Case: Rau Chima Chougule Vs. State of Maharashtra

incident. Even so, there is convincing evidence on the record to show that the appellant was the only person in his one room tenement who had the opportunity to commit the two murders. He has admitted in his statement in the trial Court that while he and his daughter Sunita slept on the left of his one room tenement, his daughter Vijaya and his son-in-law Shivaji slept on the floor along with his daughter Sanjivani (PW 2). He has also admitted that a wick lamp was kept burning in the night and that Sanjivani had latched the door of the room from inside, before sleeping. He has also admitted that it was Sanjivani who removed the latch from inside when she went out at 4 a.m. along with Sunita. Sanjivani (PW 2) no doubt went against the prosecution case during the course of her testimony, and was allowed to be cross-examined. She however admitted that she had latched the door of the room from inside before sleeping, and that she removed the latch of the door when she and Sunita came out weeping. Much to the same effect is the statement of Sunita (PW 6). No evidence has been led in rebuttal so that there can be no doubt that the High Court rightly held that it was the appellant alone who had the opportunity to commit the two murders.9. The statements of Bapu Shinde (PW 7) and Waman Chavan (PW 8) also go to prove that the appellant met and told them soon after that he had killed his daughter and Shivaji with an axe and wanted to surrender at the police station, and that he was told by Bapu Shinde to go to the Juna Rajawada police station. Nothing has been solicited in the cross-examination of these witnesses to shake their testimony. The High Court has taken the view that they are both "witnesses of truth and that they could be safely relied upon" and without any reservation. There is no occasion for us to reassess the evidentiary value of their statements.10. Then there is the further fact that the appellant went to police station Juna Rajawada and surrendered there. This has been established not only by the statement of head constable Gajanan Salokhe (PW 17) but also by that portion of the appellants report (Ex. 36) which is admissible in evidence.11. It will be recalled that head constable Gajanan Salokhe seized blood-stained shirt (article 1), handkerchief (article 2), "banian" (article 3) and half-pant (article 4) from the person of the appellant and also took clippings of his nails (article 5) as they were also suspected to be stained with human blood. As has been stated, the chemical examination showed that while the appellants blood was of "A" group, the blood of his son-in-law Shivaji was of "AB" group and the blood of his daughter Vijaya was of "A" group. The appellants shirt and clippings of his nails were found to be stained with human blood of "AB" group, while his half-pant (article 3) was found to be stained with human blood of "A" group. The High Court was therefore quite justified in reaching the conclusion that it was the appellant who had committed the two murders.12. Then there is the evidence of Dr. Khare (PW 3) that when he examined the dead body of Shivaji he found that the head had been severed from the trunk and only a small tag of skin was bridging the head and trunk posteriorly. He has also stated that the injuries could have been caused by an axe. So also, there is the statement of Dr. Vasant Deshmukh (PW 4) that when she examined the dead body of Vijaya on June 12, 1975, she found two external injuries including a complete trans-section of the spinal cord at thoracic 2 level, and the fracture of ramus of the mandible. The medical evidence therefore also goes to prove the case of the prosecution.13. The appellant tried to suggest in his statement that he went to ease himself at about 4 a.m. and that someone entered his room in his absence and murdered his daughter and son-in-law. He also tried to establish from the statement of his other daughter Vatsala alias Kalpana that Vijaya was a girl of easy virtue. He tried to suggest that his clothes were stained with blood as they were hanging on the wall, on a nail. The High Court has considered the defence and has given adequate reasons for rejecting it.14. It would thus appear that there is no reason for us to interfere with the finding of the High Court and the conviction of the appellant for the offences under Section 302, IPC is fully justified.15. We have considered the question of sentence also. Here again the High Court has rightly taken into consideration the special reasons for confirming the sentence of death. The appellant lured his son-in-law Shivaji and his daughter Vijaya into the belief that they were happy and secure under his roof. They were living with him and Shivaji was giving even his daily earnings to him. The appellants daughter Sanjivani (PW 2) latched the door of the room inside, and Vijaya and Sanjivani therefore went to bed with a sense of security and protection under the appellants roof. The appellant, however, had decided to murder them. He killed them with an axe, and the intensity of the blows on vital parts of their bodies leaves no room for doubt that he had selected those parts for the attack. The murders were therefore not only preplanned and cold-blooded, but were acts of treachery of the "worst kind" as stated by the High Court. The appellant was not an immature person as he was 60 years old at the time of the commission of the murders, and we are unable to think that the High Court erred in taking the view that there were special which it has recorded, for imposing the extreme penalty of death.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]We have gone through the statements of Dhondiram (PW 9), Sanjivani (PW 2), head constable Ananda Salokhe (PW 21) of Radhanagari police station, the appellants complaint (Ex. 19) dated May 10, 1975 and his statement in the trial Court, and it appears that the finding of the High Court in this respect is quite justified. It is true that Shivaji was paying his daily earning to the appellant and was living with him along with his wife Vijaya, but he subsequent conduct of the appellant leaves no room for doubt that he was not reconciled to that state of affairs and was smarting under the humiliation caused by the conduct of the deceased.8. The High Court has left out of consideration the evidence regarding the sharpening of the axe by Dadoba Sutar (PW 14) and the statement of Maruti Patil (PW 16) that he went and asked Shivaji to return to the house early, for his meal, on the day of the incident. Even so, there is convincing evidence on the record to show that the appellant was the only person in his one room tenement who had the opportunity to commit the two murders. He has admitted in his statement in the trial Court that while he and his daughter Sunita slept on the left of his one room tenement, his daughter Vijaya and hisShivaji slept on the floor along with his daughter Sanjivani (PW 2). He has also admitted that a wick lamp was kept burning in the night and that Sanjivani had latched the door of the room from inside, before sleeping. He has also admitted that it was Sanjivani who removed the latch from inside when she went out at 4 a.m. along with Sunita. Sanjivani (PW 2) no doubt went against the prosecution case during the course of her testimony, and was allowed to beShe however admitted that she had latched the door of the room from inside before sleeping, and that she removed the latch of the door when she and Sunita came out weeping. Much to the same effect is the statement of Sunita (PW 6). No evidence has been led in rebuttal so that there can be no doubt that the High Court rightly held that it was the appellant alone who had the opportunity to commit the two murders.9. The statements of Bapu Shinde (PW 7) and Waman Chavan (PW 8) also go to prove that the appellant met and told them soon after that he had killed his daughter and Shivaji with an axe and wanted to surrender at the police station, and that he was told by Bapu Shinde to go to the Juna Rajawada police station. Nothing has been solicited in theof these witnesses to shake their testimony. The High Court has taken the view that they are both "witnesses of truth and that they could be safely relied upon" and without any reservation. There is no occasion for us to reassess the evidentiary value of their statements.10. Then there is the further fact that the appellant went to police station Juna Rajawada and surrendered there. This has been established not only by the statement of head constable Gajanan Salokhe (PW 17) but also by that portion of the appellants report (Ex. 36) which is admissible in evidence.11. It will be recalled that head constable Gajanan Salokhe seizedshirt (article 1), handkerchief (article 2), "banian" (article 3) and(article 4) from the person of the appellant and also took clippings of his nails (article 5) as they were also suspected to be stained with human blood. As has been stated, the chemical examination showed that while the appellants blood was of "A" group, the blood of hisShivaji was of "AB" group and the blood of his daughter Vijaya was of "A" group. The appellants shirt and clippings of his nails were found to be stained with human blood of "AB" group, while his(article 3) was found to be stained with human blood of "A" group. The High Court was therefore quite justified in reaching the conclusion that it was the appellant who had committed the two murders.It would thus appear that there is no reason for us to interfere with the finding of the High Court and the conviction of the appellant for the offences under Section 302, IPC is fully justified.15. We have considered the question of sentence also. Here again the High Court has rightly taken into consideration the special reasons for confirming the sentence of death. The appellant lured hisShivaji and his daughter Vijaya into the belief that they were happy and secure under his roof. They were living with him and Shivaji was giving even his daily earnings to him. The appellants daughter Sanjivani (PW 2) latched the door of the room inside, and Vijaya and Sanjivani therefore went to bed with a sense of security and protection under the appellants roof. The appellant, however, had decided to murder them. He killed them with an axe, and the intensity of the blows on vital parts of their bodies leaves no room for doubt that he had selected those parts for the attack. The murders were therefore not only preplanned andbut were acts of treachery of the "worst kind" as stated by the High Court. The appellant was not an immature person as he was 60 years old at the time of the commission of the murders, and we are unable to think that the High Court erred in taking the view that there were special which it has recorded, for imposing the extreme penalty of death.