Case: Alok Kumar Subhedar Singh Vs. State of Maharashtra

2.The prosecution story in brief is as under :On the night between 26th and 27th January, 1998, two watchmen viz. Yuvraj Avghadeand Ramdas Mhatreemployed in Reliance Silicon Company (for short, "the Company") were taking a round in the Companys premises bearing Plot No.W192 in MIDC Khairna, near Turbha. The watchmen felt a foul smell of something burning and, therefore, searched for the origin of the smell. They saw something is burning in the adjoining Plot No.212. They also saw the accused standing near by. Becoming suspicious, they called the third watchman and went near the burning spot. Seeing the watchmen, the accused attempted to run away but the two watchmen followed and caught hold of him. They found one half burnt body of a man being burnt at the spot. They, therefore, telephoned the police. PSI Arun Kadamcame to the spot and apprehended the accused. It is the case of the prosecution that when the watchmen apprehended the accused, he said to them "mai jisco marna tha mar diya, jo kam karna tha who kar diya". (I killed the person whom I wanted to kill. I completed the work which I wanted to complete.) Thereafter, the police arrested the accused in the presence of a pancha Vidyadhar PalkarAt the time of the arrest, the police noticed some injuries on the body of the accused and also noticed blood stains on the clothes of the accused. The accused was carrying one black bag. The black bag and the clothes of the accused were seized. After completion of the investigation, the accused was charged for having committed murder of Rajnarayan Suryanarayan Dube (for short, "the deceased") in Room No.2 in Plotnear Synthetic Stone Companys construction work by assaulting him with an iron rod. The accused was further charged for attempting to cause disappearance of evidence of murder by burning the body of the deceased.3.The prosecution examined seven witnesses.Ramdas Mhatre andKamal Anthawal are the watchmen employed in the Company. The prosecution also examinedVidyadhar Palkar to prove the spot panchnama and the arrest.PSI Arun Kadam,PI Shaikh Nizam are the Investigating Officers andRamprasad Shukla is the inquest pancha. Thenotes were admitted by the accused and were marked asem notes disclose that the deceased died because of fracture of skull and injury to brain due to impact with a hard and blunt object, associated with extensive burns.

Reasoning: 5.In our opinion, the learned judge has correctly culled out the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case. It is, however, necessary to examine whether the circumstances established in the present case are such that they lead to the only conclusion that the accused is guilty and the chain of evidence is so complete as not to leave any reasonable doubt in reaching the conclusion of the guilt of the accused and the circumstances are inconsistent with the innocence of the accused.6.The arrest panchnama states that the clothes of the accused were blood stained. The blood stained clothes of the accused were seized at the time of his arrest. The evidence of the chemical analyser about the clothes has not been produced in the court. No explanation is offered therefor. If the blood stained clothes which seized soon after the alleged offence and were sent to the chemical analyser, the report of the chemical analyser was important to connect the accused with the crime. Absence of the report of the chemical analyser regarding the presence of human blood and the blood group of the blood stains on the clothes of the accused is a circumstance which ought to have been explained by the prosecution. This is one of the missing link in the chain of circumstantialonly circumstantial evidence in the case is that the accused was present near the burning body of the deceased and he tried to run away seeing the watchmen approaching the spot. In our view, this evidence is insufficient to conclusively connect the accused with theis true that a conviction can be based on extra judicial confession but it is a weak piece of evidence. Extra judicial confession can be proved like any other fact and the value thereof would depend upon the veracity of the witnesses to whom it is made. In the FIR,Yuvraj has stated that the accused confessed before him and his two colleagues: "mai jisko marna tha mar diya" "jo kam karna tha woh kar diya".Ramdas in his deposition after repeating these words of confession has stated that the accused stated further "apko jo karna hai kar dijiye." (whatever you want to do, do it").Kamal also repeats in his deposition repeats these words. There is, therefore, not full consistency between the evidence ofYuvraj on the one hand and the evidence ofKamal on the other hand.Even otherwise, the evidence ofRamdas andKamal on this aspect of extra judicial confession does not inspire any confidence in us. We have gone through their depositions and we are not inclined to accept that the accused made the extra judicial confession to them. There are contradictions in their evidence regarding how they noticed the incidence of burning. In the1 Yuvraj has stated that they were moving around in the campus of the Company when they first received the smell of burning. He has further stated thatRamdas was with him when they were taking the rounds.Ramdas in hishas stated that at about 12.15 midnight he felt some abnormal smell of something burning and, therefore, he andYuvraj came out of the cabin. There is a contradiction betweenRamdas as to when they smelt the burning smell. According toYuvraj, he smelt it when they were taking a round while according tothey got the burning smell while they were sitting at the cabin.Kamal has stated that he was called byYuvraj on phone. In the FIR as well as in thethe story thatKamal on telephone is absent. It is nowhere stated as to where from the phone call was made and why a phone call was necessary instead of callingKamal by shouting. Reading the evidence ofRamdas andKamal as a whole we are not satisfied that their evidence is fully consistent. We are, therefore, not inclined to convict the accused on the alleged extra judicial confession made tosubmission that the accused was aand had gone near the fire out of curiosity to know the cause of the fire, cannot be ruled out. In the circumstances, the accused is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt.