Case: Mohan Anna Chavan Vs. State Of Maharashtra

3. Prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows:The family of the complainant Jaysing Dinkar Jadhav (P.W.10) lived at Gulamb in the locality of homeless people. He is the brother of the grandfather of deceased Neelam and Gauri. The complainant has one brother named Vinayak. Ramdas Vinayak Jadhav (P.W.13) is the son of Vinayak. He and his family members lived jointly at Gulumb at the time of the incident. Deceased Gauri was the daughter of Ramdas Jadhav. At the relevant time, the complainant and other son of Vinayak i.e. Chandrakant were living at Khandala. Neelam is the daughter of Chandrakant but she was staying at Gulumb for the purpose of education. She was studying in 1st standard, whereas, Gauri was studying in 4th standard. They were all residing in Beghar Vasti i.e. area of homeless people at Gulumb. Accused Mohan Anna Chavan was also residing alongwith his wife Manda Chavan (P.W.7) and daughter Reshma (P.W.8) in the said locality of homeless people at Gulumb. His house was next to the house of Ramdas Jadhav and Tanaji Jadhav. Tanaji Jadhav (P.W.5 was the cousin brother of both Neelam and Gauri. He was also residing in Beghar vasti. On the night intervening in between 12.12.1999 to 13.12.1999 at about 2.a.m. Tanaji (P.W.5) had accompanied his wife for answering natures call. At that time, the accused arrived at Gulumb from Bombay. He asked Tanaji to go home and told Tanaji that he will wait there. Thereupon, there was a quarrel between the two. Then accused left from there. On the next day i.e. on 14.12.1999 at about 1.30 p.m. there was quarrel between the accused and his wife Manda (P.W. 7). At that time Tahaji had peeped into the house and thereafter there was a quarrel between the accused and Tanaji. There was a scuffle between the two. At that time, the accused told Tanaji that he would settle the matter in the eveningOn the same day in the evening at about 6.00 p.m. Reshma (P.W.8) and accused had gone to the grocery shop of Sunil (P.W. 6) for purchase of grocery articles, Reshma as noted above is the daughter of the accused. Similarly, at the same time Neelam and Gauri were also sent to the grocery shop for purchase of dry coconut, by their family membersThe girls met the accused and Reshma and Gauri asked him to give sweets (Khau) to them. The accused said that he did not have change and the accused asked Gauri and Neelam to accompany him. So saying, he took both the girls with him. He thereafter committed rape on both the girls and murdered them. He threw the dead body of Neelam in the well which is situated in the field of the father of Sakhrarn Bhiku Yadav (PW11). He concealed the dead body of Gauri in a `Kalkache Bet after strangulating her. The accused thereafter arrived at village Gulumb on 14.12.1999 in the morning and at that time, the villagers including the prosecution witness Ramdas Jadhav (P.W. 13), Tanaji Jadhav (P.W. 5) Sakharam Yadav (PW11) and Rajendra Sakhpal (PW12) had caught hold of the accused and tied him to a pillar of a water-tank in the locality of Homeless people, as they suspected that he would run away, because on interrogation, the accused told them to search in the hilly area of Chandak. The said information was given to police on telephone. Some of the villagers had gone in search of both the girls in the hilly area but the girls could not be found and ultimately, the accused made an extra judicial confession that he had murdered Neelam and thrown the dead body of Neelam into a well. Meanwhile, the police had arrivedThe accused led the police to the well and the dead-body of Neelam was found floating in the water of the well and it was taken out. Thereafter, the inquest panchnama (Exhibit-15) was prepared in presence of panchas by PSI Deshpande (PW.15). He had also prepared the panchnama of the well (Exhibit-34). The dead-body of Neelam was forwarded to the Medical Officer, for the purpose of post-mortem examination. The accused was taken to the police station as panchnama of his arrest and seizure of blood stained clothes which were on his person at the time of arrest was prepared. He was interrogated in the presence of` panch witnesses including panch witness (PW1), Mohammed Rafik Sayyed Mulla. At about 2.00 p.m accused stated that he had concealed the dead body of Gauri near Kalkache-Bet near Chauyndi stream and he was ready to point out the same and he also stated that he would show the spots where he had molested the two girls. Accordingly this information was reduced into writing in the form of memorandum (Exh.31) and then the accused led the police party and panch witnesses and the accused had showed the places where he had committed rape on Neelam and Gauri. At the spot where he committed rape on Neelam, the earth was found disturbed and the earth was found bloodstained, pieces of green bangles and half burnt Bidis, were also found on the spot, which were duly seized by the Police. At the spot where he committed rape on Gauri, the earth and some leaves of hybrid plant were found stained with blood. Thereafter, the accused led them to one Kalkache-Bet and showed the dead body of Gauri which was concealed in the "Kalkache-bet" i.e. a place where bamboo trees and bushes had grown thickly together. Accordingly the discovery panchnama (Exh.32) was prepared and inquest panchnama of the dead body of Gauri was prepared as per panchnama (Exhibit-16). Ligature marks were seen on the neck of Gauri which were noted in the inquest panchnama. Thereafter, the dead body of Gauri was forwarded to the medical officer for the purpose of post mortem examination. After the arrest the accused was sent for medical examination. And his nail clippings and blood sample was obtained and that was sent to the Chemical Analyser. On 25.12.1999, the accused was again interrogated in presence of the panch witnesses including Shivaji Nalawada (P.W.3) and the accused had furnished information that he had concealed the frocks of both the girls in the bushes near Chaundi stream and he was ready to point out the same. This information was reduced into writing in the form of memorandum (Exh. 37). Pursuant to the said information, two frocks came to be recovered at the instance of the accused. After the investigation was over the charge sheet came to be filed15. witnesses were examined to further the prosecution version. This was a case based on circumstantial evidence. Prosecution relied on the following circumstances to fasten the guilt on the accused appellant:"1. Last seen3. Seizure of blood stained clothes which were on the person of the accused at the time of arrest4. C.A. report which shows that shirt and pant of the accused were stained with blood Group A which is blood group of both the deceased5. Blood in the nail clippings of the accused was of ‘A group which is the blood group of both the deceased6. Recovery of dead body of Gauri at the instance of the accused7. Accused pointing out the places where rape was committed on Neelam and Gauri where the earth was found stained with blood of "A" group and other incriminating articles were seized8. Extra-judicial confession to PW 119. Recovery of frock of both the deceased girls at the instance of the accused10. Accused pointing out the well wherein he had thrown Neelam11. False explanation by accused."Trial court considered all the circumstances to be a complete chain to unerringly pointing at the guilt of the accused appellant. Accordingly, the conviction was recorded. Appellant was awarded death sentence for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC while custodial sentences were imposed for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 376 and 201 IPC. Appellant questioned correctness of the judgment before the High Court and as noted above a reference was made by the trial court in view of the death sentence imposedThe High Court found that all the circumstances except the alleged confession to have been established. After analyzing the evidence the High Court found the evidence to be cogent and credible and affirmed the death sentence looking into the ghastly acts committed by the appellant.

Court's reasoning:
4. Before analyzing factual aspects it may be stated that for a crime to be proved it is not necessary that the crime must be seen to have been committed and must, in all circumstances be proved by direct ocular evidence by examining before the Court those persons who had seen its commission. The offence can be proved by circumstantial evidence also. The principal fact or factum probandum may be proved indirectly by means of certain inferences drawn from factum probans, that is, the evidentiary facts. To put it differently circumstantial evidence is not direct to the point in issue but consists of evidence of various other facts which are so closely associated with the fact in issue that taken together they form a chain of circumstances from which the existence of the principal fact can be legally inferred or presumed5. It has been consistently laid down by this Court that where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other personThe circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances10. There is no doubt that conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence but it should be tested by the touch-stone of law relating to circumstantial evidence laid down by the this Court as far back as in 195216. The other circumstances established were the chemical analysts report of the clothes and nail clippings of the accused, the recovery of the dead bodies pursuant to the disclosure made in terms of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short the `Evidence Act), recovery of the frocks at the instance of the accused, false explanation given and the plea of alibi which has been rightly discarded by the courts below20. Therefore, undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law and society could not long endure under such serious threats. It is, therefore, the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed etc. This position was illuminatingly stated by this Court in Sevaka Perumal etc. v. State of Tamil Naidu (AIR 1991 SC 1463 )21. The criminal law adheres in general to the principle of proportionality in prescribing liability according to the culpability of each kind of criminal conduct. It ordinarily allows some significant discretion to the Judge in arriving at a sentence in each case, presumably to permit sentences that reflect more subtle considerations of culpability that are raised by the special facts of each case. Judges in essence affirm that punishment ought always to fit the crime; yet in practice sentences are determined largely by other considerations. Sometimes it is the correctional needs of the perpetrator that are offered to justify a sentence. Sometimes the desirability of keeping him out of circulation, and sometimes even the tragic results of his crime. Inevitably these considerations cause a departure from just desert as the basis of punishment and create cases of apparent injustice that are serious and widespread23. After giving due consideration to the facts and circumstances of each case, for deciding just and appropriate sentence to be awarded for an offence, the aggravating and mitigating factors and circumstances in which a crime has been committed are to be delicately balanced on the basis of really relevant circumstances in a dispassionate manner by the Court. Such act of balancing is indeed a difficult task. It has been very aptly indicated in Dennis Counsel MCG Dautha v. State of Callifornia: 402 US 183: 28 L.D. 2d 711 that no formula of a foolproof nature is possible that would provide a reasonable criterion in determining a just and appropriate punishment in the infinite variety of circumstances that may affect the gravity of the crime. In the absence of any foolproof formula which may provide any basis for reasonable criteria to correctly assess various circumstances germane to the consideration of gravity of crime, the discretionary judgment in the facts of each case, is the only way in which such judgment may be equitably distinguished25. Imposition of sentence without considering its effect on the social order in many cases may be in reality a futile exercise. The social impact of the crime, e.g. where it relates to offences against women, dacoity, kidnapping, misappropriation of public money, treason and other offences involving moral turpitude or moral delinquency which have great impact on social order, and public interest, cannot be lost sight of and per se require exemplary treatment. Any liberal attitude by imposing meager sentences or taking too sympathetic view merely on account of lapse of time in respect of such offences will be result-wise counter productive in the long run and against societal interest which needs to be cared for and strengthened by string of deterrence inbuilt in the sentencing system32. If upon taking an overall global view of all the circumstances in the light of the aforesaid propositions and taking into account the answers to the questions posed by way of the test for the rarest of rare cases, the circumstances of the case are such that death sentence is warranted, the court would proceed to do so33. What is culled out from the decisions noted above is that while deciding the question as to whether the extreme penalty of death sentence is to be awarded, a balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating circumstances has to be drawn up35. The case at hand falls in the rarest of rare category. The past instances highlighted above, the depraved acts of the accused call for only one sentence that is death sentence36. 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.