Case: Shivnarayan Shamlal Kahar @ Gauda Vs. State of Maharashtra

Smt. Sadhana S. Jadhav, J.The appellant herein stands convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 302 and 404 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and fine of Rs.15,000/- in default to undergo R.I. for three years by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Gr. Bombay, in Sessions Case No.979 of 1999 by a Judgment and order dated 6.7.2002. Being aggrieved, the appellant has filed the present Appeal.2. Such of the facts, which are necessary for the decision of this Appeal, are as follows :-The accused-appellant was working in a firm, namely, "Chandrakant Marble Company", situated behind Kastur Park, Shivaji Nagar, Shimpoli Road, Borivali (West), Mumbai 400 092. The said company was run by one Ponnu Swami along with his brother Chelladurai. The said company deals in selling Marble, Kadappa and Kota stone. There were about 8 - 9 workers in the said company besides the accused. The appellant was working in the said company for about 8 years and was doing the work of polishing stones. At the request of the appellant, he was permitted by the owner to reside in the premises of the company and he used to look after the company premises in the absence of the owner. The accused-appellant was residing with his younger brother Aklesh Kahar, who was doing the business of selling vegetables. One Laxmi, wife of Laxman Posanna Acchhe (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) was residing in a hut which was situated near the said company. Her husband was doing the job of autorickshaw driver. She was employed as a temporary sweeper in Shimpoli Telephone Exchange, which is also situated near the hut of the deceased. One Subhash Shinde was working as a Security Officer at Shimpoli Telephone Exchange.In the month of May, 1999, the children of the deceased had been to their native place. Laxman had been to the native place to fetch his children and at that time the deceased was residing alone in the hut. She had not attended the duty at Shimpoli Telephone Exchange on 21.5.1999. On 22.5.1999, she attended the duty for some time and as she was not feeling well, she informed the Security Officer and left the office.On 23.5.1999, Chelladurai i.e. PW-1 attended the company at around 8.20 a.m. He assigned the work to the labourers and gave them instructions in respect of delivery of marble and other stones to the respective customers. The labourers had proceeded to remove the stones. At that time, one of the workers, namely, Dilip went to bring Kadappa stone. He returned in a frightened condition and informed Chelladurai that a body was lying under the Kadappa stone. It was the body of a female. It was in a naked condition which was covered with a bedsheet and other clothes. It was apparent that she was ravished before her death. Chelladurai immediately telephonically informed Ponnu Swami, who instructed Chelladurai to approach the police station and lodge a report. Chelladurai then went to the Borivali Police Station at about 8.45 p.m. to 8.50 p.m. API Bhoj was on duty. He recorded the report of Chelladurai and on the basis of the said report, Crime No.187/1999 was registered for an offence punishable under Sections 302 and 376 of IPC. Investigation was set in motion. In the course of inquiry, it was revealed that the accused-appellant was missing since morning. On further enquiry, it was revealed that he had been to the house of Rajeshkumar Kahar at Santacrtuz. The accused was arrested on 24.5.1999. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed on 15.7.1999. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and registered as Sessions Case No.979 of 1999. The prosecution has examined 15 witnesses to bring home the guilt to the accused.3. PW-1 Chelladurai is the proprietor of the firm Chandrakant & Co. He has deposed before the Court that the accused Shivnarayan was doing work of polishing in the company and as he was not having any other place to reside, he was permitted to reside in the premise. According to him, on 23.5.1999, he reached the company at about 8.20 a.m. He assigned the work to respective labourers. When Dilip had been to remove Kadappa stone, he returned and informed that there was a dead body lying below Kadappa stone. On instructions of his brother, PW-1 approached the police station. Police Inspector and constables arrived at the site along with PW-1. They have taken the photographs. The dead body was denuded of the clothes and was covered by Salvar Kamiz. The statement of PW-1 was recorded which was treated as First Information Report. PW-1 was declared hostile by the prosecution as he had not deposed before the Court that he had identified the dead body to be that of Laxmi who was residing in the hutment area near the company.4. PW-2 Ponnu Swami is the brother of PW-1. He has deposed before the Court that on 23.5.1999, his brother had informed him that a dead body was found lying under the stone. He has instructed PW-1 to lodge a report. PW-2 reached the Company about 9.30 a.m. At that time, the police were preparing the panchnama. PW-2 identified the dead body as that of a lady who was residing near the company and he used to go to the company for taking water.5. PW-3 Raju Sufayya was also working for the company of PW2. He has deposed that on one day in the morning at 6 a.m. Shivnarayan came to him and informed him that he was going to his native place as his father was ill. While leaving, Shivnarayan had a table fan in one hand and one suitcase and one bag in the other. He was going to Santacruz. PW-1 had seen the lady six days before the incident, but was not knowing her. According to him, she was residing in the nearby hutment.6. PW-4 Purushottam Parekh is the panch for the panchnama of the hut of Laxmi. He has deposed before the Court that on 23.5.1999, at about 11.30 a.m. to 12.00 noon, he was requested by the police to act as a panch. He obliged. When he went to the hut, he was told that murder had taken place in that house and he was to act as a panch to the panchnama of that house. When he went inside the hut, he noticed that there were blood stains on the floor of the house. There was a cupboard in the house. Police opened the cupboard and found a ration card and one photograph of the deceased. The ration card and the photograph were in one cover. It is elicited in the cross-examination that PW-4 runs a saloon on the road on Bakda near the company. His workplace is at a distance of two minutes by walk from the company. According to him, on 23.5.1999, at about 10.30 to 10.45 a.m., one boy had informed him that the police had gathered at the spot and murder had taken place. It is further elicited that the owner of the land on which marble company is situated is of Chandrakant Gavand. The son of Chandrakant Gavand, namely Ajay Gotya is the owner of the entire land. He has further deposed that the entire hut from all sides was made up of plastic. The door of that hut was open. The hut was surrounded by 4 - 5 huts which were occupied by the hutment-dwellers. The hut and the place where the body was lying are nearby to each other. The floor of that hut was of mud. The police had not taken blood samples. The recitals of the panchnama at Ex.12 show that there were dry blood stains on the floor of the house. The body was lying on the floor and on the western side. There were ample liquor bottles. PW-4 has denied having seen empty liquor bottles. PW-4 has further denied that he knew that lady laxmi as she was previously residing in his neighbourhood at Ganesh Nagar.7. PW-5 Subhash Shinde was working as Security Officer at Shimpoli Telephone Exchange. According to him, on 12.5.1999, Laxmi had not attended the duty. On 22.5.1999, she came in the morning, but she informed him that she was not keeping well and therefore left the premises. On 22.5.1999, her husband Laxman had telephoned from his native place. Laxmi was not on duty and therefore, PW-5 had received the phone. He had informed her husband that Laxmi had not attended the office on 21.5.99 and she had left the office early as she was not well. Her husband had left the message for her to call him on the next day. On 22.5.1999, the police visited the Telephone Exchange office and instructed PW-5 to inform the husband of Laxmi that he should return immediately. Accordingly, when the telephone came of the husband of Laxmi, he gave the said message. The husband of Laxmi came to Mumbai on the next day. He met PW-5. He informed him to go to the police Station.8. PW-6 Shankar Aadke was also working in Chandrakant Marble Co. PW-6 Shankar Aadke was a co-worker with the accused. He is a panch for Exhibit 15 for recovery of clothes of the accused and one packet of condoms. He has been declared hostile.9. PW-7 Janak Vora is the panch for recovery of a bag at the instance of the accused from the house of Rajesh Kehar who happens to be the cousin of the accused. He is also a panch to the recovery of the articles from the accused i.e. three yellow coloured bangles, one pair of earrings and three stones wearing item for the ear which were found in the clothes of the accused and which were packed in a bag. He has identified the articles which were seized under a recovery panchnama. According to him, he supplies water through tanker. On the day when he acted as a panch, he had gone to Shimpoli to supply water. At that time his driver had hit one rickhsaw. There was a quarrel between them. There was bargaining about compensation and then they ultimately settled the dispute among themselves. When they were standing on the gate, two constables came there and asked them to accompany to Borivli Police Station to act as a panch. It is elicited in the cross-examination that he had signed only once on the panchnama and then he had signed on 5 to 6 lables.10. PW-8 Aruldas is a panch for the inquest panchnama. He was also employed in the said company. He was working as a Supervisor in the company. It is elicited in the cross-examination that deceased was residing in the hutment adjacent to the company. He has admitted that he had seen the dead body before arrival of police. According to him, a rose flower was placed on the body. The dead body was lying in the compound of the company. The distance between the place where the body was lying and the house of that lady was about 20 to 25 metres. He has admitted that he had not read the panchnama as he does not know Marathi.11. PW-9 Dr. Vithal Vihurkar has performed the autopsy on the dead body of deceased Laxmi. The post-mortem notes are at Ex.24. The cause of death is suffocation due to smothering with sexual assault. The postmortem was conducted on 25.5.1999 between 1 p.m. and 2.35 p.m. The Regar Mortis was well marked over the whole body. PW-9 has stated in his cross-examination that the body remains in the same state of Regar Mortis for 10 to 12 hours. The presence of Regar Mortis would show that the person has died within 12 - 24 hours. The doctor has stated before the Court that the body of Laxmi was received on 23.5.1999 at 4.30 p.m. under ADR 109/1999,. The post-mortem was carried on 25.5.99. he has opined that the cause of death is suffocation due to smothering with sexual assault. The doctor has further opined that the victim had not sustained any incised wound. The doctor has also opined that there was no semen found in the private part i. e. because of the condom which was used. The doctor has further opined that there was some resistance by the victim in the present case.12. PW-10 Laxman Acchhe, who happens to be the husband of the deceased. According to him, he had been to his village Revanapalli in Andhra Pradesh on 16.5.1999 to bring back his children who had gone to spend their vacation. He had telephoned his wife and informed her that he would return within two days. He had telephoned on 24.5.1999, it was Monday and at that time he was informed that his wife had not attended her work. He had rushed to Mumbai upon learning about the illness of his wife. However, when he went to Borivli Police Station, he was informed that his wife had died. He had shown three bangles and two ears studs and one red colour stone stud.13. It is elicited in the cross-examination of P.W. 10 that his wife (deceased) was very beautiful. He has stated that his wife never complained to him that boys in the said locality had teased her. It is further elicited in the cross-examination that the police had shown him the articles and informed him that they belong to his wife.14. P.W. 11 Dr. Vijay Kelwekar has examined the accused on 25/5/1999. The doctor recorded the finding that the absence of smegma indicates that he had sexual intercourse within 25 hours. We cannot be oblivious of the fact that the incident is dated 22/5/1999 and the accused was examined by the Doctor on 25/5/1999. On perusal of the CA report wherein glans washing were sent for chemical examination, the finding is "neither semen nor vaginal fluid is detected."15. P.W. 12 Rajeshkumar Kahar is the relative of the accused. He has deposed before the Court that on 23/5/1999, the accused and his brother had come to his house at about 9 a.m.. They had come with a bag. Upon enquiry the accused had disclosed that he had a quarrel with his mater and was therefore, going to village alongwith his brother. According to P.W. 12, the accused and his brother had visited his house because they had missed their train and had decided to go by Dadar-Gorakhpur Express on the next day. They halted in the house of P.W. 12. On 24/5/1999 police came to his house in the midnight and enquired about the accused and his brother and had taken the accused and his brother into custody. Thereafter, on 24/5/1999 at about 7 p.m. the police had again visited the house of P.W. 12 alongwith accused. At that time the accused was handcuffed. The police seized the bag and contents of the bag including the clothes of the accused, two money order receipts, one bill, 3 bangles, one pair of earing, one piece of earing in red stone. It is elicited in the cross-examination that Dadar-Gorakhpur Express leaves Mumbai at 6.45 or 6.55 a.m. There is train which leaves Mumbai for Varanasi at 12 midnight. The police had recorded the statement of P.W. 12 on 24/5/1999 at 7.30 p.m. The police had visited his house in civil dress. That the accused had visited his house with only one bag. It is elicited in the cross-examination that only because the accused was brought handcuffed, he guessed that they were police officers. He could not tell before the Court the description of the panchas who accompanied the police. P.W. 12 had not seen Hanuman Chalisa being seized from the rear side pocket of pant but according to him four notes of ten rupees denomination were seized. He has further reiterated that the police people had taken away all the articles from his house.16. P.W.13 Aklesh Kahar is the brother of the accused. He has been declared hostile. In the cross-examination the prosecution has elicited that on 23/5/1999 at 6 a.m. when P.W. 13 woke up, Shivnarayan was sleeping by his side. P.W. 13 has denied having stated before the police that Shivnarayan suddenly got up in the morning and told him that we have to leave for village. He has further stated before the Court that he was detained for two days at the police station. After his brother was taken away, he was released by the police.17. P.W.14 Murlidhar Bhoj was attached as PSI to Borivali Police Station. On 23/5/1999 at about 9.15 a.m. M. Chelladurai had come to the police station and lodged the report that on the east side of Chandrakant Marble Company a dead body of a lady was found in the marble. P.W. 14 recorded the complaint and registered crime No.187/99 under Section 302 and Section 376 of Indian Penal Code. He has admitted in the cross-examination that he left Borivali Station at about 10.05 a.m. and reached the scene of offence at 10.15 a.m. He had drawn the panchanama at 10.20 a.m. Kadappa stone was removed with the help of police constables and workers. It is pertinent to note that he had not seen any blood stains on the Kadappa stone and therefore he had not seized the Kadappa stone.18. P.W. 15 Vasantrao Jadhav is the investigating officer of the said crime. He has deposed before the Court that he had prepared the panchanama of the nearest hut from the Marble company and the hut belongs to deceased Laxmi. From the hut he had seized one album of different photographs. He has identified the album in the court. He has also seized one copy of ration card and a blue packet containing photograph of the deceased. He had also recovered one condom, under garments, salwar, kurta, one piece of earing, blue colour bed sheet. On the next day on the basis of reliable information, he had nabbed the accused who according to him was to flee from Mumbai. P.W. 15 had filed charge-sheet against the accused. In the cross-examination P.W. 15 has stated that there were blood-stains on the Kadappa stone but he had not collected the blood samples. There were blood-stains on the ground. However, he had not taken the mud sample. This version is contradictory to the version of P.W. 14. P.W. 15 has further stated that the distance between the hut of deceased and the place where the body was lying is about 100 ft. There is a small way for access from the hut to the marble company. There were blood stains on the ground in the hut. There was a liquor bottle in the hut. The hut is made up of a plastic sheet. The door was open and anyone could have access. Upon enquiry P.W. 2 had disclosed to P.W. 15 that one Gotya Seth was the owner of that hut. P.W. 15 had feigned ignorance about Gotyasheth. It is pertinent to note that according to P.W. 15, the clothes which were seized under the panchanama were sent for chemical analysis after 5 to 6 days and during that period they were lying in the police station. P.W. 15 has further stated that the dead body was handed over to the husband of the deceased on 25/5/1999.19. It is a case of circumstantial evidence. It is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove every incriminating circumstance against the accused to the hilt. It is also incumbent upon the prosecution to establish the link in the chain of evidence to eliminate any and every possibility of the innocence of the accused. In the present case, the prosecution has proved the following circumstances :(i) That Shivnarayan and his brother were residing in Chandrakant Marbles Company;(ii) Shivnarayan was working as a labour in the said company.(iii) On 23/5/1999 the accused had left the premises of the company and was apprehended by the police from the house of his cousin.(iv) That the deceased Laxmi is the wife of Laxman Acche.(v) That she was residing at a distance of 100 ft. from the company.(vi) That she had been ravished and died a homicidal death.(vii) The dead body was found in the south-east corner of Chandrakant Marble Company.(viii) According to investigating officer he had conducted a detail enquiry and in the course of enquiry he had noticed blood-stains in the hut as also liquor bottle in the hut. The investigating officer had seized ration card and photographs of the deceased.20. The prosecution has failed to establish the scene of offence. Although the dead body was found in the Chandrakant Marble Company, the blood-stains, liquor bottle and a packet of condom were seized from the hut of the deceased. Upon perusal of evidence it appears that in fact no incident had taken place in the hut and therefore, the prosecution has failed to establish as to where exactly the incident had occurred. The prosecution is unable to answer as to where the act of ravishing or causing the death had occurred in the premises of the company or the hut. The fact that the accused was handcuffed would again create the doubt in respect of recovery of the ornaments which were seized. In fact, the police had found the articles of its own and there was no memorandum to that effect. Hence, the evidence in respect of recovery of incriminating articles cannot be considered in the absence of substantive evidence to that effect. The accused was arrested from the house of his cousin. There is nothing on record to indicate that the accused was ever seen in the company of the deceased. Much less to say that he was seen with the deceased in close proximity to the incident. The only circumstance is the act of the accused leaving the company in the morning. The said circumstance by itself is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and hence, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt.

Decision reasoning: 1[ds]19. It is a case of circumstantial evidence. It is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove every incriminating circumstance against the accused to the hilt. It is also incumbent upon the prosecution to establish the link in the chain of evidence to eliminate any and every possibility of the innocence of the accused. In the present case, the prosecution has proved the following circumstances :(i) That Shivnarayan and his brother were residing in Chandrakant Marbles Company;(ii) Shivnarayan was working as a labour in the said company.(iii) On 23/5/1999 the accused had left the premises of the company and was apprehended by the police from the house of his cousin.(iv) That the deceased Laxmi is the wife of Laxman Acche.(v) That she was residing at a distance of 100 ft. from the company.(vi) That she had been ravished and died a homicidal death.(vii) The dead body was found in thecorner of Chandrakant Marble Company.(viii) According to investigating officer he had conducted a detail enquiry and in the course of enquiry he had noticedin the hut as also liquor bottle in the hut. The investigating officer had seized ration card and photographs of the deceased.20. The prosecution has failed to establish the scene of offence. Although the dead body was found in the Chandrakant Marble Company, theliquor bottle and a packet of condom were seized from the hut of the deceased. Upon perusal of evidence it appears that in fact no incident had taken place in the hut and therefore, the prosecution has failed to establish as to where exactly the incident had occurred. The prosecution is unable to answer as to where the act of ravishing or causing the death had occurred in the premises of the company or the hut. The fact that the accused was handcuffed would again create the doubt in respect of recovery of the ornaments which were seized. In fact, the police had found the articles of its own and there was no memorandum to that effect. Hence, the evidence in respect of recovery of incriminating articles cannot be considered in the absence of substantive evidence to that effect. The accused was arrested from the house of his cousin. There is nothing on record to indicate that the accused was ever seen in the company of the deceased. Much less to say that he was seen with the deceased in close proximity to the incident. The only circumstance is the act of the accused leaving the company in the morning. The said circumstance by itself is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and hence, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt.