1 Appln422.11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.422 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.149 OF 2011 KJ Ramtilak Chottelal Dhuria )..Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra )..Respondents ---- Mr.Prashant Gurav for the applicant. Mr.P. S.Hingorani APP for the State. ---- CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL & MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ DATE : 13/6/2011. PC 1 Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned APP for the State. 2 The applicant was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 & 449 of IPC and under Section 135 read with 37(1) of Bombay Police Act, by the Additional Sessions Judge, 2 Appln422.11.sxw Greater Bombay, by a judgment and order delivered on 21st & 24th November, 2008 in Sessions Case No.832 of 2007. 3 The appeal filed by the appellant was admitted by the Division Bench of this Court on 9.2.2011. Paper book was directed to be expedited. 4 The prosecution alleges that the applicant along with others were working in a company viz. Shubhlin Synthetics India Private Limited situated in a building no.1-A, 1st floor, room no.8, Bhuleshwar, Bombay-2. The company was dealing with the manufacturing of garments and sale thereof through-out India. The applicant was serving as a Peon. The deceased Mangalkumar Zawar and Mohitkumar Duggad and one Rajendra Kumar Parekh and Bajranglal Kumavat were staying in the office premises as they did not have any premises to reside. Even the applicant used to stay in the said office on account of holidays and for completing the excess work. 3 Appln422.11.sxw 5 It is alleged that on 20.6.2007 Rajendra Kumar Parekh had been to Rajasthan on account of private work and Bajranglal Kumavat had been at Agartala and Calcutta on account of office work. On 22.6.2007 the staff attended the office till 9.00 p.m. Thereafter, deceased Mangalkumar Zawar and Mohit Kumar Duggad stayed in the office over night. On 23.6.2007 at about 9.15 a.m accused made a phone call to the informant about office being locked from inside and not being opened despite door bell was used and door was knocked. At about 9.30 a.m the informant reached the office, opened the lock by means of keys possessed by him. At that time, applicant/accused & other staff were present. They found two dead bodies, one of Mangalkumar Zavar and another of Mohit Kumar Duggad lying in the passage of the shop in pool of blood. They had sustained severe injuries. Their clothes had blood stains. On information, police reached the spot. Statement of PW-1 Bhavarlal Ravatmal Singh was recorded and crime was registered against un-known persons. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed and applicant was tried. 4 Appln422.11.sxw 6 Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the entire prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence and there is no motive. The alleged recovery made by the police do not corroborate the prosecution case of PW-5 Pankajkumar Ashok Sen and PW-6 Nerali Maruti Jadhav have been planted to depose against him. Chemical Analyser’s report does not corroborate the prosecution theory. Blood group `O’ was found on the clothes of the applicant. Blood group of the applicant is said to be `A’. Learned Counsel referred to evidence of the prosecution witnesses viz. PW-5 Pankajkumar Ashok Sen, PW-6 Nerali Maruti Jadhav, PW-8 Ms. Rushali Kurshna Bane and PW-10 Dr. Sachin Shivaji Sonawne. 7 Learned APP submits that there is strong evidence against the applicant. There is evidence of last seen of the applicant along with the deceased who were sleeping in the office. The evidence of finger print expert goes against the applicant. The doctor who conducted the post mortems on the body of the deceased, was examined. According to the learned APP there is a motive of 5 Appln422.11.sxw involvement of lady staff member with whom the applicant was very close. The said lady staff member was also examined being PW-8 Ms.Rushali Kurshna Bane. 8 We have perused the evidence on record, observations made by the trial Court and considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the applicant as well as learned APP for the State. 9 Prima facie we find that this case is based on circumstantial evidence. The evidence of PW-8 Ms.Rushali Kurshna Bane, was a co-employee of the applicant and the deceased. She deposed in her examination-in-chief that the accused used to stay in the office. She was having cordial relations with the accused and the deceased. She further stated that whenever accused used to sit near her out of fun and mischief, they used to fight with her. This fact was brought to the notice of Accountant Rajendra Parikh. Deceased were warned. Once or twice accused instructed her not to allow the deceased to take liberties with her. Witness stated 6 Appln422.11.sxw that there was rumor in the office that accused was having love affair with the witness. 10 PW-5 Pankajkumar Ashok Sen, the watchman claims to have seen the applicant coming out of the office and going out. He was having one cloth bag. He identified the applicant. PW-10 Dr. Sachin Shivaji Sonawne described the injuries suffered by the deceased. There were several injuries suffered by the deceased. They were serious. According to the Doctor, the cause of death was “haemorrhage and shock due to multiple stab injuries”. He stated that death in case of both the deceased persons had taken place within 24 to 36 hours from conducting post mortem examination. 11 We have considered the evidence on record, submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the applicant as well as learned APP for the State. Prima facie, we find that there is good evidence. Evidence of last seen together, evidence of purchasing knife on the earlier date. For the purposes of establishing the 7 Appln422.11.sxw motive, the evidence of PW-8 Ms.Rushali Kurshna Bane is led by the prosecution. There are recoveries at the instance of the applicant. Corroborative circumstances prima facie indicate involvement of the accused. 12 At this stage, it is not proper to scan the evidence. After recording evidence by the trial Court reached the conclusion to convict the accused. The applicant was in jail during trial since 2007. It is informed by the registry that paper book is already prepared. Considering these facts and circumstances, we are not inclined to release the applicant on bail. Application is therefore, rejected. (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J) (NARESH H.PATIL,J)