Case: Ganeshlal Vs. State Of Maharashtra

2. The material facts that lie in short compass arewas married to the appellant in the year 1975. In course of time the appellants father becomes rich, while her parents family remained poor leading to constant humiliation. The sister of Kanchana, Vanmala, PW-5, was also married in the same village, Mangrulpir. On September 3, 1983, PW-5 went to the deceased family at about 10.00 to 10.15 a.m. and invite the mother-in-law of the deceased and Kanchana to attend "Teej" function in her house for which the mother-in-law refused to accept the invitation and also did not permit Kanchana to attend the function which resulted in exchange of words etc. When she was coming out, she heard abuses against the deceased and somebody being beaten. After extending invitations to two or three people when she came back home and was entering into her house, PW-9, her maid servant, came running and told her that Kanchana was dead. Thereafter she gave information to her father, PW-4 and others at Amravati. A-6 maternal uncle of the appellant, went to the Police Station and lodged First Information Report, Ex-73, that while Kanchana was drying wet clothes on the top floor, there was short circuit in the house resulting her death. Mohanlal PW-4, on receipt of the news reached the appellants house a Mangrulpir at about 4.00 p.m. On seeing the condition of the dead body he too laid complaint of murder. In the meanwhile the police registered the crime. The police reached the spot at about 12.50 p.m. A.S.I. Jadhao, P.W. 14 along with Head Constable Sharma, PW-11, conducted investigation. He drew the Panchanama, Ex-66, the scene of offence, attested by PW-7 and another. He recovered the burnt articles, ornaments etc. and sent the body for autopsy. It was further investigated by S.I., PW-15. Subsequently, it was entrusted to the C.I.D. and PW-16 Kshirsagar conducted the investigation and laid the chargesheet. It may be relevant to state at this stage that initially the crime was registered under S. 306 read with S. 34, I.P.C. Later it was converted and the charges were framed by the Sessions Court under S. 302 read with S. 34, I.P.C3. The prosecution placed reliance on the evidence of PW-4 and PW-5 to prove motive for the crime. PW-6, the Compounder and PW-8, Tea Stall owner, PW-9, maid servant of PW-3 to prove the conduct of the accused together with the medical evidence and also chemical examiners report. It also relied on the report Ex. 73 lodged by A-6. The case rests on circumstantial evidence. The circumstances relied on by the prosecution are as follows4. The motive, namely the effluent circumstances of the accused party, the relative poor financial position leading to ill-treatment of Kanchana. The treatment meted out to Kanchana in the presence of Vanmala, followed by beating. P.W. 9, maid servant informing of the death. P.W.- 6 spoke of the appellants conduct, corroborated by P.W. 8, of standing at the grillgate, which is the only entry into the house and preventing the people to go into the houses stating that there was a short circuit and to save them; indifferent attitude of the in-laws and other in-mates and keeping mum, their leaving the deceased alone in the third floor in flames; emitting of kerosene smell; and their non-disclosure on inquiry for the cause of the death, P.W.- 10, the Engineer, Electricity Department spoke that there was no short circuit; the conduct of the appellant and also the first information report given by A-6, the medical evidence that the death was due to shock and suffocation. the chemical analyst report and evidence of scene of offence by P.W. 7

Court's reasoning:
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.