Biru Vithoba Shejal vs State of Maharashtra

P.D. Kode, J.—By the present appeal the sole accused in Sessions Case No. 123 of 2004 has assailed the judgment and order of conviction passed by IInd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge. Pandharpur on 5th April, 2005 convicting him for offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code and on the first count sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to suffer R.I for three months and on the second count sentencing him to suffer R.I for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of a fine to undergo R.I. for one month. The Appellant at the said Sessions Case was charged for committing murder of his wife Rukmini and son Dagadu by throttling them in a drain on 5th April, 2004 at about 19.00 to 19.30 hrs or there about in the vicinity of village Anakdhal. Tal. Sangola on the west side of Nazaremath to Rajuri Road, and for causing disappearance of the evidence of commission of the offence of murder of his wife and his son with the intent for screening himself from legal punishment and thereby committing the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code.

The said Sessions case has emerged out of the charge-sheet for commission of such offences by the Appellant filed on 21st June, 2004 by P.I. Ayub Khan Mubarak Khan (PW-10) of Police Station Sangola. PW-10 had submitted the said charge-sheet against the appellant as a result of investigation of crime number 49 of 2004 under Sections 302, 201 of Indian Penal Code registered with the said police station by ASI Shaikh (PW-12) of said police station upon receipt of complaint dated 17.4.2004 of PW-1 Bhausaheb Babu Sejwai brought by the Head Constable from Kavathe Mahankal Police Station i.e. complaint recorded by PW-13 P.I. Mane of Kavathe Mahankal Police Station regarding murder committed by the appellant on 5.4.2004 of daughter Rukmini of aunt of PW-1 and her son Dagadu by throttling them in a drain at a distance one kilometer on the eastern side Rajuri. PW 13 had also drawn scene of offence panchnama of the spot of which he had received the clue after interrogating the appellant who had then accompanied PW1 when he had come for lodging the complaint. PW13 had also seized in all fourteen articles such as clothes of deceased Rukminibai and clothes of deceased Dagdu, hairs and bones of the deceased person under the said panchnama.

According to the prosecution, first marriage of Rukmini was unsuccessful and so also the wife of the appellant have passed away in 1999 by heart disease. At the behest of PW1, the marriage of Rukmini and the appellant was performed in the year 1999. However, since six months or thereabout prior to the lodging of the said complaint, appellant was doubting character of Rukmini and paternity of Dagdu. He was telling PW1 and many other persons that Dagdu was not born from him and was born out of illicit relation. Though attempted to convince regarding the same, such a thought had not vanished from the mind of the appellant.

On 7th April, 2004, at about 4.00 to 4.30 p.m. PW 7 Annappa Gadade. brother-in-law of Laxmibai - mother of Rukmini telephoned from Daphalapur that the appellant is asking from Kavathe Mahankal whether Rukmini and Dagdu sent from village yatra had reached her house. PW1 after inquiry, went to the house of the appellant and asked him to visit Daphalapur and tell about her as his wife Rukmini had not been to Daphalapur and where she was sent. PW 7 sent appellant to village Daphalapur. On 8.4.2004 at about 8.00 a.m. PW-7 again telephoned PW 1 that the appellant had been to his house and he had not told anything about whereabouts of Rukmini, appellant was asked to come to Kavathe Mahankal for lodging the report about the wife. Accordingly, appellant and Vasant Laxman Gadade went to S.T. Stand at Daphalapur but from the stand, appellant eloped under the pretext of passing urine. Hence, PW 7 called PW 1 at Kavathe Mahankal and PW 7 lodged missing report Exhibit 16 regarding missing of Rukmini with PW 14 PNC Patil by giving description of her, of Dagdu and of their clothes.

On 17.4.2004 at about 8.00 a.m. Kisan Anand Shejwal informed about arrival of the appellant to his house and asked him what has happened. PW1 along with his brother Raosaheb, Shankar went to Vasti of appellant and all of them asked about Rukmini, the appellant confessed to them that mistake was committed by him. On 5th April, 2004, at about 3.00 p.m., he had taken his wife Rukmini and son Dagdu to the darshan of god at Kharsundi and brought her to Nazaremath by S.T. Bus and taken her at a distance of one kilometer on Rajuri Road and he had committed murder of his wife and son by pressing their neck at a place of dry stream and thorny bushes of Chillari. He halted at Nazaremath. On 6.4.2004 by S.T. Bus, he went to his brother at Sangli and halted for that day. He returned to village on 7.4.2004 and went to village Daphalapur and on 8.4.2004 under the pretext of urine, he absconded and went to his maternal aunt Kisabai at Akluj where he had halted for eight days. Then on 5.4.2004, he had halted at the house of Appa Khatate in the night and 16.4.2004 he had returned to his house. The appellant from the said place was taken to the police. According to the prosecution, the appellant confessed before the police and accompanied them to the place of crime within the village Anakdhal, Taluka Sangola in the field of May appa Markad r/o. Udanwadi. According to the prosecution, from the said place, human bones, skull, hairs, saree, parkar-blouse and the clothes of small boy were identified by him were seized. PW 10 P.I. Khan after completion of the investigation, charge-sheeted the appellant for commission of offences as narrated earlier.

The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge for commission of such offences framed against him. The prosecution had examined in all 14 witnesses at trial. The appellant during his statement u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. stated that he had sent his wife and son to her parents as she was ill and they told on phone that they have sent them back to him. Hence he came at Kavathe Mahankal and waited upto 10.00 p.m., then he telephoned to the house of her parents and informed that they had not reached. The parents asked him to search and they gave him in the custody of the police. The appellant claimed that he was implicated falsely in false case.

The Trial Court after appreciation of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, came to the conclusion that the prosecution rested upon the circumstantial evidence, it came to the conclusion that prosecution had established that the appellant had made extra-judicial confession about his guilt for murdering wife and son to PW1. The Trial Court held that the said facet considered along with the evidence of doctor PW11 Anjali Gopal Gosavi and the opinion given by her establishes Rukmini and Dagdu having met with homicidal death. It came to the conclusion that the prosecution through the evidence of PW2 Gokula Appasaheb Khatate, PW4 Shivaji Linge and PW6 Govind Pandhare has established that deceased Rukmini, Dagdu were last seen alive in the company of the appellant and/or the appellant being at Nazaremath and having been towards Rajuri along with wife and son. Through the evidence of the said witnesses and so also through the evidence of PW2. PW3 Shashikant, PW5 Uttam Gadade, PW7 Annappa Gadade, the prosecution has also established that the appellant was making false representations regarding whereabouts of his wife and Dagdu. The Trial Court also concluded that the said evidence and the other evidence led by the prosecution also established un-probable conduct of the appellant in the episode. The Trial Court thus concluded that all the said circumstances established by the prosecution leads to the inference of guilt of the appellant in commission of offences for which he was charged. It also concluded that the evidence of prosecution witnesses also repels the defence of the appellant of having sent the deceased to her parents and deceased having not returned as told to him and himself being falsely implicated. In consonance with such finding arrived, Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as narrated earlier.

Smt. B.P. Jakhade, the learned appointed counsel for the appellant urged that the main plank of the prosecution case is purported extra-judicial confession made by the appellant to PW1 and deceased being lastly seen alive in the company of the appellant as claimed by PW2, PW4 and PW6. It was urged that proper consideration of the said evidence reveals that even the said circumstances or at least the second circumstance is not established by the prosecution by cogent evidence. It was urged that the same being the legal requirement, the said circumstances within themselves or in conjunction with the other circumstances can not lead to be conclusion of the guilt of the appellant as erroneously arrived by the Trial Court. It was urged that considering the feeble nature of the circumstance of extra-judicial confession, Trial Court ought not to have placed the reliance upon the same, as the same was coming from tainted sourced and/or being not in consonance with the guidelines given by the Apex Court regarding such type of evidence. It was urged that in event of failure of prosecution to establish both the said circumstances, the other circumstance as improbable conduct of the appellant and/or he has a motive to commit crime etc. also said to be established from the evidence of the interested person cannot be sufficient to arrive the conclusion of guilt of the appellant, It was urged that conclusion of a guilt arrived by the trial Court upon the slender evidence deserves to be dis-cared or ignored as same cannot be legally sustained and as such. the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and so also the sentence awarded to the appellant by allowing the appeal. It was urged that at least the benefit of doubt deserves to be given to the appellant as beneficial view also emerges from the prosecution evidence of the appellant may not be culprit. The learned counsel also placed reliance upon certain decisions in support of her submissions.

On the other hand, the learned APP - Smt. V. R. Bhosale supported the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court. She urged that the prosecution has established the circumstances forming formidable chain leading to sole inference of the guilt of the appellant in committing offences for which he is convicted and sentenced. It was urged that the Trial Court had given weighty reasons in support of conclusion arrived. It was urged that the conclusions arrived by the Trial Court being based upon the evidence surfaced, no fault with the same can be found out. It was urged that the decision relied by the learned appointed counsel itself reveal that in all cases the circumstance of culprit making extra-judicial confession cannot be said to be weak evidence and even the conviction can to be rested upon such reliable extra-judicial confession. It was urged that such being the position in the present case, the appeal sans merit be dismissed.

Anxious considerations were given to the submissions advanced by both the sides and record and proceedings was carefully considered to ascertain merits of the same. Similarly the decision pointed was also carefully considered for appreciating submissions based thereon.

It is not in dispute that the present prosecution has squarely rests upon the circumstantial evidence as there was no eye-witness for the crime in question. Hence, it will be necessary to ascertain firstly whether the circumstance relied by the prosecution are established by the cogent reliable evidence and secondly, if the established circumstances within them form a complete chain, within them leading to the sole inference of the guilt, as from time to time observed by the Apex Court in its various decisions regarding such a type of evidence.

In the said process, before taking up the first circumstance of appellant having made extra-judicial confession, it will be advantaged to make reference to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Shiva Karam Payaswami Tewari Vs. State of Maharashtra, wherein with regard to such type of piece of evidence, the Apex Court has observed in paragraph No. 4 as under:

We shall first deal with the question regarding claim of extra-judicial confession. Though it is not necessary that the witness should speak the exact words but there cannot be vital and material difference. While dealing with a stand of extra-judicial confession, Court has to satisfy itself that the same was voluntary and without any coercion and undue influence. Extra-judicial confession can form the basis of conviction if persons before whom it is stated to be made appear to be unbiased and not even remotely inimical to the accused. Where there is material to show animosity. Court has to proceed cautiously and find out whether confession just like any other evidence depends on veracity of witness to whom it is made. It is not invariable that the Court should not accept such evidence if actual words as claimed to have been spoken are not reproduced and the substance is given. It will depend on circumstance of the case. If substance itself is sufficient to prove culpability and there is no ambiguity, about import of the statement made by accused, evidence can be acted upon even though substance and not actual words have been stated. Human mind is not a tape recorder which records what has been spoken word by word. The witness should be able to say as nearly as possible actual words spoken by the accused. That would rule out possibility of erroneous interpretation of any ambiguous statement. If word by word repetition of statement of the case is insisted upon, more often than not evidentiary value of extra-judicial confession has to be thrown out as unreliable and not useful. That cannot be a requirement in law. There can be some persons who have a good memory and may be able to repost exact words and there may be many who are possessed of normal memory and do so. It is for the Court to judge credibility of the witness''s capacity and thereafter to decide whether his or her evidence has to be accepted or not. If Court believes witnesses before whom confession is made and is satisfied that confession was voluntary basing on such evidence, conviction can be founded. Such confession should be clear, specific and unambiguous.

(Emphasis supplied by us.)

In light of the said eloquent observations, carefully considering the evidence of PW 1, we find it difficult to discard his claim of the appellant having made extra-judicial confession about his guilt to him. We are of such a considered opinion as after considering his evidence, we find that hardly it can be said that he was entertaining animus against the appellant for staking such a false claim. Though it is true that his relative was lost or earlier the appellant had expressed suspicion about the character of Rukmini and paid no heed to attempt of pacifying him made by PW1, still the same cannot be considered as a good ground for assuming that he was entertaining the animus against the appellant. As a matter j of fact, considering the sequence of events and the date on which the appellant is said to have made the extra-judicial confession i.e. on 17th of April, 2004 and his conduct within the intervening period does give an impression of the same being consistent with himself making confession or being not inconsistent with the claim stake by them. Such a conclusion is inevitable as such a confession germane from the outburst of the culprit to dis-burden him of the ghastly act occurred at his hand by making the confession to the person with whom he can confine i.e. not being the stranger. Needless to add PW1 being instrumental for his marriage, cannot be accepted as urged, that he was having either animosity against appellant or he was not person with whom appellant would never had confided.

Hence, considering carefully the evidence of the PW 1 in light of the answers received during the cross-examination, we do find that the Trial Court after considering all the relevant circumstances has rightly accepted his evidence and discarded the defence sub-mission canvassed thereon. Needless to add that considering the said evidence in light of the cogent reasons given by the Trial Court for accepting the same, we do not find any fault therein. Similarly, the fact of the investigating officer PW10 Mane receiving the clue regarding the place of the offence and at the said place seizing the articles of the deceased is also a circumstance corroborating not only the matters stated in the said confession but also consistent with the fact of appellant having made such a extra-judicial confession. Needless to add, without there being such a clue, the investigating officer could never have been able to reach the said spot within such short span. We may hasten to add that close scrutiny of the evidence of PW1 also do not reveal anything elicited therein rendering claims staked by him as unreliable. As a matter of fact, we find that except giving suggestion of the denials hardly any material had surfaced for not accepting the said claim.

Similarly the fact of bones found at the site being that of young lady and a young boy of similar age of wife and son of appellant as established by the prosecution through the evidence of PW11 Dr. Anjali Gopal Gosavi and the opinion given by her also corroborates the matter stated in the said extra-judicial confession. Similarly, considering the un-shattered opinion given by PW11 and the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case i.e. the crime was committed on 5th of April, 2004 and the place of the offence was known only on 17th of April, 2004, it is difficult to perceive that any other evidence other than remains such as bone could have been collected by the investigating agency. Similarly, considering cause of death as reveal from the extrajudicial confession made by the appellant and the same being consistent with finding of body of such remote place also justifies, the trial court thereon arriving at the conclusion of the death of the victims being homicidal. The said inference in our opinion is most plausible as both the said circumstances and even circumstance of finding articles and bones of the deceased at such a place rules out the death having occurred for any other cause other than the same being of homicidal nature.

Now considering the next circumstance of deceased being seen lastly alive in the company of the appellant, the bare perusal of the evidence of PW2, PW4 Shivaji Yelappa Linge, PW6 Govind Pandhare in terms reveal that the prosecution having established the said facet through the evidence of the said witnesses. Without reproducing in detail said evidence which was duly dealt by the trial court, it can be said that the reference to the evidence of PW2 reveals that upon PW2 questioning, the appellant near Karandemala bus stop at about 2.30 to 3.00 p.m. as to where he was going, he had answered that he was proceeding Karsundi for praying God and his wife and son were along with him. Her evidence reveals that the said woman wearing green saree and the child was of 21/2 years. Her evidence further reveals that eight days thereafter the appellant had been to her house and then told her father-in-law that he left his wife and son to the parents house and they were missing. Her evidence further reveals that thereon she had asked her father-in-law as to how he can say so by telling earlier narration made by appellant to her. The said evidence considered in proper perspective, not only reveals the circumstance tried to be established by the prosecution through his evidence but also establishes falsity of the matters then told by appellant to PW2. The close scrutiny does not reveal that except giving denial any significant material was elicited during the cross-examination. In the said state of affairs, we are unable to discard her evidence on the count of the same being the evidence of a chance witness as PW2 has stood the test of cross-examination. Similarly even the fact of appellant being known to her due to having worked with her husband also having remained un-shattered and the cross-examination having failed to reveal any animus on part of PW2 for stating such false claim, it is difficult to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant to discard the same on such count or on the count of herself having not given details of said events. PW 2 being rustic woman, such submission clearly appears to be misplaced.

Similar is the case of the evidence of PW4 Yellappa Linge and PW-6 Govind Pandhare. The evidence of PW 6 who is running a shop at Nazaremath reveals that on the relevant day, in absence of his father, he had sold two biscuits of Parle to the appellant while the evidence of PW 4 Yellappa Linge not only reveals of having seen the appellant along with his wife and a small boy sitting at Nazaremath bus stop and then the appellant on his query having told that he was going to relatives at Nazaremath and they had been to the bus stop at 4.00 p.m. and had left at 7.00 to 7.30 p.m. going by walk toward Rajuri Road. The trial court having dealt in detail the evidence of both the said witnesses during the judgment and as we find that all the reasoning given by the trial court being rational and based upon the evidence on the record, we do not propose to dilate in detail regarding every facets of the said evidence and only observe that no error was committed by the trial court in accepting their evidence. We further add that we also do not find that the trial court committed an error in coming to the conclusion of the deceased lastly seen alive in company of the appellant is established through said evidence, and so also the appellant being nearby the place of offence i.e. at Nazaremath at the relevant time and so also the appellant giving the false pretext for himself being at the same place, inconsistent with his defence and consistent with the inference of his guilt drawn by the Trial Court.,

Similarly considering the evidence of PW1 and PW7 and so also that of PW5 dealt in detail by the Trial Court, we do not propose to make threadbare dilation regarding the same except stating that the evidence of PW1 and PW7 are duly corroborated by the complainant. missing complaint lodged and so also natural and the same duly establishes the prosecution case regarding events have been occurred as stated in the complaint and deposed by the said witnesses. Needless to add that the said evidence also establishes the circumstance of the appellant possessing motive for commission of the crime i.e. the suspicion entertained by him regarding character of his wife and Dagdu being not his son and born out of illicit relationship of his wife. Needless to add we find that through the said evidence as discussed in detail by the trial court, the prosecution had duly established that the appellant was advancing false contentions regarding whereabouts of his wife.

In the premises aforesaid, after careful consideration of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, we are of considered opinion of the prosecution thereby having established the circumstances so far referred by us i.e. the appellant having made extra-judicial confession about his guilt, his wife and his son having met homicidal death, their body being found at isolated place, the deceased were lastly seen alive in the company of the appellant, the appellant was thereafter advancing false explanation regarding whereabouts of them, the appellant had a motive and an opportunity for committing the relevant crime, his defence being inconsistent with the explanations advanced by him regarding whereabouts of the deceased, the conduct of the appellant was inconsistent with the conduct of a person whose wife and child was missing. All these said circumstances taken into consideration within themselves forming a formidable chain pointing towards sole inference of a guilt of the appellant in commission of an offence for which he was charged with and found guilty and sentenced and the said circumstance leaving no room for any other hypothesis other than the guilt of the appellant. we are unable to find any fault with such a finding arrived by the Trial Court for the cogent reasons recorded in the judgment. Hence, we do not find any merit in the appeal and dismissed the same and confirmed the order passed by the Trial Court.