Sakhubai Bhairu Kajale vs The State Of Maharashtra
2022 Latest Caselaw 12758 Bom

                                    -1-
                                                     criappeal700.16.odt

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                      CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 700 OF 2016

Sakhubai Bhairu Kajale
age 47 years, occ. Housewife,
R/o Khed, Tq. Lohara, Dist. Osmanabad.                     Appellant

       Versus

State of Maharashtra                                       Respondent

Mr. H. F. Pawar, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. S. P. Deshmukh, APP for the respondent/State.

                                   WITH
                      CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 934 OF 2022

The State of Maharashtra                                   Appellant

       Versus

1.     Suresh Laxman Jadhav
       Age 45 years, occ. Labour.

2.     Pintu Jaising Rathod
       Age 27 years, occ. Labour

3.     Babu Vinayak Rathod
       Age 22 years, occ. Labour

       All r/o Khed, Tq. Lohara,
       Dist. Osmanabad.                                    Respondents

Mr. S. P. Deshmukh, APP for the applicant/State.
Mr. Abhay Ostwal, Advocate for respondent No. 1.
Mr. K. D. Jadhav, Advocate for respondent No. 2.
Mr. M. L. Deoda, Advocate for respondent No. 3.




 ::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2022                ::: Downloaded on - 10/12/2022 16:25:34 :::
                                      -2-
                                                          criappeal700.16.odt

                                 CORAM : R. G. AVACHAT &
                                          R. M. JOSHI, JJ.

RESERVED ON : 30th NOVEMBER, 2022.

PRONOUNCED ON : 8th DECEMBER, 2022.

JUDGMENT : ( PER R. M. JOSHI, J. )

1. Appellant/accused in Criminal Appeal No. 700/2016

being aggrieved by impugned judgment and order dated 26 th October,

2016 in Sessions Case No. 45/2014 thereby convicting her for the

offences punishable under Sections 364, 302 and 201 read with

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code has preferred this appeal under

Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The State has preferred appeal being Criminal Appeal No.

934/2022 against acquittal of accused No. 2 to 4/respondents No. 1

to 3 herein by passing the impugned judgment. Both the appeals are

taken up for hearing together.

3. In short, prosecution case is as follows :-

On 8th September, 2014, Dattu, son of appellant/accused

lodged report with Lohara Police Station stating that after death of

his father, his mother, Sakhubai is having relations with Suresh

Jadhav which was not liked by him as well as his brother Pappu

criappeal700.16.odt

(deceased). It is further reported that since Pappu was obstructing to

the said relationship, in order to remove the said obstruction, his

mother i.e. appellant/accused along with Suresh Jadhav, Pintu

Rathod and Babu Rathod took Pappu in the jeep in the evening of 6 th

September, 2014. On the next day, the mother of the informant

came home alone and Pappu did not return. Later on, number of

villagers made enquiry with mother of the informant about Pappu

but she did not disclose anything to them. In the night, infront of

number of people from village, she confessed about taking Pappu

with the help of co-accused in the jurisdiction of Manthala Police

Station, Karnataka State and having killed him by hanging and also

assaulting by stone and that the dead body is thrown in the woods.

Report came to be lodged at about 10.15 pm on 8 th September, 2014.

Pursuant thereto, Crime No. 251/2014 came to be registered.

4. As per the case of prosecution, appellant/accused as well

as co-accused were taken into custody by police and pursuant to the

statement made by appellant and co-accused Pintu, they took police

to the place where the dead body was thrown and consequent to their

disclosure statement, dead body was recovered from the said spot.

Corpse was sent to Rural hospital Basavkalyan, Dist. Bidar,

criappeal700.16.odt

Karnataka State and after conducting autopsy, the dead body was

brought to Lohara Police Station. After registration of crime, further

investigation was conducted wherein statements of accused were

recorded leading to discovery and recovery of clothes of deceased and

blade used for commission of crime. Statements of witnesses were

recorded, spot panchanama was done and on conclusion of

investigation, charge-sheet is fled. Sessions Case No. 45/2014 came

to be registered after committal of case to Additional Sessions Judge,

Omerga. Since accused abjured the charge, they were put on trial.

Prosecution examined fve witnesses to prove guilt of the accused.

Defence on the other hand, placed on record version of two witnesses.

5. Learned advocate for the appellant/accused submitted

that the entire investigation carried out in the present case is

doubtful and on the basis of such investigation, no conviction can be

sustained. It is submitted that there is no consistent and reliable

evidence to hold that the dead body was recovered pursuant to the

disclosure statement made by present appellant. It is further argued

that even in the First Information Report, informant has not made

reference about any alleged illicit relationship of his mother with

Suresh. Thus, according to him, prosecution has failed to prove

criappeal700.16.odt

motive for the accused to commit crime in question. As far as alleged

recoveries of blade and clothes of the deceased are concerned, it is

submitted that the said place was already visited by the police, hence

said recoveries cannot be attributed to the exclusive knowledge of the

accused in order to consider it as an incriminating circumstance

against her. To support his contention, reliance is placed on following

judgments :-

i) Aghnoo Nagesia vs. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1966 Supreme Court 119

ii) Mohd. Abdul Hafeez vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (1983) 1 Supreme Court Cases 143.

6. Learned APP submitted that the trial Court has rightly

convicted present appellant as on the basis of evidence of Dattu (PW

2) prosecution has proved the facts about appellant having illicit

relationship with co-accused Suresh and they having taken Pappu on

6th September, 2014, from the house and thereafter he did not return

home. According to him, from evidence on record it is clear that

pursuant to the information of this accused as well as co-accused

Suresh, the dead body was recovered, which circumstance

conclusively proves their participation in crime. He also relied upon

evidence of the recovery of clothes of deceased as well as the blade

criappeal700.16.odt

found at the spot which were made pursuant to the statement made

by appellant and Pintu. It is his contention that the possibility of

deceased having died for any other reason except homicidal death is

completely ruled out from the circumstances in which the dead body

was recovered. According to him, the learned trial Court has

committed error in acquitting the co-accused for the offence in

question and on the basis of material on record, the order of acquittal

deserves to be reversed and he seeks conviction of co-accused and

dismissal of appeal by convicted one.

7. In response to the said arguments, learned advocate for

the acquitted accused drew attention of this Court to the cross-

examination of Umesh Jadhav (PW 3) and Investigation Offcer (PW 5)

in order to point out that there is no consistency in their version as

to which accused has made disclosure statement and at whose

instance the dead body was recovered from the spot of incident. It is

also submitted that there is no panchanama drawn by the police with

regard to fnding of the dead body at the spot and which according to

him, is a serious lapse in the case of prosecution. It is also

submitted that the mode adopted by the Investigating Offcer in going

to different State without seeking prior permission of the superior is

criappeal700.16.odt

contrary to the rules and hence the entire investigation of

prosecution carried on such irregularity must fail.

8. The case in hand is one, where no one has witnessed the

incident in which deceased Pappu died. The prosecution, therefore,

is relying upon the following circumstances in order to bring home

guilt of the accused :-

i)         Homicidal death of deceased.



ii)        Motive       for    appellant/accused   and   accused        Suresh        in

eliminating Pappu on account of their illicit relationship being opposed by deceased.

iii) Accused having taken Pappu from house on 6th September, 2014 and thereafter he is not seen alive by anyone else. Thus, last seen theory is sought to be pressed in service.

iv) Recovery of the dead body of Pappu pursuant to the disclosure statement of appellant/accused and co-accused Pintu.

v) Recovery of blade and clothes at the instance of these two accused persons.

vi) Extra judicial confession made by Sakhubai to villagers in presence of Dattu.

criappeal700.16.odt

9. Dr. Bhurle (PW 1) attached to General Hospital,

Basvakalyan, Dist. Bidar had conducted autopsy on the dead body of

Digambar @ Pappu on 8th September, 2014. According to him, the

said dead body was brought to the hospital by police Nike B. No. 23

of Lohara Police Station, Maharashtra with history of murder of

deceased by his mother. During autopsy, he found following three

contusion marks on the neck of the deceased :

1)     Around neck near mandible to the nape of neck (back side)
2)     Front of neck to left side of the neck.
3)     Just below second one - front of neck upto left side of neck.

He also found peeling of skin on right forearm on palmer

side which according to him, was post mortem injury. He also found

internal injuries such as :-

1) Subcutaneous conjesion on forehead, black blood, bone crept fell on pressure.

2) Laceration of membrane with conjesion and laceration of brain tissue with hematoma present.

3) Fracture of hip of hyoid bone right side.

According to him, injuries except one on the forearm on

palmer side were ante mortem injuries. He opined that the head

injury of the deceased was possible by hit with stone (Article No. 4).

It is further opined that the death of the deceased might have caused

frstly due to head injury also supported by hanging of neck by rope.

criappeal700.16.odt

Considering the nature of injuries on head and neck, it is opined that

there is rare possibility of death by suicide and according to him,

there is more chance of this being homicidal death.

10. Defence by cross-examining Dattu (PW 2) has tried to

bring on record that the marriage of Pappu was not getting settled

and on that count, he had become irritating. It is, therefore, sought

to be indicated that the possibility of he committing suicide is not

ruled out. It is, however, pertinent to note that the person who wants

to commit suicide why will travel more than 100 kms from his house

to end his life. It is case of prosecution that his name inscribed on

forearm was removed by peeling of skin on forearm after his death.

By doing so, attempt was made to make dead body unidentifable.

Considering this aspect coupled with the nature of injuries caused to

the deceased and the dead body being found kept in gunny bag,

possibility of suicidal death is totally ruled out. On the basis of

material evidence on record, it is held that the deceased died

homicidal death.

11. Prosecution, in order to prove motive of appellant and co-

accused Suresh, has relied upon testimony of Dattu (PW 2) who

- 10 -

criappeal700.16.odt

deposed about their love relationship. In the cross-examination, it is

brought on record that there is no specifc mention in the First

Information Report about any love/illicit relationship between them.

Thus, it is sought to be argued on behalf of the appellant that this

amounts to material omission and improvement in his testimony

before the Court. In this regard it is material to take note that First

Information Report (Exhibit 64) specifcally states that since the time

of death of his father his mother is having relationship with Suresh

which was not liked by informant and his brother. Mention of word

(laca/k) in common parlance always refers to illicit relationship while

indicating relationship of a married woman. Considering the fact

that informant is real/biological son of appellant, his mentioning only

to that extent is also fully justifed. Said statement in the First

Information Report is indicative of the fact that there was illicit

relationship between them. Thus, there is no omission or

improvement made in this regard by the said witness. Moreover, it

also does not stand to any reason as to why the son will make such

allegation against his own mother, for having no other reason to make

false insinuation against her. In the circumstances, prosecution was

able to establish that relationship between appellant and Suresh was

- 11 -

criappeal700.16.odt

disliked by her son and there used to occur quarrels on that count

with deceased Pappu.

12. In order to prove theory of last seen, prosecution has

relied upon evidence of Dattu (PW 2) who has deposed about

appellant and Suresh taking Pappu on motorcycle on 6 th September,

2014 at around 6.00 pm. In the First Information Report however, it

is stated that appellant, Suresh and two others took Pappu in a jeep.

Thus, there is no consistency in the evidence of this witness as to the

taking away of Pappu from house. It is argued on behalf of appellant

that the admission of Dattu in the cross-examination that he came

back home at 7.00 pm is suffcient to discard his claim about having

seen deceased with the accused. It is relevant to note that this

witness is agricultural labour and hence, mentioning of exact time is

not expected of him. Therefore, inconsistency in time may not

become suffcient reason to disbelieve his testimony. In this

connection Umesh Jadhav (PW 3) who is employer of deceased Pappu

claims that at about 6.00 pm, Pappu came to him and told that he is

going to village Hipparga to see his ailing grand mother and

thereafter he went away. Defence is seeking to take advantage of this

statement to claim that as per the evidence of this witness, Pappu

- 12 -

criappeal700.16.odt

alone went to village Hipparga. First of all, there is nothing in the

said statement to show that Pappu told this witness about going to

his grand mother's place alone and hence it is not permissible to read

the said statement accordingly. Evidence of Dattu (PW 2) to the

extent of his mother taking Pappu out of house and returning home

alone on the next day is found consistent, though not against co-

accused.

13. It is testifed by Dattu that on the next day, when his

mother came back home, he made enquiry with her about Pappu but

she did not disclose anything for whole day. According to him, when

villagers asked her about Pappu, she told them about Pappu being

killed by her along with co-accused Suresh. Prosecution is seeking to

place reliance on the said extra judicial confession made by appellant

to the villagers. Extra judicial confession even otherwise is weak

piece of evidence and before accepting the same the Court must

ensure that it is made voluntarily. Evidence of Umesh Jadhav (PW 3)

indicates that appellant was pressurised by the villagers and

pursuant to pressure so extended she made some statement. It is

thus clear that the said statement made by appellant is not on free

will or voluntary but is obtained under pressure. We, therefore, do

- 13 -

criappeal700.16.odt

not fnd the same to be reliable and hence it deserves to be kept out

of consideration.

14. As per evidence of Investigating Offcer, he received

information on phone from police station that one woman of village

Khed, Tq. Lohara has committed murder of her son. At that time, he

was on patrolling duty and on getting said information, he went to

the house of appellant/accused. At the said place, he found mob of

about 150 to 200 persons gathered. He made enquiry with appellant

about the incident and she agreed to show the place where the dead

body of her son is. He thereafter asked some persons present to

make arrangement of two vehicles. He went back to the police

station by taking appellant in custody. Other accused were also

accosted and brought to police station. At that time, at about 11.00

pm, two four wheelers were brought to the police station and he took

accused with them. According to him, he took only appellant and

Pintu as they expressed desire to show the place where the dead

body is kept. As per the version of this witness, as per the directions

shown by Pintu, they went frstly to Zahirabad and Pintu tried to

mislead them. However, according to him, appellant disclosed that

the said place being hilly area with no traffc on the road.

- 14 -

criappeal700.16.odt

Accordingly, thereafter, Pintu showed the place where the dead body

was kept. After getting down from jeep, Pintu pointed out the place

wherein dead body was found in a gunny bag kept to the side of the

woods.

15. Umesh (PW 3), on the other hand, deposed that after

initial disclosure, Sakhubai took them towards Algud road and after

reaching to the particular spot, she asked to stop the vehicle.

Thereafter, they all got down from the vehicle and appellant went by

walk towards some trees and pointed out her fnger to the place

where the dead body is thrown. Police found one tied gunny bag

wherein dead body of Pappu was found.

16. The disclosure statements of accused are sought to be

challenged on the ground that it is not in writing and no

memorandum panchanama is drawn of the same. In this regard,

reference can be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

the case of Suresh Chandra Bahri vs. State of Bihar reported in 1995

Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 80, wherein it is held that the

information whether oral or written or no information at all does not

matter as long as evidence of physical leading to point out discovery

- 15 -

criappeal700.16.odt

and recovery at the instance of accused is established. This shows

that it is not the rule that the disclosure statement can be accepted

only if it is reduced in writing. The recovery of dead body in this case

if is found to be reliable on the basis of such oral disclosure, the

same statement cannot be discarded for the reason it is not in

writing.

17. In the present case, the recovery of dead body is

absolutely vital piece of evidence on the basis of which success of

case of the prosecution depends. Surprisingly however, there is no

panchanama drawn with regard to the fnding of dead body. The

panchanama (Exhibit 66) indicates the place where the dead body

was found was shown by appellant and thereafter the dead body was

removed from the said place and inquest panchanama was done. It

is thus clear that said panchanama does not pertain to the recovery

of dead body from the said spot. Aforesaid evidence of Umesh Jadhav

(PW 3) and Investigating Offcer (PW 5) materially contradicts each

others claim about at whose instance the dead body of deceased was

found. According to Umesh, dead body was shown by appellant

whereas Investigating Offcer claims it to have been shown by Pintu.

Umesh Jadhav (PW 3) in his deposition before the Court has candidly

- 16 -

criappeal700.16.odt

stated that in the police station, appellant's statement about the

incident as narrated by her was recorded by police and it was

readover to her. Meaning thereby, there was statement recorded by

the police pursuant to which leading to the discovery of the spot

where the dead body was found. There is no explanation forthcoming

from the Investigating Offcer as to the reason for which the said

statement is not placed on record. In case where such disclosure

statement is oral and not reduced in writing, it can be considered if

found reliable but when witness of prosecution claims that the

disclosure statement was reduced in writing it must have been

brought on record to lend authenticity to the ocular evidence.

Absence of such statement on record makes the claim of prosecution

of oral disclosure, more vulnerable.

18. The statement of accused is also sought to be challenged

on the ground that joint disclosure statement is not admissible in

evidence. In support of the said submission, reliance is placed on

the case of Mohd. Abdul Hafeez (supra). Perusal of said judgment,

however, does not show that the statement was discarded by the

Hon'ble Apex Court only on the ground that it is jointly made by

- 17 -

criappeal700.16.odt

more than one accused. In the said case, the said statement was not

found reliable for the reason that it was silent as to at whose instance

the recoveries were made consequent thereto. Infact, in case of State

(NCT Delhi) vs. Navjyot Sandhu reported in (2005) 11 Supreme Court

Cases 600, recording of joint disclosure or simultaneous disclosure

statement per se is held to be not inadmissible under Section 27 of

the Evidence Act. Thus, there is no substance in the contention that

the statement of appellant and Pintu being joint cannot be relied

upon. It is a different question whether their statement is found

reliable and suffcient to base conviction thereupon, which in this

case we do not fnd so.

19. As discussed above, there is complete variance in the

version of Umesh Jadhav (PW 3) and Investigating Offcer (PW 5) as to

at whose instance the dead body was found by police. Apart from

this, there is inconsistency in their testimony to the extent as to how

police went to the said place. According to Umesh, after going to the

State of Karnataka, police took search for the dead body overnight

and in the next morning, the dead body was found. This version of

the witness cannot be discarded because there is no evidence on

record in the form of any panchanama about fnding out the place

- 18 -

criappeal700.16.odt

where the dead body was found and at whose instance. Apart from

this, as per Umesh, after starting from Lohara Police Station, they

went in a police jeep and were accompanied by another private

vehicle. They went to Manthala Police Station and made enquiry

about any information about the deceased. Investigating Offcer,

however, claims to have taken two private vehicles to the spot and

does not say anything about going to any Police Station in the State

of Karnataka before the dead body was found. All these

circumstances, create serious doubt about the evidence of

prosecution that in what circumstances the dead body was found by

the police. We are, therefore, of the view that there is no satisfactory

evidence which conclusively establishes as to at whose instance the

dead body was found.

20. As far as recovery of clothes of the deceased as well as

seizure of blade from the spot is concerned, admittedly, police had

already visited the spot and hence as rightly held by the learned trial

Court, recovery of blade cannot be attributed to the exclusive

knowledge of the accused. Similarly, the seized clothes of the

deceased are not identifed to be that of deceased nor there are any

blood stains of the group of deceased in order to connect them with

- 19 -

criappeal700.16.odt

the crime in question. The said evidence, therefore, is not relevant to

indicate involvement of accused in crime.

21. Merely because prosecution was able to prove that the

appellant herein had motive to eliminate deceased, it is not suffcient

to convict accused in absence of any corroborating evidence to

connect the appellant/accused and co-accused with this crime. It is

cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the guilt of accused

must be proved beyond shadow of reasonable doubt and any beneft

of reasonable doubt shall go to the accused. In the facts and

circumstances of the case and on appreciation of material evidence of

record, no order of conviction can sustain against the

appellant/accused. Consequently, this Court fnds no perversity in

the fndings recorded by the trial Court acquitting the co-accused

and hence their acquittal calls for no interference. Hence the

following order :

ORDER

i) Criminal Appeal No. 700/2016 stands allowed.

ii) Impugned judgment to the extent of conviction of appellant Sakhubai Bhairu Kajale is set aside. She

- 20 -

criappeal700.16.odt

is acquitted for offence punishable under Sections 364, 302, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

iii) Appellant Sakhubai Bhairu Kajale be released forthwith, if not required in connection with any other crime.

         iv)      Her bail bonds stand cancelled.


         v)       Refund of fne amount paid, if any.


         vi)      Criminal      Appeal    No.     934/2022     challenging
         acquittal of co-accused is dismissed.


         vii)     Pending application, if any, does not survive and
         stands disposed of.




( R. M. JOSHI)                                             ( R. G. AVACHAT)
     Judge                                                        Judge

dyb