Case: Ganeshlal Vs. State Of Maharashtra

appellants mother, sister and father sitting. On enquiry they did not speak anything but directed to go upstairs. When he went, he saw the body of the deceased in the room burning. The only omission in his statement under S. 161, Cr.P.C. was regarding his asking the mother and sister of the appellant and their directions to go to the upstairs. He admitted that his shop belongs to P.W. 5s family. Admittedly he took had no enmity with the appellant or his family, nor even suggested. As stated earlier, the family of P.W.- 5 had also no enmity. Under these circumstances P.W.- 5 being also an independent witness, his evidence inspires confidence to believe him as a truthful witness. The High Court was right in believing his evidence. From the evidence of P.W.- 6 and P.W.- 8 it is clear that the appellant was falsely exclaiming that there was a short circuit and requesting the people to save them. At the same time he was preventing the people from getting into the house. They saw the appellant and other accused in the house without attempting to save the life of Kanchana. It may be relevant to state that the earliest version of A. 6 in Ex. 73 report given to the police was that the deceased was drying the clothes at that time. Due to short circuit she received shock and died. This theory is now found to be false from the evidence of P.W. 10, the Electrical Engineer. It is also now not set up as defence even before us. Evidence of P.W. 7, the Panch witness, and Asstt. Sub-Inspector, P.W.- 14, P.W.- 6 and P.W.- 8 clearly establishes that in the room on the third floor, the deceased was seen burning and that the door was open from outside. The contention that the deceased had access to open another door from inside into the stair-case from the room and that it is not a case of homicide, is false in view of the facts narrated hereinbefore. 11. From this evidence it is clear that the accused-appellant and his family members were present in the house at the time when the deceased was burning due to fire lit after pouring kerosene on her and they made on attempt to save her. The contention that the Doctor had stated that the death was in-stantaneous and nothing was left for the appellant and the other family members to save her, is unacceptable. The normal ordinary human conduct would be that when one of their inmates, namely Kanchana was in flames, they would have made every endeavour to save her life, if it were a case of suicide, and call the people to come to their rescue to save her life or at least would have sought first aid from P.W. 6, who is next door neighbour, to save the life of the deceased. No such attempt was made nor even attempted. On the other hand the appellants earliest attempt was to misguide that Kanchana died due to short circuit. This attempt was burried fathom deep from the evidence of P.W. 10, Elec. Engineer. Then set up the plea of suicide. We have Ex. 73, the first information report, immediately lodged by A-6 with the police. We need not go into the question as to what extent the admission by a co-accused would be used against the appellant. Suffice it to state that in his examination under S. 313, Cr.P.C., the appellant admitted that A-6 went to the police station and gave FIR Ex-73, to the Head Constable, P.W.- 11 and that A-6 stated that the deceased caught fire while she was handing the wet clothes for drying, due to short circuit, In Ex.- 73, it was also stated that this information was conveyed by the appellant himself. This admission is not only a relevant fact under S. 8 of Evidence Act as a res gestae but a most important circumstance against the appellant. The indifferent and hard hearted conduct are also important circumstances. It was also admitted that the walls in the room became blackish due to smoke. It is settled law that the conduct of an accused is an offence previous and subsequent to the crime are relevant facts. Absence of any attempt to save the life of the deceased Kanchana while she was burning and was charred to death, their conduct in not attempting to give any medical aid, the conduct of the appellant immediately after the deceased was soaked with kerosene and litting fire after closing the door A. 6 obviously opened it after ensuring that the she had died, the appellants coming down and standing at the grill gate on ground floor; the appellant shouted that uncle A. 6 should close down falsely proclaimed that there was short circuit; implying to scare away the people from attempting to save Kanchana. There are most telling and relevant crucial facts apart from repulsive inhuman conduct. The false plea of suicide is yet another relevant fact. When the death had occurred in their custody the appellant is under an obligation in S. 313, Cr.P.C. statement at least to give plausible explanation for the cause of her death. No such attempt was even made excepting denying the prosecution case. These facts completely are inconsistent with the innocence, but consistent with the hypothesis that the appellant is a prime accused in the commission of gruesome murder of his wife. The circumstantial evidence thus discussed is complete and consistent with the only conclusion that the inmates alone among them. 12. The evidence on recorded does establish that more than one would be participants to murder Kanchana. The absence of an appeal against acquittal of A-1 and A-3 to A-6, namely, Hiralal, Ayodhyabai, Premlata, Aruna and Rameshwar, all of them or who among them shared common intention with the appellant is obviated. The appellant is the principle perpetrator of the crime or one among the accused that shared common intention to murder Kanchana. The

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

Explanation:
1[ds]find no force in the contention. It is true that the record now placed before us would show that way back in 1984 as Asstt. Govt. Pleader, Shri Desai appeared against the appellant in a bail application and other proceedings. Might be that the learned Judge had forgotten about his appearing against the appellant. It might also be possible that it was not brought to his notice when the Bench heard the appeal. Finding that the matter went against the appellant, he turned round and desperately raised the contention. However, to remove the feeling of injustice due to above factor and to satisfy ourselves of the merits, we have heard the appeal as if it is a first appeal against the judgment of the Sessions Court.contention that no kerosene was found in any other parts; the doors to the room from stairs was not closed from outside in case of murder she should have run away from the room opening the latch; she was determined to commit suicide of humiliation caused to her and P.W. 5 Vanmala her sister in not allowing her to go to P.W. 5s house and that there were no signs of external injuries and, therefore, the death was due to suicide is fallacious and the High Court has rightly negatived theThe next contention that the prosecution all through proceeded with the assumption that the accused abeted suicide, punishable under S. 306, I.P.C. and that, therefore, it is not a case of murder has no substance.It is true as contended for the appellant that the evidence on record is not sufficient to arrive at an immediate motive to commit the crime and the case depends on circumstantial evidence. But in circumstantial evidence also when the facts are clear it is immaterial that no motive has been proved. Men do not act wholly without motive. Failure to discover the motive of the offence does not signify the non-existence of the crime. The failure to discover motive by appropriate clinching evidence may be a weakness in the proof of the prosecution case, but it is not necessarily fatal as a matter of law. Proof of motive is never an indispensable factor for conviction.The evidence on recorded does establish that more than one would be participants to murder Kanchana. The absence of an appeal against acquittal of A-1 and A-3 to A-6, namely, Hiralal, Ayodhyabai, Premlata, Aruna and Rameshwar, all of them or who among them shared common intention with the appellant is obviated. The appellant is the principle perpetrator of the crime or one among the accused that shared common intention to murder Kanchana.