Case: Shivaji @ Dadya Shankar Alhat Vs. State Of Maharashtra

Shivaji-appellant (hereinafter referred to as the ‘accused) is an educated person i.e. B.A. BEd. and was serving as teacher at Pune in the year 1986. He was staying with his mother and sister near the house of Hemlata (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased), a tiny girl who had not seen ten summers in life. The accused is a married man and has three children. His wife and children were not residing with him.The accused was known to the deceased and her family. The deceased and her family used to sometime give him bread. The deceased was studying in 5th standard. She has two sisters, namely, Bhagyashree and Jayshree (PW 8). Her mother Sushilabai (PW 2) was working as a maid. All of them were staying with their grandmother Yashodabai (PW 7). The father of the deceased was not staying with them on account of strained relationship between him and Sushila, the mother of deceased.The incident in question occurred on 14th January, 2002. On that day there was festival of Makarsankranti. Sushilabai had gone to the house of one Tirandaz for work. The deceased and her two sisters and their grandmother Yashodabai were present in the house. At about 11.30 a.m., the deceased and her sister Jayshree had gone to the borewell of one Sangale to fetch water. The accused was sitting on the slab, where construction work of one Mr. Gaikar was going on. The accused told the deceased that he would give her fuel wood from the hill. Thereafter they came to deceaseds house. The deceased kept the pitcher in the house and she went alongwith the accused towards the hill called Manmodya Dongar. Thereafter the deceased did not return home.Sushilabai came home at about 4.30 P.M. She was told that her daughter Hemlata had gone with the accused and had not returned. They started searching for the deceased but could not find her. On the same day i.e. on 14th January, 2002,Yashodabai, the grandmother of the deceased gave a missing complaint to the police in which she stated that the deceased had left the house with the accused and had not come back. Search was going on to find out the deceased. It appears that Sushilabai got to know from one Sakinabai that dead body of Hemlata was lying on Manmodya hill. She also gave information to the police on 15th January, 2002 regarding missing of Hemlata which is at Exhibit 12. In this complaint she also stated that the deceased had left the house alongwith the accused.After seeing the dead body of Hemlata at Junnar Hospital, Sushilabai reported the matter to the police. Her complaint came to be recorded in which she stated that her daughter had left with the accused on 14.1.2002. She specifically stated that she was convinced that, it is the accused who had raped her daughter and assaulted her on her abdomen with a sharp edged weapon, strangulated her with a rope and murdered her. On the basis of this FIR investigation started.The accused was not traceable. He could be arrested only on 16th January, 2002. He was found hiding in the sugarcane crop of one Gaikwad. After completion of the investigation the accused came to be charged as aforesaid. Since the accused abjured guilt trial was held. Seventeen witnesses were examined to further the prosecution version.Prosecution examined Sushilabai (PW 2), the mother of the deceased and Yashodhabai (PW 7), grandmother of the deceased. Jayshree (PW 8) the sister of the deceased, Shantabai (PW 9) and Khanwar Hussein (PW 6) were examined to establish the prosecution case that the accused and the deceased were last seen together on 14th January, 2002 at about 11.30 a.m. going towards Manmodya Hill. Suresh B. Visave (PW 3) is a Pancha to the Panchnama of recovery of penknife at the instance of the accused. Dr. Suresh R. Shahane (PW 15) had examined the accused. Dr. Suresh B. Patankar (PW 17) had examined the accused to find out whether he was capable of sexual intercourse. The prosecution also examined Dr. Nana N. Sonawane (PW 5), who proved the postmortem notes. Investigation was conducted by PSI Ramesh R. Bhosale (PW 14) and PSI Dilip D. Jagdale (PW 16).The accused pleaded innocence and false implication. His case was that in fact at the relevant point of time he was not present in the village and has gone to his daughters house, then to his sisters house.Learned trial court found the evidence cogent and found the accused guilty and imposed the sentence. The appeal before the High Court was dismissed and the reference made under Section 366 IPC was confirmed.

Court's reasoning:
The plea that in a case of circumstantial evidence death should not be awarded is without any logic. If the circumstantial evidence is found to be of unimpeachable character in establishing the guilt of the accused, that forms the foundation for conviction. That has nothing to do with the question of sentence as has been observed by this Court in various cases while awarding death sentence. The mitigating circumstances and the aggravating circumstances have to be balanced. In the balance sheet of such circumstances, the fact that the case rests on circumstantial evidence has no role to play. In fact in most of the cases where death sentence are awarded for rape and murder and the like, there is practically no scope for having an eye witness. They are not committed in the public view. But very nature of things in such cases, the available evidence is circumstantial evidence. If the said evidence has been found to be credible, cogent and trustworthy for the purpose of recording conviction, to treat that evidence as a mitigating circumstance, would amount to consideration of an irrelevant aspect. The plea of learned Amicus Curiae that the conviction is based on circumstantial evidence and, therefore, the death sentence should not be awarded is clearly unsustainable.42. The case at hand falls in the rarest of rare category. The circumstances highlighted above, establish the depraved acts of the accused, and they call for only one sentence, that is death sentence.43. Looked at from any angle the judgment of the High Court, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court, do not warrant any interference.44. We record our appreciation for the able assistance rendered by learned amicus curiae in the true spirit of friend and officer of the Court.