Chandulal S/O Vishandas Goklani vs State Of Mah., Thr. Its Secretary, ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3751 Bom

 Judgment                                 1                     Cri.W.P.No.164.2020.odt


               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                         NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.


                   CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 164 OF 2020


          Chandulal S/o Vishandas Goklani,
          Aged about 68 years, Occu. - Business,
          R/o. Ras Garba Road, Quetta Colony,
          Lakadganj, Nagpur.

                                                              .... PETITIONER

                                   // VERSUS //

 1)       State of Maharashtra,
          through Secretary,
          Home Affairs, Mantralaya,
          Mumbai.

 2)       Police Station Officer,
          Hudkeshwar Police Station,
          Nagpur.

 3)       Police Inspector,
          Local Crime Branch,
          Unit No.4, Nagpur City,
          Nagpur.

 4)       Commissioner of Police,
          Nagpur City, Nagpur.
                                                .... RESPONDENT
  ______________________________________________________________
      Shri R. D. Hajare, Advocate for the petitioner.
      Shri N. R. Patil, Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondents.
 ______________________________________________________________

                           CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
                                   AVINASH G. GHAROTE, JJ.

DATED : 01.03.2021.

Judgment 2 Cri.W.P.No.164.2020.odt

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : Sunil B. Shukre, J.)

1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally

forthwith by consent.

2. When we passed the order in the first half today, till the

order was dictated, Shri Hajare, learned counsel for the petitioner was

absent and he appeared only when the dictation was almost over.

Therefore, we noted his presence accordingly and granted his request

for adjournment which was for two weeks, only till the second half for

the reasons stated in the order. We also directed the prosecution to

produce before us the case diary.

3. We have perused the case diary. On going through the case

diary, we do not think any suspicious circumstance surfaced after the

earlier petition namely Criminal Writ Petition No. 1141 of 2017 was

dismissed by this Court on 28.02.2018.

4. It is worthwhile to note here that by this petition, the

petitioner has renewed his prayer third time for directing the

Investigating Agency to register First Information Report for an offence

punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against

unknown persons for the reason that the father of the deceased Dinesh,

suspects that his son Dinesh died not due to commission of suicide but,

Judgment 3 Cri.W.P.No.164.2020.odt

due to some deliberate act committed by unknown persons thereby

giving the case a turn of murder. The grounds taken by him in this

petition are admittedly the same grounds which he had taken earlier

when he filed two almost identical petitions namely Criminal Writ

Petition No. 3 of 2017 and other Criminal Writ Petition No. 1141 of

2017. The Criminal Writ Petition No.3 of 2017 was allowed by this

Court by the order passed on 17.04.2017, when it directed transfer of

the investigation in the matter to Local Crime Branch with immediate

effect, though, this Court recorded a finding that till the date of passing

of the order, it had not accepted the contention that this was a case of

murder. This Court transferred the investigation to Local Crime Branch

only for the reason that it thought it fit to accept that the investigation

was not carried out properly. But, the other matter, Criminal Writ

Petition No. 1141 of 2017 came to be dismissed by this Court by the

order passed on 28.02.2018. Before dismissing the petition, it is seen

from the order passed on 28.02.2018 that this Court had considered all

the relevant facts and circumstances of the case and also the

statements made in the reply of the prosecution. This Court found that

when the petitioner was called by the Crime Branch and his statement

was recorded afresh, the petitioner only repeated the same story but

made some fresh allegations against some unknown persons. The

Local Crime Branch conducted due investigation and found that this

Judgment 4 Cri.W.P.No.164.2020.odt

was a case of suicide, supported by the medical evidence and

corroborated by the statements of various witnesses. This Court,

considering the medical evidence and statements of various witnesses,

recorded a finding that nothing else was required to be done in the

matter and therefore, it dismissed the petition.

5. Today, we asked the learned counsel as to whether or not

any new circumstances have been discovered by the petitioner, learned

counsel for the petitioner stated that although he represents the

petitioner, there is one more Advocate, Mr. M. M. Sudame, who also

represents the petitioner and Mr. Sudame knows much more than him

and that he can reply the query. He, therefore, sought time from the

Court. The ground so taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner to

seek an adjournment is not acceptable to this Court and is rejected

because Shri Hajare, learned counsel for the petitioner having accepted

the brief cannot avoid his duty on the ground that the other Advocate

additionally engaged knows better than him.

6. Apart from what is stated above, absence of any substance

in this petition is visible without any difficulty, if one goes through the

case diary to which, neither the petitioner nor his both Advocates

would have any access at this stage, and perhaps it is for this reason

they are not aware of the state of facts discovered in the investigation

Judgment 5 Cri.W.P.No.164.2020.odt

and thus are repeatedly making efforts to find out something which, as

a reality, does not exist.

7. On going though the case diary, we find that there are no

new circumstances found in the intense investigation made so far as to

doubt the conclusion reached by the Investigating Officer, that this was

nothing but a case of suicide. Neither in the statements of the witnesses

nor in the medical evidence nor in the report of the Forensic

Laboratory, any such circumstance has come to the fore as would

reasonably rule out the possibility of suicidal nature of death of Dinesh.

The Postmortem report categorically states the probable cause of death

as "due to hanging". The Investigating Officer has also enquired with

Dr. D. S. Akarte, Department of Forensic Medicine, G.M.C. and

Hospital, Nagpur who has informed the police that the findings

recorded in the P.M. report indicated that the death had occurred due

to ante-mortem hanging. The Investigating Officer has recorded

statements of seven relevant witnesses, whose names, in the interest of

maintaining confidentiality and sanctity of the investigation are not

being revealed here. However, the statements of these witnesses do not

show that there was any material for expressing any doubt against any

person as regards his involvement in eliminating deceased Dinesh.

Judgment 6 Cri.W.P.No.164.2020.odt

8. Apart from the above investigation, the Investigating

Officer has also verified the call details record of deceased Dinesh and

cross checked it with the statements of all such relevant witnesses as

had lastly come in contact with deceased Dinesh. Investigating Officer

has, in his reply, stated that scrutiny of the CDR did not reveal any

suspicious acts on the part of the witnesses, rather, the CDR

corroborates the versions of the witnesses whose statements have been

recorded. The Investigating Officer has further stated in his reply that

he has examined WhatsApp messages and text messages but he found

nothing suspicious in those messages. The Investigating Officer, it is

further seen, had conducted the spot visit again but, came across no

suspicious circumstances. The Investigating Officer had also obtained

information from the Superintendent of Land Record, Sub-Registrar of

Nagpur City but, no useful material came forward so as to support the

theory of murder, which the petitioner is trying to put forward.

9. The Medical Officers, Dr. R. R. Fulzele and Dr. D. S. Akarte,

in their communications dated 30.10.2018 have again opined to the

effect that there were no external or internal injuries over the body

apart from ligature mark over the neck and that there were no bony or

cartilaginous injuries in postmortem findings. They have also opined

that the ligature mark along with internal findings of neck are

suggestive of death due to ante-mortem hanging.

Judgment 7 Cri.W.P.No.164.2020.odt

10. Thus, it is seen that detailed investigation has been made

by the Investigating Officer and it is done again and again and yet, no

suspicious material or circumstances could be found by him to support

the theory of murder of deceased Dinesh. The witnesses are all in

agreement that this was a case of suicide. Here, we may state that

there is recorded statement of one girl 'X' and it is important for the

reason that she was the person who had had last contact and that too

physical contact in the nature of sexual intercourse, with deceased

Dinesh before his death. Her statement sufficiently reveals the state of

mind of Dinesh before his dead body was found hanging on a rope. She

had sexual intercourse with him in the morning of 12.08.2016 and she

was there with him at his flat just before 11.00 am. of that day. She has

stated that after engaging herself physically with Dinesh, in that

morning, she was told by Dinesh to leave his apartment. She has also

stated that Dinesh had a weird habit of moving around in his

apartment in half naked condition with only a baniyan on his person,

and that day he had also opened the door of his apartment in such

condition only. She has stated that she used to offer advice to Dinesh to

shed the habit of moving around half naked in his apartment. She has

stated that when she was with Dinesh on that day at the apartment, she

had noticed that there was a rope lying in the bedroom and that rope

was removed from a place where it was tied for the purpose of drying

Judgment 8 Cri.W.P.No.164.2020.odt

clothes. Sensing something different, she has further stated, she asked

Dinesh the purpose of bringing rope inside the bedroom. She has stated

that she was told by Dinesh that she better ignored it and would better

leave his apartment. She has further stated that she reached back her

home at about 11.00 a.m. and that till 12.00 p.m. she received no call

from Dinesh, which was a departure from the usual practice of Dinesh

whereby Dinesh would call her back after some time every time she left

his apartment, just to check as to whether or not she had reached back

home safely. As she received no call till 12.00 p.m., she has further

stated, she called up Dinesh at about 12.00 p.m., but her call could not

get connected to him. She has further stated that she felt worried and

therefore, about 01.00 p.m., she physically went to his apartment and

rang the bell, but, there was no response and as nobody opened the

door, she tried to push it open, but in-vain. Then, she has stated that

she tried to peep inside the apartment through the glass pane of

adjoining window and she was horrified to see that dead-body of

Dinesh was hanging by the rope. Thereafter, she gave information to

her friends and then the police arrived at the scene.

11. As stated by us, such statement of the girl 'X' reveals the

state of mind of Dinesh on the fateful day and it was of despair as well

as of deep rebellion against the norms of life. Whatever versions the

witnesses have consistently stated have been cross checked by the

Judgment 9 Cri.W.P.No.164.2020.odt

police several times over and the Investigating Officer has found no

falsehood in those versions. Then as stated earlier, the medical

evidence and other circumstantial evidence also support these versions.

The petitioner has also not given any name together with some

evidence against that person. Thus, we are of the opinion that the

investigation carried out by the police is satisfactory and no fault could

be found with police in any manner. This is not a fit case for issuing any

directions to the police, much less a direction about registration of

offence of murder against some unknown person.

12. In the result, we find that there is no merit in this petition.

The petition stands dismissed. Case diary is returned.

Rule is discharged.

            (AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)                (SUNIL B. SHUKRE J.)




 Kirtak