Keshav Dhondi Jadhav vs State Of Maharashtra
2004 Latest Caselaw 6 Bom

JUDGMENT

P.V. Kakade, J.

1. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 18-1-1999 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sangli in Sessions Case No, 149 of 1997, wherein the appellant was convicted for the commission of the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the I.P.C. and was sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer R.I. for one month on first count and sentenced to suffer R.I. for two years and to pay fine of Rs, 100/- in default to suffer R.I. for one month, on second count.

2. The facts giving rise to the present case, in brief, are thus --

The appellant and his wife Kamal along with their two children were residing at. Amnapur. Their eldest son was residing with Kamals brother Prakash (PW 8). The eldest son used to visit the house of the appellant once in a fortnight. The accused was previously employed at Klrloskarwadi. He left service and was cultivating his lands. He was addict to alcohol and being under the influence of alcohol, he used to pick quarrels with his wife Kamal. He was suspecting the chastity of his wife alleging that she had illicit relation with whosoever she was found talking. He had threatened one Manik Rajmane (PW 13) with life with whom he suspected that his wife had illicit relations. Kamal, wife of the accused, was making such complaints about her husband with her brother Prakash (PW 8) and it was done so by her about fortnight prior to the incident. Prakash had taken Kamal to the house of the husband and by calling a meeting of leaders of the village asked the accused to prove his charge of Kamals having illicit relation with anyone. In the said meeting, the accused promised that he will not suspect the chastity of her wife and would behave properly.

On the day of the incident, Shivaji Jangam (PW 9) and Shantabai Jadhav (PW 11) saw that the accused and Kamal were going together to their land for collecting fodder. Shalan (PW 12) saw that the accused alone had come back to his houe and during the night in between 27-5-1997 and 28-5-1997 the house of the accused was closed and neither Kamal nor the appellant were present there.

3. On 28-5-1997, Shamrao Awate, Police Patil of the village was informed by one Vithal Patil that in the land belonging to one Maruti Patil dead body of a woman was found. The Police Patil went to the land and found dead body of a unknown woman lying there with sharp cutting wounds on its head, arm, and neck. He, therefore, informed the police , PW 17 Pradip Aphale on receiving information went to the spot and drew inquest panchnama of the dead body and sent it to the medical officer for post mortem examination whose report was received in due course which is part of the record. Tukaram nephew of the accused identified the dead body to be that of his aunt Kamal. The Investigating Officer went to the house of the accused and found that it was locked. In presence of the panchas, the lock was broken and search was made in which course bluish shirt and white trouser, both stained with blood hanging to the peg were found. One scythe stained with blood kept near the gunny bag in one corner of the room was also found. Articles were seized under panchnama. Thereafter, Tukaram nephew of the accused showed the land belonging to the accused. Search of the land showed that pair of chappals, broken piceces of green bangles, blood soaked earth and blood stained leaves were found in the 13th furrow of the land in which sugarcane was standing. Clothes and some ornaments found on the body of Kamal were also seized by drawing panchnama. Accused was not found in the village and was absconding and, therefore, search was announced. P.S.I: Subhash Patil (PW 16), while on patrolling duty, was at tea stall near S.T. Stand and saw one person moving in suspicious manner and took him in custody and came to know that he was a wanted person Keshav Dhondi Jadhav i.e. the accused. He was arrested and brought to the police station at Kundal. In the custody of the police , the accused made disclosure statement leading to the discovery of Bormal and Mangalsutra which his wife was wearing every day. The accused also disclosed that he had sold one ear top to one goldsmith of Tasgaon and led the police to the place of the goldsmith wherefrom the ear top was seized under panchanama. Various incriminating articles seized in the course of investigation were sent to the C.A. for examination whose report was received and is part of the record. The cause of death of the victim was reported to be cardlorespiratory failure resulting from rupture of traches, oesophagus and large vessels and haemorrhagic shock caused by sharp cutting injury on neck and injury on the skull. On completion of the investigation, the charge sheet wa sent to the Court of law. The learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions.

4. The learned Sessions Judge, framed the charge against the accused punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the I.P.O. to which the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. Defence of the accused was that of total denial of any criminal liability. Prosecution led its evidence at length and on the basts of such evidence, the learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that the available evidence is sufficient to bring home the guilt and accordingly proceeded to convict and sentence the accused in aforesaid manner.

Hence the appeal.

5. We have heard the learned advocate Shri Indrajeet Kulkarnl, for the appellant accused and learned A.P.P. Dr. (Shri) F.R. Shaikh for the State, at length. We have also perused the entire evidence on record.

At the outset, it may be noted that the prosecution case is totally balanced on circumstantial evidence led through 17 witnesses and various documents. To establish the charge against the accused, the prosecution has relied upon various circumstances, namely, (1) motive; (2) accused and deceased wife Kamal were last seen together immediately prior to the death of Kamal; (3) in pursuance of the statement made by the accused, the ornaments of Bormal and Mangalsutra which Kamal used to wear every day were recovered from different places; (4) immediately after occurrence when the house belong to the accused was searched, a scythe and clothes stained with blood were found which the accused was wearing when he was last seen in the company of his wife Kamal; (5) on information given by the accused, an ear top which his wife was wearing every day was recovered from a goldsmith of Tasgaon; (6) immediately after the occurrence of the incident, the accused was absconding and was arrested at Pandharpur; and (7) the clothes which the accused was wearing at the time of arrest, were stained with blood of the same group of deceased Kamal.

6. Let us now turn to appreciate, the evidence relating to all those points so as to ascertain whether the evidence on record is sufficient to bring home the guilt.

7. In order to establish the motive, the prosecution has examined several witnesses including PW 8 Prakash brother of deceased Kamal, PW 12 Shalan -- neighbour of the accused, PW 13 Manik Rajmane and PW 11 Shantabai, PW 11 Shantabal has stated that there used to be frequent quarrels between husband and wife and the accused used to give threats to her with life saying that he would not let her alive. She has further stated that quarrels used to take place while the accused was under the influence of alcohol. Her evidence is sufficient to establish that the relationship between husband and wife were totally strained on the ground that the accused was suspecting chastity of Kamal, PW 8 Prakash brother of deceased Kamal has also stated that Kamal used to visit him and always inform him that the accused was suspecting her chastity on the ground that she had illicit relations with whomsoever see saw. He has also stated that, 15-20 days prior to the incident he had taken Kamal to the house of the accused at Amnapur and had invited meeting of elderly people and accused had promised in the said meeting not to suspect for it and live peacefully with Kamal. PW 12 Shalan has also corroborated these aspects who has stated that she resides in the neighbourhood of the accused and relations of the husband and wife were totally strained. According to her, the accused being drunkard used to pick up quarrel, with his wife Kamal and was suspecting her for it. It may be noted that witness Shalan (PW 12) is sister-in-law of the accused and, therefore, there is no reason for her to make false allegation against the accused. PW 13 has also submitted this version of the prosecution and, therefore, in our considered view, the prosecution has established the factum of motive for commission of offence which can be attributted to the appellant.

8. The second important piece of circumstantial evidence is that immediately prior to Kamal's death, she was seen in the company of her husband while goint to the land of the accused to collect fodder and thereafter accused was seen alone returning home and Kamal was not with him and thereafter Kamal was never seen alive and on the next day, dead body of Kamal was found in the land by the side of railway track. PW 11 Shantabai, neighbour of the accused has stated that at about 4.30 p.m. she asked Kamal whether she was to come with her to collect fodder. Thereupon Kamal informed that she was to go to her farm along with her husband and Shantabai (PW 11) has stated that she saw accused leaving with Kamal for their land and at that time the accused was holding a scythe in his hand. Witness Shantabai also identified the scythe which accused was holding as the one produced before the Court vide Article 5, It has also come in her evidence that when she came back to her house at about 8.00 p.m. and saw the house of the accused, it was closed and therefore asked PW 12 Shalan about Kamal. Thereupon Shalan told Shantabai that Kamal was not seen, however, in the meantime, she had seen tha't accused had come alone without victim. Both witnesses have stated that, next morning dead body was found which ultimately proved to be of Kamal. PW 9 Shivaji Jangam also has stated that he had seen the accused with his wife Kamal before the incident in question. He has stated that on 27-5-1997 at 4.30 p.m. when he was going to his house, he saw accused and Kamal going together. Similarly, Shalan (PW 12) who is neighbour of the accused has stated that she saw accused was coming to his home at about 6.30 pm. and saw that accused went inside the house and left the house thereafter closing the door. This evidence on record leaves no doubt to establish that Kamal and accused were seen together going to their farm apparently with purpose to bring fodder. The accused was armed with scythe at that time. At about 4.30 pm. thereafter the accused was seen returning home alone at about 8.30 p.m. and was also seen leaving his house closing the door and since then he was not found. Next morning dead body of a woman was found which ultimately proved to be of Kamal.

9. The next incriminating circumstance is the fact that the accused was absconding after the incident. PW 8 Prakash has stated that on receipt of the information of death of his sister Kamal, he went to the house of accused on 28-5-1997 at about 5.00 pm. but the accused was not in the house. It is to be noted that, it is an admitted position that the accused was arrested at Pandharpur on 1-6-1997 and, therefore, it is established that after the accused left his house on 27-5-1997 in the evening as seen by witness Shalan (PW 12), he was absconding since then. It is a significant to note that defence has not explained this important aspect even in the course of statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. It is also not explained by the defence as to when and where the accused had left his wife after having gone with her to collect fodder in his land. Therefore, the circumstances, the accused was seen in the company of his wife and thereafter was absconding from the village is a strong piece of circumstantial evidence involving the accused in this crime.

10. The next important link in the chain of the circumstances is the discovery of ornaments, at the instance of the accused person. The evidence of prosecution shows that the accused while in police custody on 3-6-1997 made a statement leading to the discovery in presence of panchas. The memorandum of panchnama Exh. 31 was prepared. PW 5 Shivaji Sutar is the panch witness. Evidence in that regard show that the accused made voluntary statement to the effect that he would show the place where the ornaments, namely, Bormal and Mangalsutra which were daily used by Kamal were hidden and accordingly led the -police to a sugar cane crop in 10th or 11th furrow and digging out earth, took out Bormal and Mangalsutra and produced before the police which were seized under panchanama. What is significant is the fact that Shantabai (PW 11) who was constantly in the company of deceased Kamal has identified the said articles Bormal and Mangalsutra to be the same which were wore by Kamal on every day basis. This evidence is supported by the evidence of the investigating Officer and, therefore, there is absolutely no doubt that those ornaments belonging to the deceased Kamal were seized at the instance of the accused by the procedure as contemplated under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

Similarly, the ear top which was also used by Kamal on day-to-day basis was recovered from goldsmith at village Tasgaon. The evidence of witness Shivaji Sutar read with that of Investigating Officer show that accused made statement before the police that he had pawned the ear-top for Rs. 230/- and led the police to the shop of the goldsmith and it was recovered from the shop of the goldsmith. PW 7 Vasant Bhivare who in turn had identified the accused who had sold the ear-top to him and which ear-top was seized by the police at the instance of the accused at the relevant time.

11. The next circumstance linking the accused person with the crime is the search of his house. When the search of the house was conducted, blood stained clothes of the accused as well as the scythe with blood stains were found on 28-5-1997. The Investigating Officer has stated that inquest panchnama was prepared, the dead body was removed for post mortem examination and nephew of the accused identified the body to be of Kamal and thereafter the police visited the house of the accused and found it locked. It was broken open under panchanama and thereafter these incriminating articles were seized. These are the pieces of circumstantial evidence led by the prosecution in order to bring home the guilt.

12. Time and again, it is well established principle of criminal law that when a case is rested upon circumstantial evidence such evidence should satisfy three tests, (i) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt was sought to be drawn, should be cogently and firmly established; (ii) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused, and (iii) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there was no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else. The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction should be complete incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of guilt of the accused. Circumstantial evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.

Therefore, if we apply this criteria to the facts established in the present case, there would not be any doubt whatsoever with the chain of circumstantial evidence so complete so as to arraign the accused person without any hesitation. Therefore, we hold that the reasoning adopted and offence recorded by the learned trial Judge cannot be faulted with and in the result, the appeal stands dismissed.