apeal 201-04.doc RMA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI. APPEAL NO. 201 OF 2004 Sarjerao Sitaram Pol, ] Age 29 Years, Occ. : Rickshaw Driver, ] R/o- Mardi, Tal. Man, Dist. Satara. ] At present in Kolhapur Central Prison, ] Kalamba, Kolhapur. ] Appellant Versus The State of Maharashtra ] Respondent Mr. M.S. Mohite for the Appellant Mr. Y.S. Shinde, APP for the State CORAM : P.V. HARDAS & M.N. GILANI, JJ. DATE : 6th APRIL, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT [Per P.V. HARDAS, J]: 1. The appellant / accused who stands convicted, for an offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 3000/-, in default of which to undergo RI for two months, by the I Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Satara by judgment dated 23rd December 2003, in Sessions Case No. 105 of 2002, by this Appeal 1 apeal 201-04.doc challenges his conviction and sentence. 2. Such of the facts as are necessary for the decision of this appeal may briefly be stated thus. i. PW 9 Anil Pawar who was attached to Dahiwadi Police Station, on 4th May 2002 was present in the Police Station. On that day, the appellant / accused came to the Police Station at about 02.00 p.m. and informed the incident. PW 9 Anil Pawar and other staff of the Police Station accompanied by the accused went to Village Mardi at the house of the accused and noticed wife of the accused lying dead in the house. A wire was noticed around her neck which was tied to the hoe. Dead body of son of the appellant was found in water drum which was covered. The drum contained water. The appellant removed the wire and the hoe from the neck of his wife and also removed the dead body of his son from the water drum. FIR of the accused came to be reduced in writing which was signed by the accused and it is at Exh. 48. The aforesaid report which is inculpatory in nature would not be admissible in evidence. However, that part of the report which led to discovery would be admissible in evidence under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. PW 9 Anil Pawar then forwarded the FIR to the Police Station for registration of an offence. Two inquest panchanama of the dead bodies of wife and son of the accused came to be 2 apeal 201-04.doc drawn at Exh. 27 and 28. The scene of the offence panchanama at Exh 25 came to be drawn and the bodies were forwarded to the Preliminary Heath Centre, Dahiwadi for conducting post mortem examination. On 4th May 2002, statements of three witnesses including Mangal and Kalawati came to be recorded. On the next date, statement of PW 4 Subhash came to be recorded. On the same date, statement of PW 5 Rajendra came to be recorded. PW 3 Satish, a photographer was requested to take the photographs of the house and the dead bodies which were found in the house. A statement had been recorded on 4th May 2002. Post mortem on the dead bodies of the deceased came to be performed. The post mortem in respect of the dead body of wife of the appellant / accused discloses ligature mark over the neck which completely encircled the neck and was above the thyroid cartilage i.e upper part of the neck about 1.5 cm broad. As per Exh 20 which is the post mortem report of wife of the appellant / accused, the Medical Officer has opined the cause of death as cardio- respiratory failure due to asphyxia due to strangulation. The post-mortem report of the son of the appellant / accused at Exh 21 reveals that there was no external injury and the cause of death was cardio-respiratory failure due to asphyxia due to drowning. Visera was preserved and was referred for chemical examination. The seized articles ie. 3 apeal 201-04.doc wire and hoe which was found adhering to the wire, as per Exh 22 discloses presence of blood but the grouping was inconclusive. Further to the completion of investigation, a charge sheet against the appellant / accused came to be filed. ii. On committal of the case to Court of Sessions, the trial Court vide Exh 8 framed charge against the appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. The appellant denied his guilt and claimed to be tried. Prosecution in support of its case examined nine witnesses and the trial Court upon appreciation of evidence of the prosecution found that the prosecution had proved the offence against the appellant / accused beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly convicted and sentenced the appellant. 3. In order to effectively deal with the submissions advanced before us by Shri. M.S. Mohite, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri. Y.S. Shinde, learned APP for the State, it would be useful to refer to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. i. PW 1 Walmik Pol, a panch witness to the scene of the offence panchanama at Exh 25 did not support the prosecution in as much as he maintained that the appellant / accused was not present at the time of drawing of the scene 4 apeal 201-04.doc of the offence panchanama and the appellant / accused had not shown the spot of the incident. Curiously, deposition of this witness does not indicate that the prosecution had declared this witness as hostile and apparently, the prosecution had not cross-examined this witness. In cross- examination on behalf of the appellant / accused, PW 1 Walmik has admitted that the appellant was permanently residing at Bhandup, Mumbai and used to drive an auto rickshaw there. He was residing there along with his wife and son while his parents were residing in the house where the alleged murders had taken place. He has further admitted in cross-examination that there was no latch to the door of the house and has further admitted that there was one "Kotling Devsthan" at a distance of about 70 to 80 kms. from Village Mardi where a fair used to be held. He has further admitted that the fair was held on 4th May 2002. He has further admitted that father of the accused accompanied by other villagers had gone to police and had informed them and the police accompanied by the father of the accused came to the house. It was at this stage that the learned APP sought permission from the Court for declaring PW 1 Walmik hostile and for cross-examining. The trial Court rejected the request on the ground that the witness had not resiled from his statement in examination-in-chief and was cross-examined by the prosecution and 5 apeal 201-04.doc therefore,the witness could not be declared hostile. ii. PW 2 was declared hostile and was cross-examined by the prosecution. PW 3 Satish Mahamuni, a photographer has proved the photographs and the negatives at Exh 33 to 36. This witness also did not support the prosecution and was accordingly cross-examined by the prosecution. In cross- examination on behalf of the accused, he has admitted that while the police were drawing inquest panchanama, the appellant / accused came to his house in a jeep. In none of the photographs, is the presence of the accused shown at the time of taking of those photographs. iii. PW 4 Subhash Shinde also did not support the prosecution and was accordingly declared hostile. PW 5 Rajendra Naval Pawar, a driver of an auto rickshaw in Bhandup, Mumbai also did not support the prosecution and was accordingly, cross-examined by the prosecution. iv. PW 6 Suraj Devkar, brother of deceased Archana, wife of the appellant, states that deceased Archana was his real sister who had studied upto 10th standard. He states that Archana was married to the appellant on 24th May 2001. The appellant was a resident of Village Mardi which was at a distance of 6 kms. from his house which is situated in Village 6 apeal 201-04.doc Mohi. He further states that after marriage, the appellant took Archana to reside with him at Mumbai where the appellant was a driver of an auto rickshaw. PW 6 Suraj has further stated that after the marriage, he did not met Archana. In respect of the incident, PW 6 Suraj states that on Saturday, the 4th May 2002, he had returned from the school at about 10.00 a.m. and his mother had asked him to go to Village Mardi as Archana and her husband had arrived from Mumbai. Suraj further states that as he was keen to see the son of Archana, he proceeded to the house of the appellant at about 12.00 noon and reached the village of the accused at about 12.30 or 12.45 p.m. He states that when he had reached the house of the accused, he noticed the door of the accused was bolted from outside and the appellant was sitting with his son in the courtyard of the house. Suraj states that he questioned the appellant in respect of Archana and the appellant informed him that he and Archana had a quarrel and accordingly, Archana had gone to Village Mohi on foot. PW 6 Suraj then states that he returned to village Mohi and inquired from his mother if Archana had come there. His mother PW 8 Kalawati informed in the negative. Suraj then states that he and his mother then returned back to the house of the accused at about 02.00 to 02.30 p.m. and noticed a crowd near the house of the accused. They noticed that the appellant was 7 apeal 201-04.doc also present there and saw the dead body of Archana and dead body of her son. He states that the police had asked the appellant to remove the dead body of his son from the drum containing water and had also asked him to remove the wire which was around the neck of Archana. In cross- examination on behalf of the appellant, Suraj has admitted that by the time the inquest panchanama and the scene of the offence panchanama were drawn, it was about 04.00 to 04.30 p.m. He has admitted that the police had inquired from him on that day near the house of the accused. His statement was however recorded on the next day of the incident in evening. He has then admitted "I did not tell anything to the police till recording of my statement" (highlighting and underlining are ours). He has further admitted they had returned back to Village Mohi in the evening and the police had arrived at his house on the next day in the evening and recorded his statement. He has then admitted "We came to know that there was no eye witness to see the incident. Then I have told the police that I had gone to village Mardi and saw the accused with a son of Archana. (highlighting and underlining are ours). He has admitted that he and his mother were not aware that Archana and her husband had come to Village Mardi prior to 07.30 a.m on the day of the incident. Omission has been duly proved that he had not 8 apeal 201-04.doc stated in his previous statement that the appellant / accused was brought to the house by the police. Similarly omission has been proved that he had not stated in his previous statement that the police told the accused to remove his son from the water drum and also to remove the wire from the neck of Archana. v. Prosecution has examined PW 7 Kamal, sister of PW 8 Kalawati and an aunt of deceased Archana. PW 7 Kamal states that for the last seven years, she was residing at Pune as she is employed there. Earlier she was in employment at Village Divad and Archana was residing with her at Pune for about a year after passing her 10th standard. Her marriage was performed with the accused at Village Mohi on 24th May 2001. The accused thereafter began to reside with Archana at Mumbai. Archana and the accused used to frequently come to the house of PW 7 Kamal at Pune. Archana was then brought to Pune for her delivery and she delivered a boy on 1st March 2001. The accused on being informed about the birth of his son, came to Pune and resided with PW 7 Kamal for about two days and then took Archana and her child to Mumbai on 5th March 2002. The accused and Archana returned back to Pune after about 4-5 days and demanded Rs. 10000/- for arranging a separate room for his residence at Mumbai. PW 9 apeal 201-04.doc 7 paid the aforesaid amount to the accused and the accused thereafter went to Mumbai alone for arranging the residential accommodation. The accused then returned back on 21st April 2002 and informed PW 7 Kamal that he had arranged for a separate room and returned to Mumbai along with Archana and her son. Kamal states that Archana used to informed her that the accused was ill-treating her as Archana was pregnant soon after the marriage. Kamal states that on 4th May 2002, she was informed by a message from Village Mohi about quarrel between the accused and Archana and thereafter Kamal had gone to Village Mardi to the house of the accused. Since the house of the accused was locked, she went to Village Mohi where she learnt about the death of Archana and her son. In cross- examination, she has admitted that the accused was residing with the owner of the auto rickshaw before his marriage and continued to reside in the house till the delivery of Archana. She has admitted as true that the accused had informed PW 7 Kamal that he was in need of Rs. 10000/- as he had to arrange for separate accommodation and that he had no money. She has admitted that her statement was recorded on the next day of the incident. Omission has been proved that she had not stated in her previous statement that the accused was ill- treating Archana as Archana was pregnant soon after the 10 apeal 201-04.doc marriage. Similar omission has been duly proved that she had not stated in her previous statement that Archana had informed her that the accused was ill-treating her. vi. Prosecution has examined PW 8 Kalawati, mother of deceased Archana. PW 8 Kalawati states about the marriage of Archana to the accused and about delivery of Archana and Archana giving birth to a son. She states that on 4th May 2002, she learnt that the accused and Archana along with her son had come to Village Mardi from Mumbai and therefore, sent her son PW 6 Suraj to verify if Archana and her son had come. She states that PW 6 Suraj went to Village Mardi and returned back and informed her that he had seen the accused in front of the house by bolting the door of the house from outside. The accused was sitting with his son and the child was crying. PW 6 Suraj further informed her that when he had questioned the accused about Archana, the accused had informed him about the quarrel between him and Archana and about Archana going to Village Mohi. PW 6 Suraj therefore asked PW 8 Kalawati if Archana had come to Village Mohi. Kalawati replied in the negative. PW 8 Kalawati then states that she had informed her sister PW 7 Kamal at Pune on telephone and she proceeded to Village Mardi to the house of the accused. At the house of the accused, she noticed a crowd and also 11 apeal 201-04.doc noticed that the accused was present. She entered the house of the accused and noticed Archana lying in the house with an electric wire around her neck which had been tightened with the help of a hoe. Blood was oozing from the nose of Archana. Archana's son Harshad was seen in the water drum. Police thereafter prepared a panchanama and the dead bodies were then taken to Dahiwadi for post mortem examination. In cross-examination on behalf of the accused, she has admitted as true that she was not aware that Archana and the accused were to come Village Mardi. She states that after Suraj returned from school, she asked him to go to Village Mardi. She has admitted that Archana had not come to her house after her delivery. She states that she had not accompanied PW 6 Suraj as she was required to go to the field for weeding Bazra crop. She has further admitted that on that day, she had not gone for weeding. She has admitted that Suraj had gone to Village Mardi in a jeep belonging to an unknown person and had also returned back in a jeep belonging to an unknown person. 4. Shri. Mohite, learned counsel for the appellant has urged before us that admittedly neither PW 6 Suraj nor PW 8 Kalawati were aware about arrival of the accused and Archana at Village Mardi and therefore, conduct of PW 8 Kalawati in asking PW 6 12 apeal 201-04.doc Suraj to go to Village Mardi for meeting Archana is extremely strange. Shri. Mohite, the learned counsel for the appellant has urged before us that presence of PW 6 Suraj at Village Mardi in the noon is extremely suspicious and doubtful and no reliance at all can be placed on his testimony that he had seen the accused with his son outside his house in the afternoon. The learned APP has urged before us for dismissal of the appeal on the ground that PW 6 Suraj is a reliable witness. 5. PW 8 Kalawati has admitted in no uncertain terms that she is not aware about the arrival of the accused and Archana at Village Mardi. In her examination-in-chief, PW 8 Kalawati has stated that she came to know that the accused and Archana had come to village Mardi from Mumbai. She has however not disclosed the name of the person who had informed her about arrival of the accused and Archana at Village Mardi. In fact PW 6 Suraj falsifies the evidence of PW 8 Kalawati that she was aware about arrival of Archana when he has admitted that "We were not knowing that Archana and her husband came to Village Mardi prior to 7.30 a.m. on 4.5.2002." In such circumstances, therefore, the evidence of PW 8 Kalawati appears to us to be extremely doubtful. Moreover, no reliance can be placed on the evidence of PW 6 Suraj that he had seen the accused with his son in the afternoon in the light of the fact that he has admitted that after the panchanamas, the police 13 apeal 201-04.doc had inquired with him but his statement came to be recorded on the next day. He has admitted that till his statement was recorded by the police, he had not disclosed anything to the police. Moreover, he had admitted that since he learnt that there was no eye witnesses to the incident, he had informed the police that he had gone to Village Mardi and had seen the accused with his son. The evidence of PW 8 Kalawati is to the effect that she had alone gone to Village Mardi in the afternoon. She does not refer to the presence of PW 6 Suraj at Mardi at about 2 O'clock or so when she had gone. In such circumstances, therefore, we find that the evidence of PW 8 Kalawati and PW 6 Suraj is clouded and surrounded suspicion in respect of PW 6 Suraj going to Village Mardi at noon and noticing the accused with his son outside his house. 6. The report lodged by the accused which according to PW 9 API Pawar was reduced into writing after the dead bodies were found would be inadmissible in evidence in the light of the fact that the report contains inculpatory statements. The report at Exh 48 therefore would be inadmissible in evidence except to the extent permissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The report of the accused at Exh 48 also does not assist the prosecution in respect of discovery of the dead body as the report is scribed after the dead bodies were found. PW 9 API Pawar claims that the accused had given him oral information. 14 apeal 201-04.doc However, PW 9 API Pawar does not depose about the exact information given to him by the accused and whether that information led to discovery of the dead bodies in the house of the accused. In such circumstances, therefore, according to us, there is nothing on record relating to discovery of the dead bodies which would assist the prosecution in proving that the dead bodies were discovered pursuant to the information given by the accused. The offence is registered after the panchanamas were drawn and in fact, PW 9 API Pawar has admitted that FIR was scribed after the dead bodies were found. No station diary entry was effected in respect of arrival of the accused in the police station at 02.00 p.m. and about the police going to the scene of the offence accompanied by the accused. There is no contemporaneous documents on record to indicate that the accused had in fact come to the Police Station at 02.00 p.m., apart from a solitary words of PW 9 API Pawar. The evidence of PW 1 Walmik is in sharp contrast to the evidence of PW 9 API Pawar when PW 1 Walmik admits that the accused arrived at his house after the police had arrived and the accused had not accompanied the police. PW 1 Walmik has not been declared hostile by the prosecution and has not been cross-examined. The prosecution, therefore, cannot just brush away the evidence of PW 1 Walmik. 7. We therefore find that only the circumstance which the 15 apeal 201-04.doc prosecution has proved is about deceased Archana and her son died homicidal death in the house of the accused and failure of the accused to give a satisfactory explanation. The question, therefore, is whether these two circumstances cumulatively prove the offence against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Mr. Mohite, the learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sohel Mehaboob Shaikh Vs State of Maharashtra, (2009) 12 Supreme Court Cases 588. In the aforesaid case, the Supreme Court reversed the conviction of the accused which was based on three circumstances:- (i) deceased had met with an unnatural death; (ii) death of the deceased was in the room solely and exclusively occupied by her and her husband (appellant); and (iii) appellant had failed to offer any explanation in respect of burns sustained by the deceased. The Supreme Court after referring to the circumstances at paragraph 6 of the judgment has held as follows: "We have gone through the evidence on record and we find that the High Court has arrived at some conclusions which, in our opinion, are based on surmises and conjectures, without there being any evidence to support the conclusions. That being so, we find that the charge against the appellant has not been established." 8. The prosecution has also failed in establishing a motive that 16 apeal 201-04.doc the appellant was suspecting the fidelity of his wife or that he was suspecting that Archana had been pregnant prior to her marriage. There is no evidence to that effect. There is no evidence in respect of either any ill-treatment or demand for any dowry. Prosecution has failed to prove that the deceased was last seen left in company of the accused or that the accused was present in his house at about the time when the murders as alleged to have been committed. Two solitary circumstances, therefore, according to us are incapable of leading to inference that it is the accused and the accused alone who has