SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(SC) 1507

1996(7) Supreme 150
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.K. Mukherjee and S.P. Kurdukar, JJ.
Shankar Gajanan Kalan -Appellant
versus
State of Maharashtra -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 626 of 1988
Decided on 20-9-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Makaran D. Adkar, S.D. Singh, Kumar Parimal, Advocates.
For the Respondent : S.M. Jadhav, Advocate.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 302 & 201-Case based on circumstantial evidence-Deceased left home wearing ear rings and mangalsutra to visit appellant for getting treatment-Dead body recovered pursuant to prophesy made by appellant-Ornaments which deceased was wearing were missing-Reliable evidence of two witnesses that appellant had sold ear rings and beeds of mangalsutra to them-Only irresistible conclusion could be that appellant came into possession of those ornaments of deceased only after she left her house and disposed of them on following day-Question whether those ornaments were recovered from witnesses pursuant to statement of appellant was wholly immaterial-Question whether appellant made disclosure statement and if so whether it was true or not was also irrelevant-Impugned Judgment of conviction was liable to be upheld. (Paras 4 to 9)

JUDGMENT

M.K. Mukherjee, J.-The appellant before us was tried by the Sessions Judge, Thane for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. The allegation against him was that on June 24, 1984 he committed the murder of Tulsibai, wife of Vishnu Shankar, and threw her dead body near a creek. The trial Judge acquitted the appellant and aggrieved thereby the respondent-State of Maharashtra filed an appeal in the High Court. The High Court reversed the order of acquittal and convicted and sentenced the appellant for both the offences. Hence this statutory appeal at his instance.

2. Bereft of details the prosecution case is as under :

(a) Vishnu Shankar (P.W.7) and his family comprising his wife Tulsibai (the deceased) and two brothers Maruti Shankar (P.W.1) and Sommwar Shankar (P.W.4), were residents of village Goa in the district of Thane whereas the appellant, who happens to be their cousin (mother s sister s son), lived in the nearby village Kon, with his mistress Kamala (P.W.3). The appellant used to earn his livelihood from sorcery and prophesy and the family of Vishnu had full faith in his eerie expertise.

(b) A few days before her death Tulsibai had complained of some stomach ailments and had approached the appellant to cure her. The appellant promised to cure her through sorcery within a day provided he was paid Rs. 800/-. Even though the amount was readily paid the appellant could not keep his promise. He however asked Tulsibai to come to his but a few days later.

(c) Accordingly on June 24, 1984 Tulsibai left her house telling her husband that she was going to the appellant for treatment. At that time she was wearing a pair of gold earrings and a mangalsutra with four gold beads and two pendants. When, till evening, Tulsibai did not come back home, Vishnu went in search of her to the house of the appellant only to be told that she had not come to his place. On the following day i.e. June 25, 1984 Vishnu along with his two brothers searched for Tulsibai at various other places but could not trace her out. Thereafter when they again went to the appellant to enquire about her, he demanded a sum of Rs. 751/- for prophesying the whereabouts of Tulsibai but the demand was not met. However on June 27, 1984, the appellant himself went to the house of Vishnu and, on being paid the demanded amount, told that the dead body of Tulsibai would be found near the creek on the following day i.e. June 28, 1984. The above prophesy of the appellant came true for on June 28, 1984 the highly mutilated dead body of Tulsibai was, indeed, found near the creek by Vishnu and his brothers.

(d) Maruti then went to the Police Station and lodged a report alleging that the appellant had committed the murder of his sister in-law. On that report a case was registered and the appellant was arrested. Pursuant to the statement made by the appellant the two earrings and the mangalsutra of Tulsibai were recovered from Hajarabi (P.W.5) and Sakharchand (P.W.2) respectively. The appellant also made a statement before the Investigating Officer (IO) and other witnesses that he would show the place where he had initially buried the dead body of Tulsibai. He then took them to his hut. On digging the earth there some human hair, pieces of human skin and flesh and a hammer were found. Besides a rank odour was emanating therefrom. The IO seized all the articles found there and along with the clothes of the deceased and of the appellant, which were earlier seized, sent them to Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for examination and analysis. On receipt of the reports of FSL and after completion of investigation the IO submitted chargesheet against the appellant and in due course the case was committed to the Court of Session.

3. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges levelled against him and his defence was that he had been falsely implicated.

4. To prove its case the prosecution relied

















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top