Bombay High Court Acquits Two in Quadruple Murder, Cites Unreliable IO Testimony and Flawed Confession
Mumbai, India
– The Bombay High Court, in a significant ruling, has acquitted
Rakesh
Mahadu Dandekar
and
Mahendra
@ Belu Govind Karwa in a 2008 quadruple murder case, overturning their 2013 conviction by the Additional Sessions Judge, Palghar. The division bench of Justices Sarang V. Kotwal and Shyam C. Chandak found the prosecution's evidence, primarily relying on the testimony of investigating officers (IOs) after panch witnesses turned hostile and a procedurally flawed confessional statement, insufficient to uphold the conviction.
Case Background: A Gruesome Quadruple Murder
The prosecution's case revolved around the murder of four individuals:
Vanasubai
, her nephew
Sanjay
, her niece
Sadhana
, and
Rekha
(
Sanjay
's fiancée). The incident occurred between the night of August 14 and August 15, 2008.
Vanasubai
was allegedly throttled, while the other three were assaulted, taken to a Nala, forcibly drowned, and their bodies, tied with wires and stones, dumped in a septic tank.
The motive, as per the prosecution, was a property dispute. Appellant No. 1
Rakesh
(
Vanasubai
’s grandson) and his mother
Seema
(
Vanasubai
’s daughter-in-law, acquitted by the trial court) allegedly conspired with Appellant No. 2
Mahendra
(
Rakesh
’s friend) and others (some absconding) to commit the murders. The appellants were convicted under Sections 302 (murder), 120-B (criminal conspiracy), and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment.
Arguments Before the High Court
Defence Arguments (Advocate Mr. Dinesh G. Mishra):
The appellants argued a lack of direct evidence and weak circumstantial evidence. Key contentions included: * No clear motive for
Rakesh
, who was a beneficiary under the deceased
Vanasubai
's husband's will. * Panch witnesses for crucial discoveries—dead bodies at
Rakesh
's instance, and recovery of wooden sticks and clothes—had turned hostile, making the IOs' testimony unreliable. * The confessional statement of
Mahendra
(Appellant No. 2) suffered from serious procedural illegalities under Section 164 Cr.P.C., including lack of proper warning, absence of his signature/thumb impression, and failure to explain the contents in his vernacular language, as he was illiterate and did not understand
English
(the language in which it was recorded). * The prosecution's narrative of the incident was highly improbable. * Failure to examine residents of the railway colony near the septic tank, who might have noticed the foul smell from the decomposing bodies.
Prosecution Arguments (APP Ms. Geeta P. Mulekar):
The State contended: * Strong circumstantial evidence pointed to the appellants' guilt. *
Rakesh
had a motive to eliminate
Vanasubai
to gain control of the property. * The discovery of the dead bodies at
Rakesh
's instance was a potent piece of evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, and the IO's testimony was admissible even if panchas turned hostile. *
Mahendra
’s confessional statement was voluntary, admissible, and corroborated other evidence.
High Court's Scrutiny of Evidence
The High Court meticulously re-evaluated the evidence, focusing on two primary aspects: the discovery/recovery panchanamas and the confessional statement.
1. Discovery and Recovery
Panchanamas
: IO's Testimony Insufficient
The Court noted that panch witnesses for the discovery of the three bodies at the instance of
Rakesh
, and the recovery of wooden sticks and clothes allegedly used by him, had turned hostile. This left only the testimony of the Investigating Officer (P.W.13 P.I. Siddharth Gade).
Citing Supreme Court precedents in
Ramanand Alias Nandlal Bharti
Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023) 16 SCC 510
and
Sadashiv Dhondiram Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra (2025) 4 SCC 275
, the High Court emphasized: > "The investigating officer in his oral evidence has not said about the exact words uttered by the accused at the police station... what is lacking is the authorship of concealment." (Quoting
Ramanand
) > > "The investigating officer is obliged to depose in his evidence the exact statement and not by merely saying that a discovery panchnama... was drawn..." (Elaborating on
Ramanand
)
The Court found that P.W.13 P.I. Gade had "failed to reproduce the exact words uttered by the accused" and had not deposed about the "authorship of concealment." This failure, especially when panchas turned hostile, rendered the IO's testimony unreliable for basing a conviction.
Further doubts arose because: *
Rakesh
(Appellant No. 1) was initially treated as a "witness" by the police when medically examined for injuries on August 17, 2008, with no explanation for his subsequent arraignment as an accused. * No residents of the railway colony near the septic tank (where bodies were found) were examined, despite their likely availability as independent witnesses.
2. Confessional Statement:
Marred
by Procedural Lapses
The Court found
Mahendra
's (Appellant No. 2) confessional statement, recorded by a Judicial Magistrate (P.W.20 J.M.F.C. Sabina Maliq), to be vitiated by several procedural infirmities under Sections 164 and 281 of the Cr.P.C. and the Criminal Manual:
*
Inadequate Warning:
While the J.M.F.C. deposed to warning
Mahendra
on the second day (18/09/2008), the Court noted a lapse if the initial warning on 17/09/2008 (before the 24-hour reflection period) was not properly given and deposed to. The judgment stated, "In her substantive deposition, learned Magistrate has nowhere stated that the Appellant No.2 was warned on 17/09/2008."
*
No Signature/Thumb Impression:
The confessional statement did not bear
Mahendra
's thumb impression or signature, a requirement under S.164(4) Cr.P.C. The J.M.F.C. admitted she was unaware of this requirement at the time.
*
Language Barrier:
The confession was recorded in
English
, a language
Mahendra
, an illiterate tribal, did not understand. There was no endorsement or clear deposition that it was explained to him in his vernacular. The J.M.F.C. admitted, "...she was aware that it was necessary to state in the certificate that the contents of the statement were explained to the maker in vernacular. This particular aspect is missing from the evidence."
Relying on
Dagadu and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra (1977 Cr.L.J. 1206)
, the Court observed: > "The failure to observe the safeguards prescribed therein are in practice calculated to impair the evidentiary value of the confessional statements."
The High Court concluded that these "major infirmities" and "serious lacunae" diminished the evidentiary value of the confession, making it unsafe to rely upon. The link showing how
Mahendra
expressed his desire to confess was also missing from the evidence of P.W.15 ACP Makandar.
Judgment: Benefit of Doubt and Acquittal
With the primary evidence against
Rakesh
(discovery/recovery) and
Mahendra
(confession) found unreliable, the High Court concluded: > "As a result of the above discussion, in our opinion, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against both the Appellants beyond reasonable doubt. On the other hand, the defence taken by the Appellant appears to be probable in view of the fact that the Appellant No.1
Rakesh
was a beneficiary of the property... The prosecution has also kept away
Kalia
, who was the first person to whom P.W.1 had informed about the incident."
The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the 2013 judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Palghar. The appellants,
Rakesh
Mahadu Dandekar
and
Mahendra
@ Belu Govind Karwa, who were in custody, were ordered to be released forthwith if not required in any other case, upon executing
P.R. Bonds
under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. (corresponding to S.481 of BNSS).
This judgment underscores the judiciary's stringent standards for evidence in criminal trials, particularly the necessity of adhering to procedural safeguards for recording confessions and the high bar for relying on IO testimony when independent corroboration (like panch witnesses) is absent or discredited.
Back
