Ramchandra Dhulichand Gorame vs The State Of Maharashtra & Others
2016 Latest Caselaw 1378 Bom

                                                                              78.03crrevn
                                           -1-




                                                                               
                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                              BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                       
                  CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 78 OF 2003

     Ramchandra s/o Dhulichand Gorame,
     Age: 48 years, Occ: Cobbler,
     R/o. Rohidaspura, Aurangabad.                     ...Applicant




                                                      
              versus

     1.       The State of Maharashtra




                                         
     2.       Kishore s/o Khemchand Sarone,
              Age: 43 years, Occ: Labour,
                             
              R/o. Rohidaspura, Balaji Mandir,
              Aurangabad.

     3.       Dhondiram s/o Haribhau Gosavi,
                            
              Age: 52 years, Occ: Service,
              R/o. G. No. J-6 In front of
              Thorat Kirana Provision,
              Bhawani Nagar, Aurangabad.               ...Respondents
      


                                           .....
              Mr. S.G. Ladda, Advocate for applicant
   



              Ms. R.P. Gour, A.P.P. for respondent No.1
              Mr. S.S. Jadhav, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 & 3
                                          .....





                                             CORAM : N.W. SAMBRE, J.

                                             DATE :        11th APRIL, 2016





     ORAL JUDGMENT :

Present criminal revision application is by the original

complainant against the judgment of acquittal delivered on

27/12/2002 by 2nd Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in

Sessions Case No.295 of 2002, acquitting the present respondents-

78.03crrevn

accused for the offence punishable under Section 376 and 302 read

with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The facts, as are necessary for deciding the present

criminal revision application, are as under :-

PW-2 Ramchandra Gorame, the applicant herein, had

seven brothers, having their home at Rohidaspura and were living

adjacent to each other. Ramchandra had two wives namely

Parvatibai and Hirabai and three daughters from Parvatibai of whom,

Savita was last one. Savita was studying in 7th standard in the

school. Ramchandra was also blessed with son by name Ashok.

3. That accused No. 1 i.e. respondent No.2 and accused

No. 2 are resident of same area, adjacent to Rohidaspura. It is

claimed that both the accused were friends and were prosecuted for

committing the rape and murder of Savita, daughter of Ramchandra,

in the night between 06/05/2002 and 07/05/2002.

4. It is claimed that on 05/05/2002 the engagement

ceremony took place in the family of Ramchandra and his brothers,

complainant Ramchandra alongwith his wife Parvatibai was sleeping

on Ota with two daughters namely Savita and Anita. Another wife

78.03crrevn

namely Hirabai, and son Ashok were sleeping in the house. It is

claimed that at that time, Savita was 12 years old. Ashok, brother of

Savita got up from sleep at 5-00 a.m. and noticed that Savita was no

longer on her bed and he immediately apprised the family members

about the same. Family members then tried to search Savita but

could not locate. He is then informed by the ladies members of the

house that Savita's dead body was located nearby Balaji temple,

which was brought at home by accused No. 1.

5. It is then noticed that blood was oozing from nostrils and

mouth of Savita and she was lying dead, as was strangulated by her

own Salwar.

6. In the morning at 6-50 a.m. the complainant

Ramchandra narrated the above referred fact to the police station

officer, resulting into registration of Crime No. 55 of 2002 for the

offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

7. After the investigation was set in motion, the dead body

was sent for post mortem and spot panchnama, seizure panchnama

in relation to articles and clothes, part of soil/earth was drawn. The

said articles were sent by P.S.I. Sirsat for chemical analysis and

thereafter recorded the statements of witnesses namely Radhakisan,

78.03crrevn

Hirabai and others. As blood stains were noticed on the underwear,

which was seized from the house of accused No.1, same was sent

for chemical analysis. Accused No.2-respondent No. 3 was found to

have given clothes for washing at Jai Bajrang Laundary, having blood

stains. They were also referred for chemical analysis. Certain semen

stains were found on the clothes of accused No. 2, hence same were

also sent for chemical analysis.

8.

It is then claimed that accused No. 2 Dhondiram has

reserved Cot No. 23 in Sangam Lodge by giving false name as

Jagannath Rajaram Jaiswal and has not stayed in the said lodge in

the night.

9. During autopsy, 8 external injuries were noticed in

Column No. 17. The injuries under scalp shown multiple petechial

haemorrhage apart from six injuries to neck, four on trunk and one

on private part.

10. After investigation was complete, charge sheet came to

be filed against present respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The charge was

framed against the accused at Exhibit-3 on 24/09/2002 for the

offence punishable under Sections 302 and 376 of the Indian Penal

Code.

78.03crrevn

11. During the trial, 11 witnesses were examined by the

prosecution. PW-1 Dr. Rathod, who conducted post mortem, PW-2

Ramchandra Gorme, father of deceased Savita, PW-3 Sarika,

laundress, who had refused to accept the clothes for washing and

cleaning from accused No. 2 because of highly dirty, PW-4

Radhakisan Gorme, PW-5 Hirabai, another wife of Ramchandra,

PW-6 Puransing, who was running Jai Bajrang Laundry in

Kailasnagar area during the relevant days, PW-7 Krishna Garbade,

manager of Sangam Lodge, PW-8 Sk. Zaheer, gate keeper of State

Talkies, Shahgunj, PW-9 Police Inspector, Ghuge, who handled bulk

of investigation, PW-10 P.S.I. Sirsat, who made initial investigation,

and PW-11 Police Inspector Sonawane, who submitted the charge

sheet.

12. It is upon appreciation of the evidence, learned Adhoc

Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad by an order dated

27/12/2002 acquitted the accused of the charges. As such, present

revision application by complainant.

13. Mr. Ladda, learned Counsel for the applicant

complainant would submit that the complainant is examined as

PW-2, so also laundress PW-3, lodge manager PW-7, and PW-4

78.03crrevn

Radhakisan Gorme, who have specifically named the present

respondents-accused, who are responsible for the commission of

crime in question. Mr. Ladda, learned Counsel for the applicant

complainant would then submit that the entire case is based on

circumstantial evidence and the circumstances as could be

appreciated from the evidence on record, takes to the only

conclusion that deceased Savita died homicidal death, for which the

present respondents are responsible.

14. Learned A.P.P. has assisted the Court in the matter of

analyzing the evidence alongwith Mr. Ladda, learned Counsel for the

complainant.

15. With the assistance, I have analyzed the evidence as is

brought on record.

16. It is required to be noted that the evidence of three

witnesses is required to be appreciated, particularly as regards

proving involvement of the respondents in the crime in question. It is

not in dispute that deceased Savita died homicidal death, as she was

strangulated by her own Salwar. It is then to be noted that PW-2

Ramchandra, PW-4 Radhakisan, PW-5 Hirabai were examined so as

to substantiate the claim of prosecution. The presence of both the

78.03crrevn

accused persons is sought to be established relying upon the

evidence of above referred witnesses. It is brought on record that it is

for the first time, the complainant noticed absence of Savita, after

same was brought to his notice, by his son Ashok at 5-30 a.m.

Accused No. 1 Kishor lifted the body of deceased Savita and brought

it in the house of one Mohanlal and has placed the said body on

Sofa. The first information report does not speak of presence of

accused No. 1 Kishor, as noticed by complainant Ramchandra,

Radhakisan, so also Hirabai near the Ota of his house on the date of

occurrence, as both of them were awakened for answering nature's

call at 12-30 in the night. The testimony of the witness-complainant if

examined, there were certain improvements noticed in his testimony

before the Court, which story was not stated by him in the complaint.

17. It is then claimed by Radhakisan that he woke up twice

in the night so as to answer nature's call i.e. 1-30 a.m., however,

none of the said witnesses namely Hirabai or Radhakisan stated

about movements of accused persons near Savita, who was

sleeping in the court yard of Mohanlal on the date of occurrence. The

prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond

reasonable doubt of connecting their involvement to crime in

question, particularly in the matter of how the accused persons got

custody of Savita in the intervening night and committed heinous

78.03crrevn

crime of rape and then murdered her. It is to be noted that the crime

in question if to be committed by present accused persons, they

must have suffered some injury, so also, other persons who were

present around would have heard screaming of deceased Savita,

while she suffered crime in question. Though it is true that accused

No. 2 had been to the place of accused No.1 and requested him to

accommodate him for the night and it is accused No.1, who told him

to sleep in Balaji Mandir and in Balaji Mandir, presence of accused

No. 2 was noticed in the night at 1-30 a.m. when he was reading

newspaper by the complainant and his family members. However,

said circumstance cannot be considered and stretched to the extent

of convicting the respondent-accused.

18. It is then required to be noted that though witness

Krishna Garbade was sought to be examined in the matter of

conduct of accused No. 2 booking cot in Sangam Lodge, however

the said witness has failed to identify the accused persons. The

alleged claim of prosecution that accused No. 2 was in habit of

watching English Cinema on every Saturday and Sunday, will be of

hardly any consequence so as to support the case of prosecution.

19. The report of Chemical Analyzer, if is considered in the

above referred background, though it is noted that deceased Savita

78.03crrevn

suffered homicidal death, no blood or semen was evident vide

Exhibit-46 in the nail clipping and other samples relating to the

deceased. Even Exhibits-47 and 48, which relates to analysis of

blood and pubic hair of both the accused, do not notice any semen.

Chemical Analyzer's reports also do not support the case of the

prosecution.

20. In this back ground, in my opinion, no case for showing

any indulgence in the revisional jurisdiction in the matter of acquittal

ordered by learned 2nd Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge,

Aurangabad on 27/12/2002 in Sessions Case No. 295 of 2002 is

made out before this Court. As such, criminal revision application

stands dismissed.

Sd/-

[ N.W. SAMBRE, J. ]

Tupe/11.04.16