Bombay High Court
Pundlik Ratnappa Nabde vs The State Of Maharashtra on 3 February, 2025
Author: R.G. Avachat
Bench: R.G.Avachat
2025:BHC-AUG:3896-DB
Cri Appeal No.670 of 2020.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.670 OF 2O2O
Pundlik s/o. Ratnappa Nabde,
Age : 37 years, Occ. Labour (Hamal),
r/o. Rohidas Nagar, Shirur Anantpal,
Tq. Shirur Anantpal, Dist. Latur ..Appellant
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra,
Through : The Police Station Officer,
Police Station, Shirur Anantpal,
Dist. Latur ..Respondent
----
Mr.R.G.Hange and Mr.A.R.Hange, Advocates for appellant
Dr.Kalpalata Patil-Bharaswadkar, Addl. Public Prosecutor for respondent
- State
----
CORAM : R.G.AVACHAT AND
NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : JANUARY 29, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : FEBRUARY 03, 2025
JUDGMENT (Per R.G. Avachat, J.) :
-
The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order of
conviction and consequential sentence passed by learned Addl.
Sessions Judge, Nilanga, on 31.10.2020, in Sessions Case No.4 of 2018.
Vide the impugned judgment and order, the appellant has been
convicted for committing murder of his mother and also causing
disappearance of evidence and therefore, sentenced to suffer
imprisonment for life and imprisonment for one year, respectively,
and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, with default stipulation. Both the
sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present appeal are
as follows:-
The appellant is son of Ratnappa (PW1) and Bhagabai
(deceased). The appellant was married. He has one brother and
sister as well. His brother stays at Mumbai and sister is married. As
such, the appellant with his wife and parents would reside in the
village. A year before the incident, the appellant along with his wife
started residing separately; but in the premises adjoining to the
premises of his father (PW1 - Ratnappa).
3. It is the case of prosecution that the appellant was
addicted to liquor. He would ask his father for partition of the family
land. The appellant wanted to sell out his share in the land. On the
given day, i.e. 22.10.2017, Ratnappa, father of the appellant, had
been to the field for agricultural operations. Somebody informed him
on phone, his wife to have been murdered. He, therefore, rushed
home to find his wife lying dead in burnt condition. The dead body
was subjected to post-mortem examination. It was found that
deceased Bhagabai was died of strangulation and burn injuries. PW6
- Kantabai was neighbour. She had seen the appellant in the court-
yard of his house by 3.30 p.m., on the fateful day. Thereafter, again
by little past 6.30 pm., she saw the appellant in the court-yard. The
appellant said (confessed) to have killed his mother.
4. PW1 - Ratnappa, after funeral of his wife was over,
lodged the FIR (Exh.22) against the appellant. Crime vide C.R.
No.155 of 2017 was registered. Crime scene panchnama (Exh.29)
was drawn. The appellant was arrested. He made disclosure
statement, pursuant to which a wire came to be seized. From the
crime-scene, certain articles were seized. Statements of the persons
acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case were
recorded. Upon completion of the investigation, the appellant was
proceeded against.
5. The trial court framed Charge (Exh.9). The appellant
pleaded not guilty. His defence was of false implication. To bring
home the Charge, the prosecution examined eleven witnesses and
adduced in evidence certain documents. On appreciation of the
same, the trial court convicted the appellant and sentenced, as
stated above.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel
for the appellant would submit that the case was based on
circumstantial evidence. He would further submit that the land
stood in the name of the father of appellant. The appellant would
have asked his father to give his share in the land. On refusal by the
father, the appellant would have targeted him. Learned counsel
meant to say, the appellant to have no reason or motive to do away
with his mother. He adverted our attention to the inquest
panchnama (Exh.24), which indicates that the dead body was lying
in the room of the informant and not in the room of the appellant.
When the dead body was set ablaze, there ought to have been
evidence indicating fire to have taken place. Learned counsel invited
our attention to the crime-scene panchnama (Exh.29), indicating
nothing of that sort to have been seen in the room. Turning to the
evidence of PW6 - Kantabai, learned counsel would submit that her
statement was recorded 2-3 days after the incident. The so called
extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence. Had it been
made by the appellant publicly, his father would have stated the
same in his FIR and in his oral evidence as well. PW6 - Kantabai had
seen the appellant by 3.30 p.m., that too, in the court-yard. He
further submits that there is no evidence that the appellant and the
deceased were together in the room at the time or soon before the
deceased met with death. According to learned counsel, recovery of
wire, pursuant to the disclosure statement of the appellant, is of no
consequence unless it is shown to have any connection with the
crime in question. He, therefore, urged for allowing the appeal.
7. Learned APP would, on the other hand, submit that the
father and real sister of the appellant, have no reason to speak
against the appellant. The father was away in the field. After having
returned from the field, he saw his wife dead. The appellant was
addicted to liquor. He would ask his share in the family land. The
presence of the appellant at his house at the relevant time has been
made out by the evidence of PW6 - Kantabai. Learned APP would
submit that her evidence would indicate a towel was around the
person of the appellant when he was seen by 3.30 p.m. on the
fateful day. He then adverted to the crime-scene panchnama
(Exh.29), indicating that the burnt pieces of towel too were seen
along with the other articles. According to learned APP, the
appellant made extra-judicial confession. His presence at his
residence by the time of death of his mother is made out by the
evidence of PW6 - Kantabai. It was, therefore, for the appellant to
explain the circumstances in which his mother died. He relied on
Section 106 of the Evidence Act. According to learned APP, the
appellant did not offer any explanation. Same reinforces the
prosecution case. Learned APP, ultimately, urged for dismissal of the
appeal.
8. Considered the submissions advanced. Perused the
judgment impugned herein. Before adverting to the evidence on
record, let us refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4
SCC 116 as under :-
"153. A close analysis of this decision would show
that the following conditions must be fulfilled before
a case against an accused can be said to be fully
established:
(1) The circumstances from which the conclusion
of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
(2) The facts so established should be consistent
only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused,
that is to say, they should not be explainable on any
other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty,
(3) The circumstances should be of a conclusive
nature and tendency,
(4) They should exclude every possible hypothesis
except the one to be proved, and
(5) There must be a chain of evidence so complete
as not to leave any reasonable ground for the
conclusion consistent with the innocence of the
accused and must show that in all human probability
the act must have been done by the accused."
9. In the present case, following facts are sought to be
relied on to bring home the charge:-
(i) Homicidal death;
(ii) Motive;
(iii) Presence of the appellant;
(iv) Extra-judicial confession
10. The appellant along his wife on one hand and the
parents on the other were residing in a separate premises adjoining
to each other. The incident took place in the evening of 22.10.2017.
The post-mortem examination report (Exh.43) concludes that the
deceased died of strangulation. It was PW 7 - Dr. Balaji, who
conducted the post-mortem examination. He found ligature mark on
the neck of the deceased. According him, the burns on the person
of the deceased were post-mortem. Same indicates the culprit to
have set the dead body ablaze with a view to cause disappearance
of the evidence of strangulation. The fact that the deceased died of
homicidal death is not disputed before us.
Motive:-
11. PW1 - Ratnappa is father of the appellant. He testified
that 5 Acres 15 Gunthas land stands in his name. He produced in
evidence 7/12 extract of his land (Exh.21). He further testified that
the appellant got addicted to liquor. The appellant wanted partition
of the family land as he intended to sell the land of his share to
someone else. He (Ratnappa) was opposed to the same. This was
said to be the motive for doing away with the mother. There is
nothing to indicate that the mother had any role to pursue her
husband for non-partition of the family land and separate shares of
son (appellant). Admittedly, the land stands in the name of the
appellant's father and no share therein was given to the appellant
for his exclusive cultivation or for sale. The appellant to have reason
to be after his father and not the mother. We, therefore, find that the
motive with which the prosecution has come, is scanty. It is,
however, not that in each and every case based on circumstantial
evidence, the prosecution could be able to make out the motive.
Needless to mention, the motive remains locked in the mind of the
culprit and some times can be difficult to prove. True, the sister of
the appellant, PW9 - Khushalbai, had testified that the appellant
would ask for his share in the land by effecting partition. The
appellant was addicted to liquor. He would threaten his parents to
do away with them. She, however, in the cross-examination,
testified that her marriage took place in 1986. She would visit her
parents' house occasionally. She had no direct talks with the
appellant regarding partition of the land. Her evidence is not
specific, as to when she had visited her parents' house last, before
the incident and when the appellant had asked for partition of the
family land.
Presence of the appellant and Extra-judicial confession :-
12. The dead body of the mother of the appellant was said
to have been found in the room in possession of the appellant. The
inquest panchnama (Exh.24), however, records as under:-
"मयताच्या उत्तर मुखी रूममध्ये डोळे पूर्वेस पाय पश्चिमेस
उताणे स्थितीत जळालेल्या अवस्थेत"
It suggests that the deceased was found in the room,
wherein, she was residing along with her husband. True, said
statement in the inquest panchnama might be incorrect. The
prosecution, however, ought to have cleared the doubt. The crime-
scene panchnama (Exh.29) drawn in the presence of PW 3 - Uttam
also suggests the same to be the house of PW 1 - Ratnappa (father
of appellant). True, PW1 - Ratnappa being father, the house must be
standing in his name and so to say the witness might have said it to
be the house of father of the appellant. The case of the prosecution
is that the deceased was first strangled; she died; and thereafter, the
dead body was set ablaze. PW3 - Uttam was categorical to testify
that there were tiles in the room. None of the tiles was broken.
There was no evidence or traces on the walls or roof of the room,
indicating the incident of fire. It was a tin-shed room. None of the
tin-shed was found to have been blacken. As such, it is difficult to
conclude that the incident took place in the room of the appellant.
The wife (PW8 - Nirmala) of the appellant did not stand by the
prosecution.
13. The case solely rests on the evidence of PW6 - Kantabai,
neighbour of the appellant. She testified that it was Sunday. By
03.30 p.m., she came out of her house. Her grandson was playing
on the road. The appellant came there and pat on the head of her
grandson. The appellant inquired with the grandson, as to when he
had come. The appellant even took him in his arms and kissed him.
The appellant took bite on his cheek. The grandson, therefore, bit
the appellant. While reliving the grandson from his arms, the towel
around the appellant's person fell down. The appellant lifted the
same and went away. Kantabai, further, testified that thereafter, the
wife of the appellant came to her house. She raised shouts. She and
others gathered. Again by 06.30 pm. or 07.00 pm., the appellant
came there and said "he murdered his mother". She referred to her
statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, in his examination-in-chief. Said exercise was done to
corroborate her evidence. Said statement is silent to state the
appellant to have made extra-judicial confession.
14. The statement of PW6 - Kantabai was recorded 2-3 days
after the incident. When the appellant was alleged to have made
extra-judicial confession publicly, his father was there at the house.
The father's (PW1 Ratnappa) evidence is silent to record in the FIR
or to state in his oral evidence about the appellant to have made the
extra-judicial confession. Needless to mention, the extra-judicial
confession is a weak piece of evidence. Even if we consider PW6 -
Kantabai's evidence as it is, what she had seen is that the appellant
had come on the road by 03.30 pm. and thereafter, went away. Her
evidence is silent to state that the appellant then went back to his
house/room. Her evidence further states that the appellant again
came. It was between 06.30 pm. and 07.30 pm. Her evidence is
silent to state, as to whether the appellant came from his room or
from outside. As such, there is nothing to suggest that the appellant
was at his house/room at the relevant time, so as to observe him to
have been in the company of his mother (last seen together).
15. Based on the sole testimony of PW6 - Kantabai, that too,
which is not concrete, it would be difficult to conclude the appellant
to be the author of committing murder of his mother. Thus, the
prosecution could be said to have failed to establish the chain of
circumstances unerringly, pointing out the guilt of the appellant,
excluding possibility of someone else to have been involved in
commission of the crime. The evidence in the nature of disclosure
statement made by the appellant and recovery of wire pursuant
thereto, is of no avail for the prosecution, since there is no evidence
to suggest that the deceased was done to death with the very wire.
The wire was not sent to F.S.L., to find whether any human tissues
were noticed thereon.
16. In the result, interference with the impugned order of
conviction and consequential sentence is called for. Hence, the
following order :-
(i) The appeal is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 31.10.2020, passed by
learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nilanga, Dist. Latur, in Sessions case
No.04 of 2018, convicting and sentencing the appellant for the
offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal
Code, is set aside. He is acquitted of the said offences.
(iii) The appellant be released forthwith, if not required in any
other case.
(iv) Fine amount paid by the appellant, if any, be refunded to
him.
(v) Learned Registrar (Judicial) of this Court shall ensure
compliance of this order today itself.
[NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.] [R.G. AVACHAT, J.]
KBP
