Bombay High Court
Ananda Dattu Chavan vs The State Of Maharashtra on 27 September, 2017
Bench: A.A. Sayed
1 APEAL 357-10-Judgment.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.357 OF 2010
Ananda Dattu Chavan. ]
Age : 45 years, Occu : Agriculturist, ]
R/o. Talsande, Tal. Hatkanangale, ]
District : Kolhapur, ]
(At present lodged in Kalamba Central ]
Prison, Kolhapur). ] ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra, ]
At the instance of Peth-Vadgaon Police Station ]
Station, District - Kolhapur, C.R.No.7 of 2007. ] ... Respondent
Mr. Ujwal R. Agandsurve for Appellant.
Mr. Y. M. Nakhwa, APP for State.
CORAM :- A. A. SAYED &
SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ.
RESERVED ON :- 14 SEPTEMBER, 2017
PRONOUNCED ON :- 27 SEPTEMBER, 2017
JUDGMENT ( PER : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) :-
1. The present Appeal is preferred by the Appellant
challenging the Judgment and Order passed by the learned Sessions
Judge, Kolhapur, in Sessions Case No.65 of 2007 whereby the
Appellant was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302
of the IPC and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to
pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to suffer
URS 1 of 7
2 APEAL 357-10-Judgment.doc
further R.I. for six months. The Appellant / accused was given benefit
of set off under Section 428 of the Cr.P.C.
2. The prosecution case pertains to the murder of the
Appellant's second wife Surekha. According to the prosecution case,
the Appellant was married with one Bharati earlier and had a son
named Bhaiyya and a daughter named Neelam. In the year 1994, he
got married to Surekha and from the said wedlock, they had two
daughters named Poonam and Pratiksha and one son named Kunal.
According to the prosecution case, the Appellant was having ancestral
land and Surekha was insisting that his share should go to their son
Kunal alone and no share should be given to Bhaiyya who was the son
from the first marriage with Bharati. On this count, there used to be
quarrels between the Appellant and his second wife Surekha.
According to the prosecution case, on 21/01/2007, as a result of one
such quarrel, the Appellant assaulted Surekha with a blow pipe and a
sickle on the head and other parts of the body. The prosecution case
is that, the villagers got to know about the incident. They went to his
house. The accused was standing at the door of his house. He told
the Police Patil that since his wife Surekha used to harass him a lot, he
had killed her. Thereafter, the Police Patil and others entered his
house and saw that Surekha was lying in a pool of blood and various
articles were lying around her. Bloodstained sickle and clothes were
lying in the drawing room. Thereafter the Police Patil informed the
Peth-Vadgaon Police Station. The police arrived at the spot, spot
panchanama was conducted and the dead body was sent to the
URS 2 of 7
3 APEAL 357-10-Judgment.doc
hospital for post-mortem. The offence vide C.R.No.7 of 2007 was
registered at Peth-Vadgaon Police Station. Since the accused was
present, he was arrested. Statements of various witnesses were
recorded. The investigation was carried out and after it was
completed, the charge-sheet was filed in the Court of JMFC, Peth-
Vadgaon, District - Kolhapur. Thereafter, the case was committed to
the Court of Sessions for trial.
3. During trial, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses. PW
1 Krishna Rangrao Jadhav and PW 2 Vishnupant Daji Chavan were
examined as panchas for the spot panchanama but they did not
support the prosecution case. PW 3 Ananda Nivrutti Chavan, PW 4
Chandrakant Anna Bidkar, PW 5 Sanjay Maruti Chavan, PW 6 Babaso
Pandurang Chavan and PW 7 Ganpatrao Anandrao Chavan were
examined on the point of extra-judicial confession made to them by
the Appellant but they did not support the prosecution case.
4. PW 10 Dr. Balkrishna Shiva Latvadekar had conducted
post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and had
found 11 injuries on the head, out of which, two injuries were incised
wounds. There was one more injury in the nature of contusion on the
neck and the cause of death, as opined by the doctor was
haemorrhagic shock due to cerebral haemorrhage due to fracture of
skull and also due to asphyxia due to throttling. According to this
witness, the injuries were possible by a hard and blunt object and the
incised wounds were possible by a sharp object.
URS 3 of 7
4 APEAL 357-10-Judgment.doc
5. PW 11 Aslam Shabuddin Momin and PW 12 Nagnath
Baburao Chavan were the panchas for arrest panchanama when the
Appellant was arrested and they were examined to prove that he had
suffered an incised wound on the left wrist. However, these witnesses
have not supported the prosecution case.
6. PW 13 PHC Shahaji Lahu Khot had carried the articles to
the CA at Pune. PW 14 PC Ajij Khutubuddin Mullani was another
carrier of muddemal articles to the CA's office. PW 15 API Vitthal
Digambar Dabade was the Investigating Officer who was attached to
Peth-Vadgaon Police Station and who had conducted the
investigation.
7. Apart from these witnesses, the prosecution case mainly
rests on the evidence of PW 8 Meena Nagnath Mane and PW 9
Houserao Yashwant Patil. PW 8 Meena was sister of the deceased and
she has given the history of quarrels between the Appellant and the
deceased. She has deposed about the reason for this quarrel which is
already mentioned. It was the wish of the deceased that the ancestral
property should go to her son Kunal and not to her stepson Bhaiyya,
to which the Appellant was not agreeable. There is not much cross-
examination of this witness on this aspect and through this witness,
the prosecution has successfully proved the motive for commission of
the murder.
URS 4 of 7
5 APEAL 357-10-Judgment.doc
8. The most important witness for the prosecution in this
case is PW 9 Houserao Patil. He was the Police Patil of village
Talasande. According to him on 22/01/2007, he was attending one
function regarding a water scheme in the village. The function got
over at about 10.00 a.m. When he was returning back to his village,
he came to know that the Appellant had killed his wife. Therefore, he,
along with others, went to the house of the Appellant. He saw that
the Appellant was standing at the door of his house. This witness then
asked the Appellant as to what had happened, whereupon, the
Appellant told him that his wife used to harass him and used to
quarrel with him and therefore he had killed her. After this, this
witness and others entered the house and saw that the Appellant's
wife was lying in a pool of blood. He made a telephone call to police.
Police came there and recorded his statement which was treated as
the FIR. The main question which was raised before the trial Court by
the accused was that whether such confession before the Police Patil
was admissible in view of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act.
However, the learned trial Judge has rightly rejected the arguments
on behalf of the accused by relying on the Full Bench Judgment of this
Court in the case of Rajeshwar Hiraman Mohurle Vs. State of
Maharashtra1. Section 25 of the Evidence Act reads thus :-
"25. Confession to police officer not to be proved. -
No confession made to a police officer, shall be proved as
against a person accused of any offence."
Therefore, the question before the Full bench was whether the Police
1 2009 CRI. L. J. 3816
URS 5 of 7
6 APEAL 357-10-Judgment.doc
Patil can be termed as the 'Police Officer' envisaged under Section 25
of the Evidence Act. This Court, in the case of Rajeshwar (supra),
considered earlier conflicting views on the point and came to the
conclusion that the Police Patil is a person responsible primarily for
village surveillance, prevention of crime and providing assistance to
the police in discharge of their duties. His duties and functions are
subject to orders of District Magistrate. Powers of Police Patil to
investigate and control over apprehended persons are limited in their
nature and scope and are not as wide, specific as of the Police Officer
under Cr.P.C. It was specifically held that a Police Patil cannot be said
to be a Police Officer in law for all intent and purpose. Thus, the issue
is no more res-integra and therefore, the confession made by the
Appellant in the present case to PW 9 Houserao Patil who was the
Police Patil of the village, is clearly admissible.
9. The evidence of PW 9 Housereao Patil inspires confidence.
He had immediately reached the spot. The Appellant was standing in
his house. The dead body was lying inside the house and at that time,
the Appellant confessed about his crime to this witness. His
confession was corroborated by the circumstance of the dead body
lying inside his house. The motive, as mentioned by the Appellant
himself, was corroborated by the PW 8 as mentioned earlier. The CA
report shows that the articles found at the spot showed presence of
blood group 'AB'. However that by itself, does not further the
prosecution case because all those articles were lying near the spot
where the deceased was lying dead in a pool of blood.
URS 6 of 7
7 APEAL 357-10-Judgment.doc
10. The Appellant has not explained any of these
circumstances and in particular, he has not explained as to how the
deceased was lying inside his house when he was standing at the
door. Thus, the Appellant has not discharged the burden of proof
under Section 106 of the Evidence Act which required him to explain
the circumstances in connection with death of his wife while he was in
his house and those circumstances were in his exclusive knowledge.
11. We are of the opinion that the extra-judicial confession
made by the Appellant to PW 6 is sufficiently corroborated by his
presence at the spot under suspicious circumstances. The reason for
his quarrel with the deceased and motive behind the murder is proved
through PW 8 and through his own confession before PW 9. He has
not explained any of the incriminating circumstances which were
within his exclusive knowledge.
12. With the result, we are of the opinion that there is no
merit in the Appeal. Hence, we pass the following order :
ORDER
The Appeal is dismissed.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) (A. A. SAYED, J.)
URS 7 of 7
