APEAL. 284-04 - 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 284 OF 2004 Suresh Dhansingh Chavan, ) Age – 42 years, Occu.- Agriculture/ ) Driver, Resident of Chavanwadi, ... Appellant Taluka Khandala, District – Satara (Original Accused) Vs. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent *** Mr. S. P. Kadam, for the Appellant. Ms. A. T. Jhaveri, APP for the Respondent. *** CORAM : V. M. KANADE, & M. L. TAHALIYANI, JJ. DATE : DECEMBER 12, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT: [PER : V. M. KANADE, J.] 1. The appellant/original accused is challenging the judgment and order dated 4th February, 2004, passed by the Sessions Judge, Satara, who was pleased to convict the appellant for the offence punishable under S. 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced the appellant to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 500/-; in default of payment of fine to suffer RI for three months. APEAL. 284-04 - 2 - 2. The prosecution case in brief is that the appellant had committed murder of his wife by strangulating her with a rope. The appellant got married with deceased Manisha in 1995 and one son was born out of the said marriage. Initially, appellant & his wife were residing in a joint family along with mother of the appellant, his brother Haridas and his wife. However, there was a partition between the appellant and his brother Haridas, two years after his marriage and the property was divided equally between them. House property was also divided by putting a partition cupboards and beam-corn in the said house. Area between wooden beam and roof was open. According to the prosecution, the brother of the appellant raised a dispute in respect of the agricultural land and insisted that certain portion should be given to him. According to the prosecution, the appellant and his wife used to quarrel since the appellant had no objection for re- partition and this was objected by the deceased. 3. According to the prosecution, Haridas informed PW 1 Kakasaheb Dhumal, the father of Manisha on the date of incident at about 6.45 a. m. that she expired and therefore, father of the deceased and others came to the premises where her body was kept and after they saw ligature marks on the neck of the deceased Manisha, PW 1 Kakasaheb filed a complaint at Lonand Police Station. API Deshmukh commenced the investigation and sent the body of deceased for autopsy, after preparing the inquest panchanama. The doctor who performed post mortem gave certificate, certifying that death of Manisha was asphyxia due to strangulation. He noted that there was a APEAL. 284-04 - 3 - ligature mark on the neck. The statement of the witnesses were recorded. The viscera which was preserved did not reveal any poison. The accused was arrested. A charge was framed under Section 498-A, 302 of the I. P. Code, against the accused. He pleaded not guilty to the said charge. The defence of the accused was that he was working as a driver and at the time when the incident took place he was not present in the house and he was working as a driver on the truck, owned by one Bichkule. According to him, he left his house in the afternoon on 25th June, 2003 and he returned home at about 10.00 a. m. on 26th June, 2003. The trial court on the basis of evidence, acquitted the accused/appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code but convicted him for the offence punishable under S. 302 of I.P.C. The learned counsel for the appellant had submitted that there are no eye witnesses to the said incident, and therefore, the entire case is based on the circumstantial evidence. It is submitted that the trial court had held that since the door of the house was open, only the appellant could have come and could have killed his wife, since no other person had any reason to kill the deceased. It is submitted that the trial court erred in coming to the conclusion that the appellant had not proved his plea of alibi. It is submitted that there is discrepancy in the investigation carried out by the police, since the statement of brother of the appellant Haridas Chavan was not recorded. It is submitted that no reliance could be placed on the recovery of rope, since the rope was in the house and it was lying on the wall and it was recovered after four days, though the panchanama was carried on 27-6-2003. APEAL. 284-04 - 4 - 4. The learned APP on the other hand, submitted that the prosecution had established the chain of circumstances, and therefore, no case was made out for setting aside the judgment & order of the trial court. 5. After having heard both the counsel for the appellant & the learned APP at length, and after having gone through the impugned judgment and order of the trial court, and the notes of evidence, we are of the view that the prosecution has not established its case beyond reasonable doubt. 6. So far as cause of death is concerned, it is not disputed that death was homicidal. Since the post mortem report has been admitted under Section 294 Cr.P.C, the only question which needs to be considered is whether the appellant was responsible for committing murder of his wife. 7. Though a plea of alibi is taken by the appellant and three witnesses have been examined in support of his plea, the initial burden to establish the case against the accused is on the prosecution; and only after the case against the appellant is established, then the plea of alibi has to be taken into consideration. 8. In the present case, the prosecution has examined six witnesses, and the defence has examined three witnesses. PW 1 Kakasaheb Dhumal is father of deceased, who had lodged the complaint on 26-6-2003; PW 2 Deepak Dhumal brother of the APEAL. 284-04 - 5 - deceased; PW 3 Santosh Dhumal is a panch witness in respect of spot panchanama; PW 4 Sanjivani Khalate is aunt of the deceased and sister of PW 1 Kakasaheb Dhumal; PW 5 Kisan Bodare is a panch witness, who had signed the recovery panchanama of recovery of rope at the instance of the accused; PW 6 Anil Deshmukh, API at Lonand Police Station, who had carried out the investigation. 9. On the other hand, the defence has examined three witnesses. DW 1 Haridas Chavan is brother of the appellant; DW 2 Sunil Sarjerao Pawar, who was carrying on transport business and with whom the appellant was working as a driver; DW 3 Manojkumar Pandurang Valekar, who was a businessman, having a shop in the village. In order to establish that appellant has committed the offence of murder, the burden was on the prosecution to establish that the appellant was present in the house in the night when the incident took place. None of the witnesses have stated that appellant was in the house on that day. On the other hand, it has come on record that door was open in the morning. The trial court has also observed that the prosecution has not established the presence of the accused. However, the trial court has observed that since there were no other marks of violence on the person of the deceased, the possibility of anyone else committing the murder of Manisha is eliminated. The said observation, in our view, is based on conjecture & surmises. The trial court has also observed that deceased Manisha would not have left the door open and from that it could be inferred that appellant Suresh was in the house. The said finding, therefore, also in our view, is incorrect. Only other circumstance on which reliance placed by the prosecution, APEAL. 284-04 - 6 - is the discovery at the instance of the appellant. No reliance could be placed on the discovery of the rope, since the spot panchanama was prepared on 27-6-2003 and the from the house rope was discovered at the instance of appellant after four days. Thus, reliance could not be placed on the discovery of the rope since the rope was already there when the spot panchanama was prepared. Another circumstance on which reliance is placed by the trial court, is that of motive. According to the prosecution, deceased Manisha did not like the idea of re- partition and of giving additional land to appellant’s brother Haridas, and therefore, appellant committed her murder. This theory also does not seem to be plausible, and assuming that the said motive was there, that by itself could not be sufficient to connect the appellant with the commission of the said offence. 10. The trial court has acquitted the appellant of the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the I. P. Code, since there was no material on record to prove the said offence. In our view, the trial court has, therefore, clearly erred in holding that the prosecution had established the chain of circumstances to connect the appellant with commission of offence, particularly when the prosecution has failed to prove that the appellant was present in the house at the time, on the date of incidence. The appellant, is therefore, entitled to the benefit of doubt. 11. So far as plea of alibi is concerned, it is no doubt true that burden of establishing the plea of alibi under Section 103 of the Evidence Act is on the accused. However, it has to be remembered APEAL. 284-04 - 7 - that initially the burden of establishing the case beyond reasonable doubt is only on the prosecution and only after the said burden is discharged, the plea of alibi can be considered. Since we are of the view that initial burden is not discharged by the prosecution, it is not necessary to consider the plea of alibi, which is taken by the appellant. 12. Under these circumstances, the judgment and order passed by the trial court convicting the appellant under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is quashed and set aside, and he is acquitted of the said offence. The appellant be released forthwith unless he is required in any other case. [M. L. TAHALIYANI, J.] [ V. M. KANADE, J.]