Case: Jagdish Bansu Kharwal Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Oral Judgment: (Mrs. Bhatkar, J.)1. The appellant is convicted for the offence of murder punishable u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and fine. He is also convicted for the offence punishable u/s 201 of the Indian Penal Code and suffer RI for 2 years and fine.2. The incident of murder of one Sayyed Irfan Ul Huda had taken place on 16.12.2004. It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased Sayyed was residing alongwith his brothers including the complainant Sayyed Masud Alam (PW1) at Maulana Azad Nagar, Nashik. All the brothers were running a shop viz., M/s.Sunrise Scrap Traders doing the business of scrap material. The appellant was also in the same business. He was residing as a tenant in room No.1 on the upper floor of one Gaurav bungalow owned by the husband of PW10 Minakshi Kale at Shivaji Nagar, Nashik. On 16.11.2004, at around 10 to 10.15am, he was seen by PW10 Minakshi alongwith the deceased. Then she saw him at 3pm to 3.15 pm and again at 5.30pm to 6pm on the same day. PW8, Munna Yadav, was a partner of deceased in the business of scrap material. So the deceased and the appellant knew each other. The deceased was called by the appellant on different timings at 10.30am, then at 3.30pm. PW8, Munna Yadav, met the deceased at around 6 pm and he told him that he would be going for the scrap material to one Popular Company. So he went towards the said Popular Company and waited at the company till about 7.30pm. However, since the deceased did not come, he returned and slept. PW1 Sayyed Alam, the brother of the deceased asked for the vehicle of the deceased but the deceased told him that he wanted to go to bring scrap material therefore, he required the vehicle. PW1 Sayyed Alam then returned to the shop at around 7.30pm. However, his brother was not there. He received a phone call from PW8 Munna at 7.30pm that his brother was to come and he was not getting his brother on his cell phone. PW1 Sayyed Alam tried to contact the deceased Irfanul on his cell phone but his brother was not picking up the phone. As the deceased did not return for a long time in that night till 9.30pm, PW1 Sayyed Alam alongwith his other brother Galib started searching him and the appellant. He went to Ambad police station and lodged missing complaint of his brother on 17.12.2004. On the next day at around 12.30 pm, the complainant (PW1) and his brother went to the house of the appellant which was approximately 2 kms. away from the shop and enquired with PW10 Minakshi Kale. However, PW10 Minakshi informed that the appellant went away with some articles alongwith one boy of 20 to 22 years old and that he would be returning on 25.12.2004. The police visited the house of PW10 Minakshi and on enquiry, they realised that the appellant had left for his native place at around 6.30 pm to 7pm. She also informed that the hands of the appellant and the other boy were injured and they told her that the injuries were caused while cutting vegetables. A bandage was seen on the hand of the appellant. The police showed PW10 Minakshi photograph of the deceased. At that time, she informed the police that she had seen the deceased 3 times on that day alongwith the appellant and he had also gone to the room of the appellant alongwith him. The police, therefore, opened the room of the appellant and found blood stains all over in the room. They also noticed blood stains on the wall and everywhere. On 17.12.2004, in the evening, the police while searching in the vicinity, found a dead body kept in a polythene scrap bag wrapped in a bedsheet put in a gunny bag. It was found in the chamber of a gutter near Gaurav bungalow. The police removed the body out and found that it was a male body of about 35 years old. Some injuries on the neck and on the hand were seen on the body. The body was identified by PW1 as of his brother Irfan. The police thereafter registered offence against the appellant u/s 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The police recorded the statement of PW1.The police carried out inquest panchanama (exhibit 16) on 17.12.2004 between 6.30 pm to 7.45 pm. Then the police carried out spot panchanama (exhibit 9) in the presence of PW2 Onkar on 18.12.2004. Police sent the dead body for the postmortem. PW16 Dr.Shailendra Patil conducted the postmortem examination. Dr.Patil had opined that the death was due to cardio respiratory arrest as a result of shock due to cut throat injury. After the postmortem, the appellant was arrested on 24.12.2004 from his native place in Uttar Pradesh. After his arrest, discovery panchanama was recorded of the clothes of the appellant which were thrown in the stream and also of the keys of the motor cycle of the deceased. The clothes of the appellant and the deceased and the articles which were collected at the time of the spot panchanama and inquest panchanama were sent for the C.A. After completion of the investigation, police filed chargesheet in the Court of the learned Magistrate and the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions. The trial was concluded in the conviction of the appellant and hence, this appeal.3. The case is based on the circumstantial evidence. There are not many circumstances but the circumstances which are proved are concrete and sufficient. PW1, Sayyed Alam, the complainant, is the brother of the deceased. He had stated that the appellant alongwith his brother deceased and one Munna Yadav (PW8) was doing business of scrap material. The appellant was also in the same business. They knew the appellant. He had narrated the facts and the things which have taken place on the day of 16.12.2004. From the evidence of PW8 Munna, the prosecution had established that on 16.12.2004, the appellant had met the deceased at 10.30 am, then again at 3.30pm and the appellant was seen alive till around 6pm. At around 6pm, the deceased told PW8 Munna that he would be going to one Popular company to bring some scrap material. PW8 Munna also went to Popular company and waited for him near a tea stall at the Popular Company. However, till 7.30pm, since the deceased did not return, he went back and told this to PW1 Sayyed. PW1 Sayyed had stated that till 9.30pm, his brother did not come and, therefore, he alongwith his other brother Galib went to the Ambad police station to lodge a complaint. As they were doubting the appellant, he and his brother went to the house of the appellant and met PW10 Minakshi Kale. We find the evidence of PW10 Minakshi totally believable.4. PW10 is a star witness in this matter. Her husband was the owner of the Gaurav bungalow and the appellant was the tenant of one of their rooms. PW10 Minakshi stated that a month prior to the date of the incident, the appellant started residing as a tenant in room No.1 which was on the upper floor. On that day, on 10.30pm. the appellant phoned from her shop infront of her bungalow and at that time, she saw the deceased. PW10 was subsequently shown the photographs of the deceased and, therefore, she could identify the person in the photograph as the deceased as she had seen him earlier at 10 to 10.30 am on 16.12.2004 in the company of the appellant. At around 3pm to 3.30pm again, the deceased came infront of her shop. She overheard the talks between the appellant and the deceased that they would be going to the Popular Company in the evening at 6pm. The deceased went away and at around 5.30pm, the deceased came to the Gaurav bungalow. He stood near the gate. PW10 had deposed that the appellant and the deceased had some talk there and thereafter both went into the room of the appellant. Thereafter, she came inside the house and did not know what happened thereafter. She has further deposed that thereafter at around 6pm to 6.30pm, she woke up and at that time, she saw the appellant and one boy coming down with luggage bags. Upon her husband asking the appellant as to what was in the bags, the appellant replied that his nephew had taken a room at Satpur and therefore, his luggage was being shifted. At that time, she saw bandages to their fingers. So, when her husband enquired with them about the bandages, the appellant told him that while cutting vegetables, his fingers were injured and the other boy cut his fingers and injured while working on a machine in the company. The appellant handed over keys to PW10 and told them that he would return on 25.12.2004 and both went away. In her evidence, this witness has given all the details in respect of the meetings of the appellant and the deceased. The evidence of PW10 is corroborated with the evidence of PW8 Munna Yadav on the point of meeting the appellant on that day. The narration given by PW8 Munna of all the events is in detail and it gives a picture that how the things had happened. She has deposed that 10 to 15 minutes after the appellant left, two persons arrived there. One was near brother of the deceased and they enquired about the appellant and she told them that the appellant had left. So they requested her to ask the appellant to contact them as soon as he returns. Thereafter, on the same day, i.e., on 17.12.2004, at around 3pm, police came to the said bungalow and enquired with her about the appellant. At that time, they showed photograph of the deceased and she told them that she had seen the deceased alongwith the appellant. The police asked her to show the room of the appellant. She has further deposed in her evidence that she had seen the appellant and the deceased going to the upper floor to the room of the appellant at about 6pm to 6.30pm on that day. She is the one who had last seen the appellant accused and deceased together. Thus, at 6m to 6.30pm, the deceased was seen in the company of the appellant and thereafter, he was not seen but his dead body was found in the afternoon next day i.e., 17.12.2004 in the chamber of a gutter laid in a scrap bag.5. When the room of the appellant was opened by the witness alongwith the police, she stated that they found blood stains on the staircase and also blood stains on the wall, on the floor of bath room (mori). They found that there was a gunny bag lying there. This is a concrete circumstance against the appellant. There was no reason to find blood stains at so many places on the floor and the walls of the bathroom in the room of the appellant. Moreover, the appellant was seen with some bags in the early morning at 6 pm to 6.30 pm on the same day i.e., on 17.12.2004 by PW10 Minakshi and her husband.6. The nexus of the blood stains found in the room of the appellant and he carrying bags in the early morning at about 6pm to 6.30 pm on 17.12.2004 is established completely when the body of the deceased was found in bags in the chamber of the gutter. Inquest panchanama (exhibit 16) shows that the body was found in a gunny bag. There was a black polythene scrap bag and in that bag a dead body was wrapped in a white bedsheet. The body was identified as that of the deceased Irfan by his brother PW1 Sayyed. There was a deep cut throat injury. There were also injuries on the incised wounds on the hand, on the chest and on the stomach. The gutter in which the dead body was found was approximately 450 away from Gaurav bungalow. Thus, the evidence of PW10 is a vital evidence of the prosecution and it alone connects all the links as to how the incident had taken place. The blood stains found in the room of the accused is another strong aggravating circumstance against the appellant. The appellant was occupying the said room and the room was totally in his control. He locked the room and handed over the keys of the room. Both the appellant and the deceased were in the business of scrap material. So the body of the deceased was also disposed of like a scrap. It was put in a black polyethene scrap bag and then in the gunny bag and threw in the chamber of a drain.7. The learned defence Counsel tried to assail the evidence of all the witnesses. She pointed out that the appellant was arrested on 24.12.2004 from Uttar Pradesh but that cannot be a circumstance against the appellant. She submitted that the trial Court has disbelieved the discovery panchanama of the key of the motor cycle of the deceased which was drawn at the instance of the appellant. She further pointed out that the recovery panchanama of the clothes of the appellant is not proved by the prosecution as the panch witness PW4 turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. It is to be noted that the panch Rajendra Gupta had admitted in the cross-examination that he is also from Uttar Pradesh and he knew the appellant and the appellant was also from Uttar Pradesh. He admitted in the cross-examination that on 27.12.2004, he was called at the police station. However, he denied drawing of the panchanama. The said panchanama (exh. 15) of the recovery of the clothes and the gunny bag which were found in the stream was proved by the PW17 P.I. Shafiuddin. PW17 had stated about recording of the FIR, then finding of the body and also drawing of panchanama (exhibit 9) of the room of the appellant as also about the finding of the blood stained gunny bag and clothes and bandage from the room. He had stated that the appellant was arrested at Uttar Pradesh on 24.12.2004 by PW14 P.S.I. Vani. He had stated that panchanama, memorandum were drawn in the presence of panchas and gunny bag containing some clothes, visiting cards of the deceased and photographs were found in the stream and the panchanama and the memorandum were drawn at exhibits 14 and 15. Thereafter, all the articles were sent to the C.A. The C.A. report (exhibit 48 to 51a) discloses that the blood group of the appellant was group B and the blood group of the deceased was A and on most of the articles, blood group A was found. The medical evidence tendered by the prosecution also throws light on how the deceased was killed. PW16 Dr.Shailendra Patil had conducted postmortem on 18.12.2004. He found four external injuries on the body. There were incised wound, 5cm below the chin, 20 inch in length which was through upto vertebra on vital structures plain cut and it was 5 cm deep. There were also two incised wounds on the chest and on the left forearm and one CLW was found on the thigh. He had opined that as a result of shock due to cut throat injury, the deceased had cardio respiratory arrest and he died. This evidence shows that the neck of the deceased was completely cut and due to that deep injury, there was a lot of blood flown out of the body and naturally, so many blood stains were found in the room of the appellant.8. The appellant had also sustained injuries on his person and when he was arrested, he was produced for medical examination on 24.1.2004 before Dr.Arun Satdive (PW15). Dr.Satdive found many injuries on the fingers and the palm of the appellant. All the injuries were mostly incised injuries on the fingers which were nearly 10 in numbers. Dr.Satdive (PW15) had opined that all these injuries were possible by sharp cutting edged instrument and all the injuries were caused within 7 to 10 days but they were simple in nature. Accordingly, he had given the certificate at exhibit 14. The opinion of Dr.Satdive (PW15) that the injuries were caused within 7 to 10 days and those injuries were not fresh injuries when the appellant was examined by the Dr.Satdive on 24.12.004, shows the age of the injuries and relates the same to the date of the incident i.e., on 16.12.2004, which had taken place nearly 7 to 10 days prior to 24.12.2004.9. Thus, though there is no eye witness, the circumstances prove and cumulatively establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution could not establish any motive against the appellant. However, in some cases, it is difficult to get any evidence in respect of the motive through the investigating agency. However, the evidence if collected and proved establishes the offence, then the absence of proof of motive is not a beneficial circumstances to the accused.10. In the circumstances, we do not find any illegality in the judgment of the trial Court holding the appellant accused guilty for the offence u/s 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.

Decision:
0[ds]8. The appellant had also sustained injuries on his person and when he was arrested, he was produced for medical examination on 24.1.2004 before Dr.Arun Satdive (PW15). Dr.Satdive found many injuries on the fingers and the palm of the appellant. All the injuries were mostly incised injuries on the fingers which were nearly 10 in numbers. Dr.Satdive (PW15) had opined that all these injuries were possible by sharp cutting edged instrument and all the injuries were caused within 7 to 10 days but they were simple in nature. Accordingly, he had given the certificate at exhibit 14. The opinion of Dr.Satdive (PW15) that the injuries were caused within 7 to 10 days and those injuries were not fresh injuries when the appellant was examined by the Dr.Satdive on 24.12.004, shows the age of the injuries and relates the same to the date of the incident i.e., on 16.12.2004, which had taken place nearly 7 to 10 days prior to 24.12.2004.9. Thus, though there is no eye witness, the circumstances prove and cumulatively establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution could not establish any motive against the appellant. However, in some cases, it is difficult to get any evidence in respect of the motive through the investigating agency. However, the evidence if collected and proved establishes the offence, then the absence of proof of motive is not a beneficial circumstances to the accused.10. In the circumstances, we do not find any illegality in the judgment of the trial Court holding the appellantaccused guilty for the offence u/s 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.