has stated that the skull and mandible belong to the same person and it belongs to a female who was above 50 years of age. It is pertinent to note that the age of Draupadi was just over 50 years. Some black and white hair was also found at the spot. As per CA report Ex.
57 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:20 :::conf4-09.doc 63, the hair was human hair. Draupadi had black and white hair which can be seen from the photograph of Draupadi which is annexed to the missing complaint Exh. 60. It is specifically stated in the missing compliant that Draupadi had black and white hair and that she had worn spectacles. A spectacle case (Article 3) Purse (Article 4), Slippers (Article 5) were also found at the spot which have been identified by witnesses as belonging to Draupadi. Besides the bones and hair, a piece of saree and a piece of her blouse worn by Draupadi when she was last seen, was also found at the spot. The fact that she was wearing yellow Solapuri irkal saree with red colour blouse is also stated in the missing complaint (Exh.60) . PW 17 Vandana has identified piece of saree Article No. 2, piece of blouse Article No.7 as that of Draupadi. Thus, from the fact that not just bones were found at the spot but pieces of clothes of the deceased, black and white hair, spectacle case, slippers and purse were also found at the spot which witnesses identified as belonging to Draupadi, we can safely reach the conclusion that the bones were that of Draupadi. PW 17 Vandana daughter in law of Draupadi, PW 7 Sarjerao son of Draupadi has identified piece of saree [Article 2], spectacle cover [Article 3], purse [Article 4], chappal [Article 5] as belonging to his mother Draupadi. In addition thereto, PW 19 Vijaykumar Shinde has also identified piece of saree [Article 58 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:20 ::: conf4-09.doc 2], piece of blouse [Article 7], spectacle cover [Article 3], purse [Article 4] and chappal [Article 5] which were found at the spot as belonging to Draupadi.
59. Mr. Mane, the learned counsel for the accused submitted that the prosecution has not proved that Draupadi died a homicidal death. He submitted that she could have died a natural death due to heart attack. On examining this contention, we find that it is totally baseless because first of all, there was no occasion for Draupadi to be all alone in Ramling forest. Secondly, assuming that Draupadi had died a natural death, the defence has not explained as to how the ornaments of Draupadi were found in the house of the accused and the witnesses have stated that the accused Kamlakar sold some ornaments to them which belonged to Draupadi. The accused has also not been able to explain as to how his button was found at the spot where the bones of Draupadi were found.
60. In connection with the case of the prosecution that PW 19, Vijaykumar, son of Draupadi was present at the spot and he identified the articles as belonging to Draupadi is concerned, Mr. Mane submitted that this is entirely a false statement because if Vijaykumar was present at the spot, his name would have been mentioned in the panchanama Exh. 26. No 59 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:20 ::: conf4-09.doc doubt, the name of Vijaykumar is not mentioned in the panchanama. However, the panchanama was drawn only about what was seen at the spot and the panchanama is not expected to state details about each and every person present at the spot. Thus, in our opinion, non mentioning of the name of Vijaykumar in panchanama does not in any way shake his testimony that he was present at the spot and he identified the articles to be that of his mother.
61. Mr. Mane pointed out that only because PW 19 Vijaykumar identified the articles ig at the spot as belonging to his mother, that it was confirmed that the dead body and other articles were of the deceased and hence, deceased must have been murdered at the spot. He submitted that at that point, only pieces of bones were found and from the bones, identity of the person cannot be conclusively proved. He submitted that as far as description of clothes of Draupadi worn on 26.07.2007 is concerned, PW 19 Vijay had not given any description of clothes of Draupadi in his statement which was recorded on 5.8.2007. However, we find that missing complaint (Exh.60) which was lodged by PW 19 Vijaykumar on 29.07.2007 gives in detail the description of the clothes and ornaments worn by Draupadi. Thus, the fact that Vijay has not stated so in his statement in the C.R. Which came to be registered on 5.8.2007 would not cause any 60 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:20 ::: conf4-09.doc dent in the prosecution case.
62. We may mention here that the missing complaint [Exh 60] was lodged by PW19 Vijay on 29.07.2007 at about 11.35 a.m. In the missing report, description of Draupadi and clothes and ornaments worn by her was given in detail. A photo of Draupadi was also attached to the missing report lodged by Vijay. The photo shows that Ddraupadi had black and white hair and black and white hair was found at the spot. The pieces of clothes found on the spot also match the description given in the missing compliant.
63. Mr. Mane, the learned counsel for the accused tried to submit that the deceased was not last seen in the company of the accused because Draupadi parted company with the accused at Bharate General Stores and she went ahead and thereafter, she was not found. He tried to draw support from the missing report wherein it is mentioned that on 26.07.2007, Draupadi left Babhalgaon and came to Barshi to do darshan of Lord Bhagvanta and also to meet her relatives. Thereafter, she left the house of Vijay along with accused Kamlakar to go to Babhalgaon. Kamlakar stopped at Bharate General Store to make a phone call. Thereupon, Draupadi stated that she would go a little ahead to the Naka but after 10 minutes when Kamlakar went to the Naka, Draupadi was not found. At that 61 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:20 ::: conf4-09.doc time, it was about 4.30 to 5.00 p.m. Mr. Mane submitted that at about 4.30 to 5 p.m. the deceased and Kamlakar parted company and hence, it cannot be said that the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused.
64. The evidence of PW 12 Lata Bahrate clearly shows that both accused and deceased went from her shop together towards eastern side of her shop by Agalgaon road. It is admitted fact that lastly the accused and the deceased were together at Bharate General Stores. The deceased did not return back, hence it was only the accused who could have given this information to the complainant that the deceased told him that she was going ahead to the Naka and after 10 minutes, he went to the Naka but Draupadi was not found there. It is apparent that the accused has given a false story so that there would be no suspicion against him in relation to disappearance or death of Draupadi.
65. Mr. Mane contended that if at all Draupadi and the accused had left together for Babhalgaon, as is the case of the prosecution, the said fact would have been mentioned in the missing complaint, however, the missing complaint does not state so. It is to be borne in mind that Kamlakar is the cousin of PW 19 Vijaykumar and he is the nephew of Draupadi, in such case, at the very initial stage, Vijaykumar and his 62 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:20 ::: conf4-09.doc brothers would not implicate Kamlakar unless and until they became sure of the facts. From the missing complaint, it is seen that the accused himself informed PW 19 Vijaykumar and others that Draupadi went little ahead and after 10 minutes when he went ahead, he did not see Draupadi. This information has been supplied by the accused himself to PW 19 Vijaykumar and others in order to mislead them and to put them off track. In view of the information given by the accused, Vijaykumar and others being his cousin and close relatives would not immediately implicate Kamlakar unless and until they had some concrete and reliable material against him.
66. Thereafter, Mr. Mane contended that the missing complaint [Exh. 60] is a false complaint which had been lodged only to falsely implicate the accused. In order to support his contention, he has placed reliance on some wireless messages which were sent by Barshi Police Station to other Police Station wherein according to him, it is stated that Draupadi left her house in order to do darshan of Lord Bhagvant and thereafter, she had not returned. First of all, this wireless message is not on record, hence, it is not possible for us to look into any such wireless message.
Moreover, assuming that there was such a wireless message, it is a fact that Draupadi left her house at Babhalgaon in order 63 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:20 ::: conf4-09.doc to do darshan of Lord Bhagvant and thereafter, she has not returned back. It is not expected that in a wireless message, all minor details would be stated and it would only be a very short telegraphic message which would be flashed to all the police stations. Thus, we find no merit in this contention.
67. Thereafter, Mr. Mane submitted that FIR of PW 16 Vijay or PW 7 Sarjerao ought to have been recorded and not of PW5 ASI Doke. ASI Doke has stated that he took the accused in custody and interrogated him.
ig The accused gave confession and showed willingness to show the spot where Draupadi was murdered and he led them to the spot. There, ASI Doke found pieces of bones and other articles which came to be seized.
Panchanama was prepared. At that time, he became reasonably sure that Draupadi was murdered by the accused, therefore, on behalf of the Government, ASI Doke lodged FIR (Exh 36) against the accused. On the basis of this report, PW6 Dilip Rede Patil registered C.R. No. 128 of 2007 for the offence under Sections 302 and 364 of IPC. We fail to understand as to what difference it would make if PW 7 or PW 16 lodged the FIR instead of ASI Doke. The purpose of lodging FIR is to give brief facts of the crime and to set the investigating machinery in motion. None of PW 16, PW 7 or PW 5 ASI Doke were eye witnesses, therefore, in the facts of the present 64 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:20 ::: conf4-09.doc case, it does not make any difference at all whether PW 7 or PW 16 or PW 5 lodged the FIR.
68. Mr. Mane submitted that this entire story of the prosecution that FIR was lodged by PW 5 ASI Doke is a false and concocted story put forward by the prosecution. In support of this contention, he stated that according to the prosecution PW 6 Dilip Rede-Patil took down the FIR of ASI Doke and registered the offence vide CR 128 of 2007. Mr. Mane pointed out that the duty hours of PW 6 Rede-Patil were from 8.00 am to 8.00 pm. ig He argued that in such case, the story of the prosecution that FIR of ASI Doke was lodged by PW 6 Dilip Rede-Patil at 10.20 pm is clearly false. However, we do not find any merit in this submission because on going through the evidence of PW 6 Dilip Rede-Patil, we find that though his duty hours were from 8.00 am to 8.00 pm, on 04.08.2007, as no reliever had come to the police station, he was working as P.S.O. in the police station till 11.00 p.m. On that day, at about 10.20 p.m., PW5 ASI Doke lodged report against the accused and on the basis of this report, PW 6 Dilip Rede-Patil registered a crime. He also took entry in the station diary regarding the same.
69. Thereafter, Mr. Mane submitted that the scene of the incident is in Osmanabad, hence, Barshi police station could 65 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:20 ::: conf4-09.doc not have investigated the case and no F.I.R. could have been registered at Barshi police station. We do dot agree with Mr. Mane that the incident took place at Osmanabad. The offence of Section 364 of the IPC started at Barshi. The accused took Draupadi with him to Ramling forest where he committed her murder. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the spot where the accused committed murder of Draupadi in Ramling forest falls in Osmanabad, however, looking to the fact that the offence started from Barshi, the FIR was rightly registered at Barshi Police Station and Barshi Police Station has rightly conducted the investigation in the said case and filed charge sheet.
70. Mr. Mane again placed reliance on the decision in the case of Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy & Anr. Vs State of A.P. (supra). He relied on this decision on the point of circumstantial evidence. In respect of circumstantial evidence, he relied on the observation in the said decision wherein it is held that to base a conviction on circumstantial evidence prosecution must establish "all" the pieces of incriminating circumstances by reliable and clinching evidence and the circumstances so proved must form such a chain of events as would permit no conclusion other than that of guilt of the accused. He also placed reliance on the observation in the said decision wherein it is 66 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:20 ::: conf4-09.doc observed that suspicion, however grave, cannot be a substitute for proof and the courts should take utmost precaution in finding an accused guilty only on the basis of the circumstantial evidence.
71. With reference to the contention that the prosecution has to establish all pieces of circumstantial evidence, learned APP submitted that in the present case, the prosecution has proved all the circumstances against the accused. He submitted that when there are a number of circumstances, even if some circumstances are not proved, it does not affect the prosecution case. In support of this contention, he placed reliance on a recent decision of a Bench of three Judges of the Supreme Court in the case of Pawan & Ors Vs State of Uttaranchal reported in 2009(3) Bom.C.R. (Cri) 194. In the said case, a number of circumstances were relied upon by the prosecution. However, the High Court discarded three of the circumstances and upheld the conviction. The Supreme Court observed that even if the three circumstances were not held to be proved, there was sufficient material against the accused to connect him with the crime and observing thus, the appeal came to be dismissed.
72. Mr. Mane submitted that no doubt, a cold-blooded and 67 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:20 ::: conf4-09.doc cruel murder may have been committed but the prosecution has not fully proved the case against the accused. He submitted that considering the evidence led by the prosecution as a whole, it cannot be said that the prosecution story in respect of the accused falls under category of "must be true". He submitted that there is a huge difference between "may be proved" and "must be proved". He placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in case of Sarwan Rattan Singh Vs State of Punjab reported in AIR 1957 SUPREME COURT 637 wherein the Supreme Court observed that there is long distance between "may be true" and "must be true" and the whole of this distance must be covered by the prosecution by legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence before an accused can be convicted. We are in respectful in agreement with the above proposition but on perusal of the evidence in the present case, we feel that the prosecution has covered that distance from "may be true" to "must be true" and the evidence on record, does show that the prosecution story against the accused must be true. Thus, we find no merit in this submission.
73. Mr.Mane argued that there are various defects in the investigation of this case and the accused has to be given benefit of the same. With regard to this contention, we may usefully refer to two decisions of the Supreme Court in the case 68 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:20 ::: conf4-09.doc of Karnel Singh Vs State of M.P. reported in (1995) 5 SUPREME COURT CASSES 518 and Dhanaj Singh @ Shera and Ors Vs State of Punjab reported in JT 2004 (3) SC 380 wherein the Supreme Court held that in case of a defective investigation, the court has to be circumspect in evaluating the evidence, but the Court would not be right in acquitting an accused person solely on account of the defect, to do so would tantamount to playing into the hands of the investigation agency which has designedly conducted defective investigation.
74. We may also advantageously refer to the judgment of this court in the case of Kishore Bhau Shinde Vs State of Maharashtra reported in 2006 ALL MR (Cri) 2277 wherein it is observed that if the evidence and the attendant circumstances establish that the accused has committed the crime, giving benefit of collusion or negligence of the investigation to the accused would not be in the interest of justice.
In para 16 of the said decision, reference is made to a decision of the Supreme Court in Paras Yadav and Ors Vs State of Bihar, 1999(2) S.C.C. 126, wherein it was held that if a lapse or omission is committed by the investigating agency or there is some negligence, the prosecution evidence is required to be examined de hors such omission to find out whether the said evidence is reliable or not. The contaminated conduct of officials should not stand in the way 69 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:20 ::: conf4-09.doc of evaluating the evidence by the courts otherwise the designed mischief would be perpetuated and justice would be denied to the complainant party.
In para 17 of the said decision, a decision of the Supreme Court in Ram Bihari Yadav Vs. State of Bihar and Ors., reported in 1998(4) S.C.C. 517, is referred to. The Supreme Court has observed that if primacy is given to such designed or negligent investigation, to the omission or lapses by perfunctory investigation or omission, the faith and confidence of the people would be shaken not only in the law enforcing agency ig but also in the administration of justice. This view has again been reiterated in Amar Singh Vs. Balwinder Singh and Ors., 2003(2) SCC 518 : 2003 ALL MR (Cri) 798 (S.C), wherein it is observed that the defective investigation would not, therefore, deter us from convicting the accused if we find that de hors the defects the accused can still be convicted on the basis of the evidence on record. In the present case, we are of the opinion that there is sufficient evidence to connect the accused with the crime.
75. Learned APP drew our attention to the fact that the accused in his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. has stated that the accused has not provided any explanation but he has only answered, "I do not know" or "It is false". He 70 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:20 ::: conf4-09.doc submitted that this fact provides a link in the chain of incriminating circumstances against the accused. He placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in case of Joseph s/o. Kooveli Poulo Vs State of Kerala reported in (2000)5 SCC 197 wherein it is observed as under:
"During the time of questioning under Section 313 Cr. P.C., the appellant instead of making at least an attempt to explain or clarify the incriminating circumstances inculpating him, and connecting him with the crime by his adamant attitude of total denial of everything when those circumstances were brought to his notice by the Court not only lost the opportunity but stood self-condemned. incriminating links of facts could, if at all, Such have been only explained by the appellant, and by nobody else, they being personally and exclusively within his knowledge. Of late, courts have, from the falsity of the defence plea and false answers given to court, when questioned, found the missing links to be supplied by such answers for completing the chain of incriminating circumstances necessary to connect the person concerned with the crime committed.
That missing link to connect the accused- appellant, we find in this case provided by the blunt and outright denial of every one and all the incriminating circumstances pointed out which, in our view, with sufficient and reasonable certainty on the facts proved, connect the accused with the death and the cause for the death of Gracy.71 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:20 :::
conf4-09.doc Similar view has been taken by the Supreme Court in Damodar Vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2000) 10 Supreme Court Cases 328 and in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs Suresh (2000)1 SCC 471. We find that these decisions are all perfectly applicable to the present case.
76. Keeping in mind the legal principles in relation to circumstantial evidence, we are of the opinion that the circumstances taken cumulatively form a chain which is so complete that it leads to the conclusion that within all human probabilities, the crime was committed by the accused and none else. On going through the evidence adduced by the prosecution, we find that there is sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction under Sections 302 and 364 of IPC which leaves for our consideration that all important question that is, whether the death sentence should be confirmed.
77. On the point of death sentence learned APP relied on two decisions of the Supreme Court i.e Machhi Singh and Ors Vs. State of Punjab reported in (1983) 3 SCC 470 and Bachan Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1980 SC 898. In the case of Machhi Singh (Supra), the Supreme Court stated that the death sentence can be awarded in the 'rarest of rare' case and five guidelines as to what is 'rarest of rare' 72 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:20 ::: conf4-09.doc case were set out by the Supreme Court. Five guidelines were laid down by the Supreme Court wherein a sentence of death could be awarded. One of the guidelines is that the personality of the victim has to be taken into account.
Learned APP pointed out that in the said category, if the victim is a helpless woman or victim is a person vis-a-vis whom the murderer is in a position of domination or trust, it would be a fit case to award death sentence.
78. Thereafter, it is further observed in the case of Machhi Singh (Supra) that in order to apply these guidelines interalia the following questions may be asked and answered:
(a) Is there something uncommon about the crime which renders sentence of judgment for life inadequate and calls for a death sentence?
(b) Are the circumstances of the crime such that there is no alternative but to impose death sentence even after according maximum weightage to the mitigating circumstances which speak in favour of the offender?
Upon taking an overall global view of all the circumstances in the light of the aforesaid propositions and taking into account the answers to the two questions posed herein above, we are of the opinion that the circumstances of this case are not such that a death sentence is warranted. We say so especially because we are unable to 73 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:20 ::: conf4-09.doc give an emphatic affirmative answer to both the above questions.
79. We have carefully perused the decision in the case of Bachan Singh (Supra). The following propositions emerged from Bachan Singh's case:
"(i) The extreme penalty of death need not be inflicted except in gravest cases of extreme culpability.
(ii) Before opting for the death penalty the
taken into
circumstances of the 'offender' also require to be consideration along with the circumstances of the 'crime'.
(iii) Life imprisonment is the rule and death
sentence is an exception. In other words, death
sentence must be imposed only when life
imprisonment appears to be an altogether inadequate punishment having regard to the relevant circumstances of the crime, and provided, and only provided, the option to impose sentence of imprisonment for life cannot be conscientiously exercised having regard to the nature and circumstances of the crime and all the relevant circumstances.
(iv) A balance-sheet of aggravating and mitigating circumstances has to be drawn up and in doing so the mitigating circumstances have to be accorded 74 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:20 ::: conf4-09.doc full weightage and a just balance has to be struck between the aggravating and the mitigating circumstances before the option is exercised..
80. After carefully considering the matter, we are of the opinion that this case would not fall in the category of gravest cases of extreme culpability so as to attract the death penalty. We may also point out that it is not the prosecution case that death of Draupadi was caused in a brutal or fiendish manner. In fact, it is the prosecution case that Draupadi's death was on account of strangulation.
It is also not the prosecution case that the accused cold bloodedly and with premeditation planned the murder and then carried out his plan. Looking to all these aspects, we are not inclined to confirm the sentence of death.
81. Mr. Pednekar submitted that in the event that we are not inclined to confirm the sentence of death and are instead inclined to commute it to life imprisonment, then the accused be sentenced to imprisonment for the rest of his life. He submitted that such a sentence can be imposed by this Court and the same has been done by the Supreme Court in case of Swamy Shraddananda @ Murali Manohar Mishra Vs State of Karnataka reported in AIR 2008 SC 3040. In the said case also the accused had been sentenced to death. The Supreme Court felt that it was not a fit case to award a death 75 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:20 ::: conf4-09.doc sentence but the Supreme Court observed that a sentence of life imprisonment which,subject to remission, normally works out to a term of 14 years would be grossly disproportionate and inadequate. The Supreme Court further observed that in such case, the court's option is limited only to two punishments, one a sentence of imprisonment, for all intents and purposes, of not more than 14 years and the other death, in which case the Court may feel tempted and find itself nudged into endorsing the death penalty. Such a course would indeed be disastrous. A far more just, reasonable and proper course would be to expand the options and to take over what, as a matter of fact, lawfully belongs to the Court,i.e., the vast hiatus between 14 years' imprisonment and death. The Court, therefore, can substitute a death sentence by life imprisonment for rest of life of convict or by a term in excess of fourteen years and further to direct that the convict must not be released from the prison for the rest of his life or for the actual terms as specified in the order, as the case may be. Observing thus, the Supreme Court substituted the death sentence by imprisonment for life and directed the accused shall not be released from prison till the rest of his life.
82. We may make useful reference to two decisions of the Supreme court i.e Ronny Vs State of Maharashtra, (1998)3 SCC 76 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:20 ::: conf4-09.doc 625 and Ravindra Trimbak Chouthmal Vs State of Maharashtra, (1996)4 Supreme Court Cases 148. In the case of Ronny (Supra), the accused persons had committed gang rape on a lady and murder during the course of the same incident. In this case, the Supreme Court felt it appropriate that the sentence under section 376(2)(g) of I.P.C. for gang rape shall run consecutively after serving the sentence for offence of murder i.e the Supreme Court directed that the sentence of imprisonment under section 376(2)(g) of 10 years RI shall be served after the sentence of life imprisonment is over. So also, in the case of Ravindra Chouthmal (Supra), the Supreme Court directed that the sentence of seven years RI for the offence under section 201 of the I.P.C. be directed to run consecutively after the sentence of life imprisonment had run its course. In the case of Ravindra Chouthmal, the accused had murdered his wife and thereafter to cause the evidence of the crime to disappear, he had cut the body and thrown it in the creek.
83. Similar view was taken by this Court in its judgment dated 23rd April, 2010 in Criminal Appeal No. 760 of 2003, Sunil Anandrao. Sawant Vs Government of Maharashtra [Coram :
Smt. Ranjana Desai & Smt. V.K. Tahilramani, JJ] wherein this Court directed the sentence of three years RI under Sections 307 shall run consecutively after serving the sentence for 77 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:20 ::: conf4-09.doc the offence of murder.
84. There can be no doubt that the offence committed by the appellant deserves severe condemnation and is a heinous crime, but on looking to the cumulative facts and circumstances of the case, we do not think that the case falls in the category of rarest of the rare cases. Hence, we are not inclined to confirm the sentence of death and instead for the offence under Section 302, we are inclined to sentence the accused to life imprisonment and direct that the sentence of imprisonment ig under Section 364 shall run consecutively after the sentence of life imprisonment has run its course. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances, we pass the following order:
O R D E R
1. The conviction of the accused under Sections 302 and 364 of IPC is maintained.
2. The sentence of imprisonment and fine and in default sentence under Section 364 is maintained.
3. The sentence of death is commuted to life imprisonment, in addition thereto, fine of Rs. 5000/- as imposed by the learned Sessions Judge in default simple imprisonment for 78 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:20 ::: conf4-09.doc three months.
4. The sentence of imprisonment under Section 364 of IPC shall run after serving the life sentence under Section 302 of IPC.
Thus, the reference is answered accordingly and appeal is partly allowed.
ig [SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.]
[SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.]
79
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:20 :::