Back
Invokes Section 310 CrPC To Inspect Kopardi Rape-Murder Spot
In a significant move ahead of final arguments, a Division Bench of the comprising Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Ashish Chavan has decided to conduct a of the crime scene in the infamous Kopardi gang rape and murder case. The court invoked its power under to visit the spot on , before hearing the appeals challenging the death sentences awarded to the convicts.
Background: The Kopardi Horror
The case stems from the brutal rape and murder of a minor girl in Kopardi village, Ahmednagar district, in . A Special Court under the in Ahmednagar convicted three accused—Jitendra @ Pappu Babulal Shinde, Santosh Gorakh Bhaval, and Nitin Gopinath Bhailume—and sentenced them to death in . One convict, Shinde, died in jail in . The High Court is now hearing the mandatory filed by the State, along with separate appeals by the surviving convicts.
Why the Court Wants to Visit the Spot
During the hearing, the bench noted that the case revolves heavily around the spot of the incident and the timeline of events. Witnesses, particularly PW 15 and PW 18 , claimed to have seen the accused persons moving on a motorcycle, while others like PW 4, PW 9, and PW 11 deposed about other circumstances. The trial court had relied on this to form a pointing to guilt.
The judges observed a lack of clarity on crucial aspects: the location of the victim’s cycle and her clothes, the distance between the spot and the road, and the visibility from the point where a key witness (PW 18) was seated. The bench stated:
“It is very necessary to have a clarity about the relative distances from the view point of deposition of the witnesses so as to appreciate their and to ascertain whether they could have noticed the movements of the accused persons.”
The prosecution had argued that the cycle was found at one spot while the clothes were in an opposite field, making the topography critical.
Legal Basis: Section 310 CrPC and Precedents
The court invoked Section 310 CrPC , which empowers any judge to visit and inspect any place where an offence is alleged to have been committed, for the purpose of properly appreciating the evidence. Both the prosecution and the defence counsel—Senior Advocates and —raised no objection.
The bench relied on several precedents:
- Kushal Rao vs. State of Bombay (1957): The apex court approved by appellate judges in a death reference.
- State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Het Ram & Ors. (1976): The object of is to understand the topography and local peculiarities for proper .
- State of M.P. vs. Mast Ram (2004): The must be read with the evidence on record; omissions do not vitiate the prosecution case.
- State vs. Santhoshkumar (, 2021): The court had conducted a similar inspection in a POCSO death reference to verify measurements.
The Inspection Plan
The court fixed , at 11:00 a.m. for the inspection. The Public Prosecutor, Mr. , has undertaken to ensure assistance, including the presence of the Investigating Officer and the . Counsel for the accused may also participate.
After the inspection, the bench will allow both sides to advance their submissions based on the observations recorded in a memorandum.
What’s Next?
The hearing has been adjourned to a date after the . The decision to view the crime scene reflects the court’s meticulous approach to understanding the evidence in a case that carries the ultimate penalty. The outcome will have profound implications for the convicts, the victim’s family, and the jurisprudence on confirmation in sexual offence cases.
