Case: Varsha Vs. State of Maharashtra

Baba on 8.6.1997 at about 04.00 p.m. and also at about 09.30 p.m. he had seen Baba and Namdeo going on vehicle (Kawasaki Bajaj). On the next day morning at 07.00 a.m. accused No.1 Namdeo was seen telling accused No.2, "our work is completed" before leaving on his vehicle. PW 9 Ramdas (brother-in-law of deceased) also deposed having seen accused no.1 Namdeo and deceased Baba at Gadchandur on 8.6.1997 while they were going on vehicle belonging to Namdeo (accused No.1) who was driving while Baba was pillion rider on the vehicle. PW 9 Ramdas was waiting for truck at Gadchandur for going to Nanda. PW 9 also deposed about love affair between accused No.1 Namdeo and accused no.2 Varsha and that he had told Baba once or twice to give understanding to his wife (accused no.2 Varsha).All these witnesses were cross-examined in detail but their evidence in the main remained unshattered barring minor discrepancies here or there. Thus, the prosecution led evidence that the deceased Baba was seen in the company of accused No.1 Namdeo prior to the incident of murder as also about motive which accused No.1 and accused No.2 had to eliminate deceased Baba from their way of illicit relations. The criticism that all these witnesses were partisan and interested in conviction of the appellants, has no sound basis.14. The prosecution appears to have further bolstered up its case by adducing evidence as to recovery of incriminating articles. PW 4 Anil although declared hostile by the prosecution, admitted that accused No.1 was arrested and seizure panchanama (exhibit 29) shown to him borne his signature. Blood stained shirt and pant were seized. C.A. Report indicating that said articles sent as exhibits 12 and 13 were found stained with human blood group "B". The accused No.1 Namdeo and deceased Baba were found having the same blood group "B", but the accused No.1 Namdeo when he was arrested soon after the incident had no injury at all so as to explain otherwise the blood stains found on his clothes. No explanation was adduced by accused No.1 Namdeo as he chose to adopt defence of total denial. No marks of any injury were found on his body when accused No.1 Namdeo was arrested under panchanama (exhibit 27). There is no explanation given by accused No.1 Namdeo about blood stains detected on his clothes belonging human blood group of "B".15. Accused no.1 Namdeo was found in possession of incriminating articles. PW 6 Devidas deposed about discovery at the instance of accused No.1 Namdeo of the weapon of offence from his residence. The knife (suri), weapon of offence, seized under panchanama (exhibit 23) was also referred to chemical analyser and it was reported that it was found with human blood stains of "B" group. The motor-cycle, Kawasaki Bajaj, which accused No.1 Namdeo found possessed lent further corroboration to the evidence of PW 7 to PW 9, witnesses who had seen deceased Baba in the company of accused no.1 Namdeo while they both were travelling by motor-cycle Kawasaki Bajaj to which PW 9 specifically referred. The said motor-cycle was claimed by accused No.1 Namdeo during pendency of case, leather packet cover and rubber grips of the motor-cycle were seized and sent to chemical analyser which were reportedly found stained with human blood; so also sample of earth collected from the spot of offence.16. Photographs along with negatives, three greeting cards, handwritten chits, blue film video cassette seized and watched under separate panchanama such articles seized at the instance of accused No.1 Namdeo is evidence of tell-a-tale effect when read along with evidence of handwriting expert (PW 15) reliably indicating the nature of illicit relations which accused No.1 and accused no.2 had developed between themselves with strong motive to eliminate deceased Baba (who was husband of accused No.2 Varsha). Thus, evidence of discovery pursuant to disclosure statement by accused No.1 is very relevant throwing light on motive to commit murder and incriminating against both the accused (appellants) particularly when both the accused chose to deny relevant facts which had been conclusively established. The trial Court was justified to draw inference of guilt.17. Minor variances which were natural in evidence of rustic witnesses from village who were subjected to skillful and refined cross-examination by defence counsel are, according to us, not material discrepancies on vital particulars of circumstances established so as to upset the conviction which has been recorded by the trial Court by reasoned and detailed judgment. The Court has to make efforts to separate grain from the chalf. Variances on the fringes, discrepancies in details, contradictions in narrations and embelishments in inessential parts cannot militate against the core of testimonies giving impression of truth and conformity to probability or inescapable inference as to crime and animus of accused. Every circumstance established by the prosecution including "last seen together" are clear and cogent and all are incompatible with innocence of both the accused who were in illicit relationship with each other and were motivated in company with each other to eliminate deceased Baba. The evidence disclosing that accused no.1 met accused No.2 after the incident to tell her that "their work is completed" is also clinching evidence to exclude possibility of any one else being real culprits except the accused/ appellants herein. The circumstances relied upon by the trial Court are, in our opinion, reliable and cogent to enable a conclusion of guilt as they were consistent with hypothesis of guilt and inconsistent with innocence. They also excluded possibility of guilt of any other person than the accused and do prove guilt of both the accused beyond reasonable doubt as the totality of circumstances formed a chain so complete that there was no scope for any other conclusion except that the crime was committed by accused No.1 and accused No.2 in conspiracy with each other. Therefore, in our opinion, both the accused were rightly convicted by the trial Court of offence of murder in conspiracy with each other. We do not find merit in the appeals.

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

Explanation:
0[ds]We do not find any sound or rational reason to upset the verdict impugned herein. After hearing submissions at the bar and perusing entire material on record, in our judgment the appeals have to be dismissed for the followingHazaray has deposed that all injuries described by him in thereport were possible by the weapon viz. dagger (Article D) which was shown to him. He deposed that cause of death of deceased Baba was shock due to haemorrhage on account of injuries described in column Nos.17 and 18 of themreport, reproduced above. It is thus sufficiently established on record that death of Baba was homicidal and it was neither accidental nor suicidal. Init was clarified further that the external injuries and internal injuries were corresponding and injuries No.4, 5, 6 and 11 were singly as well as collectively dangerous for life.12. Although there is no direct evidence about the incident of murder of Baba, there is strong circumstantial evidence forming chain of events leading to the inescapable conclusion as to the guilt of the accused Nos.1 andevidence of discovery pursuant to disclosure statement by accused No.1 is very relevant throwing light on motive to commit murder and incriminating against both the accused (appellants) particularly when both the accused chose to deny relevant facts which had been conclusively established. The trial Court was justified to draw inference of guilt.17. Minor variances which were natural in evidence of rustic witnesses from village who were subjected to skillful and refinedby defence counsel are, according to us, not material discrepancies on vital particulars of circumstances established so as to upset the conviction which has been recorded by the trial Court by reasoned and detailed judgment. The Court has to make efforts to separate grain from the chalf. Variances on the fringes, discrepancies in details, contradictions in narrations and embelishments in inessential parts cannot militate against the core of testimonies giving impression of truth and conformity to probability or inescapable inference as to crime and animus of accused. Every circumstance established by the prosecution including "last seen together" are clear and cogent and all are incompatible with innocence of both the accused who were in illicit relationship with each other and were motivated in company with each other to eliminate deceased Baba. The evidence disclosing that accused no.1 met accused No.2 after the incident to tell her that "their work is completed" is also clinching evidence to exclude possibility of any one else being real culprits except the accused/ appellants herein. The circumstances relied upon by the trial Court are, in our opinion, reliable and cogent to enable a conclusion of guilt as they were consistent with hypothesis of guilt and inconsistent with innocence. They also excluded possibility of guilt of any other person than the accused and do prove guilt of both the accused beyond reasonable doubt as the totality of circumstances formed a chain so complete that there was no scope for any other conclusion except that the crime was committed by accused No.1 and accused No.2 in conspiracy with each other. Therefore, in our opinion, both the accused were rightly convicted by the trial Court of offence of murder in conspiracy with each other. We do not find merit in the appeals.