Case: Varsha Vs. State of Maharashtra

3. Prosecution case briefly stated is as under:On 9.6.1997 one Shri Dilip Janardan Nibrad, Police Patil of Pipri Dhanora, Tahsil and District Chandrapur reported to Chandrapur City Police Station about the unknown person wearing a shirt and a pant was lying dead in the pool of blood with injuries seen on the neck and the fingers of the left hand of the deceased (vide exhibit 22). The body was lying near a field on the Pipri Dhanora Road at a distance of about one km. from village Pipri. First Information Report was recorded as CR No.125/97 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (vide exhibit 23). Inquest was held over dead body (exhibit 25). P.W. 13 Abdul Razzak, Police Inspector, holding charge as Police Station Officer of Chandrapur Police Station took over investigation. Clothes of the deceased; viscera etc. were seized under panchanama (exhibit 47). The accused No.1 Namdeo was taken into custody from Samudrapur and was brought to Chandrapur Police Station and arrested under panchanama (exhibit 27) on 10.6.1997 at about 11.30 p.m. On 11.6.1996, accused No.2 Varsha wife of Baba Itankar (wife of deceased) was arrested under panchanama (exhibit 48).During the course of investigation accused No.1 Namdeo made disclosure statement leading to his residential quarter and discovery of dagger (weapon used in offence); love letters received by him from accused No.2 Varsha, a packet containing five photographs of accused No.1 and accused no.2. In one of the photographs, accused No.1 was seen taking kiss of accused No.2. The photographs were along with negatives; three greeting cards sent by accused no.2 to accused No.1 with message of love; leather cover of petrol tank ofwere seized under panchanama (exhibit 33). During the house search, five photographs of accused No.2 were seized. One of the photographs on front side borne words, "I love you W" and one of the photographs mentioning, "I love you Warsha" on reverse side. House Search panchanama (exhibit 34) was drawn during the course of which video cassette of blue film;a rubber grip; clay and blood stains on rubber grip was also seized. Specimen handwriting of both the accused were collected during the course of investigation and were referred for handwriting experts opinion. Muddemal articles seized were sent to chemical analysers office. Thus, the case of the prosecution appears to be that accused No.1 and accused No.2 had developed illicit relations and conspired to kill the deceased Baba (husband of accused no.2).4. After completion of investigation, the accused were chargesheeted for offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Sections 109, 364 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chandrapur committed the case to the Court of Sessions at Chandrapur. The charges were framed and read over to the accused Nos.1 and 2 who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Their plea were separately recorded. Their defence is of total denial.5. During the trial, fifteen witnesses were examined by the prosecution. There is no direct or ocular evidence as to the incident. The prosecution case rested on circumstantial evidence.6. The learned trial Judge believed the evidence led by the prosecution and convicted and sentenced theas stated earlier. Hence these appeals.

Reasoning:
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.