Back
1998(1) Supreme 312
Supreme Court of India
(From Bombay High Court)
M.M. Punchhi, CJI & M. Srinivasan, JJ.
Vinayak Shivajirao Pol -Appellant
versus
State of Maharashtra -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 595/1997
Decided on 22-1-1998
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Mr. Vijay Kotwal and Mr. S.R. Chitale, Sr. Advocates, Mr. A.M. Khanwilkar, Mr. S.M. Jadhav and Ms. Abha R. Sharma, Advocates.
For the Respondent :Mr. I.G. Shah, Sr. Advocate, Mr. S.S. Shinde and Mr. Om Nargolkar, Advocates.
Held : There is no ambiguity in the above statement. It shows that the appellant killed his wife. Both the Courts have found that the statement was made voluntarily by the appellant. The sequence of events shows that at the time when the appellant made the confession, neither he nor the military authorities had any knowledge of the recovery of the headless trunk of the appellant’s wife. The military authorities were in no way biased or inmical to the appellant. Nothing is brought out in the evidence in respect of the military officers which may indicate that they had a motive for attributing an untruthful statement to the appellant. The statement has been proved by one of the officers to whom it was made. The said officer has been examined as P.W. 32. A perusal of the evidence shows that the vague plea raised by the appellant that the statement was obtained from him on inducement and promise is not true. In such circumstances it is open to the Court to rest its conclusion on the basis of such statement and no corroboration is necessary. (Para 10)
(ii) Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 302-Conviction under-Appellant sentenced to death for killing his wife-High Court opined that ‘this case falls in the category of the gravest of grave and rarest in rare cases’ - Appeal against-A headless dead body was found in a well in a highly decomposed state-There was only a blouse on the trunk and both the legs were tied with a cloth piece-Injuries found in the neck and thumbs of the hands were found cut-Appellant was a sepoy in the Army-He confessed before his superior officers that he had killed his wife-He offered to make discovery of the head of his wife-As per his statement head was recovered from another well in the same village-High Court was justified in holding that the appellant was guilty of murder while setting aside judgment of acquittal-Conviction upheld-Sentence of death reduced to one of imprisonment for life.
Held : We have carefully gone through the judgment of both the Courts below and also the evidence on record. The trial Court has given various reasons for not accepting the extra-judicial confession but all are on the premise that the other evidence on record in contrary thereto. The High Court has relied upon the crux of the statement of confession and proceeded on the footing that the other details mentioned in the statement are not of much relevance and even if there is a variation between such details and the other evidence on record, it would be of no consequence. We are in agreement with the view taken by the High Court. (Para 15)
However, we are not satisfied that this is a rarest of rare cases in order to warrant award of death sentence to the appellant. The ends of justice would be met by reducing the sentence to one of imprisonment for life. (Para 23)
Judgment
Srinivasan, J.-The pivotal question in this appeal is whether the extra judicial confession made by the appellant could form the basis of conviction under Section 302 I.P.C. The question was answered in the negative by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli but the High Court gave a contrary answer and reversed the judgment of the Court of Sessions. Thus the appellant stood convicted and sentenced to death as the High Court opined that ‘this case fails in the category of the gravest of grave and rarest in rare cases’. After hearing the appeal for some time, we decided that the death sentence awarded to the appellant may not be sustainable whether we accept or reject the appeal ultimately and passed on order on 6.1.98 that the appellant be taken out from the Death Cell and be put in the cell meant for life convicts till further orders. Thereafter we completed the hearing of the appeal.
2. The appellant was a sepoy in the Army at 14th Maratha Light Infantry, Aundh Camp, Pune. He married one Vimal of Hingangaon village in 1980 and had a female child about a year later. Vimal was not keeping good health and was found to be suffering from tuberculosis. She was advised complete bed rest for 6 to 7 months and avoid sexual intercourse at least for one year. The parents of the appellant were living in the village Tisangi. Vimal was sent back to her parents but some time later she was brought back by the appellant and left with his parents.
3. The appellant was allotted the duty of a guard at the residence of Commanding Officer at Ghorpadi, Pune for 24 hours in rotation in Feburary, 1983. He was absent from his duty on 9th and 10th February and reported for duty on the 11th at 1.00 P.M. He gave an explanation for his absence to the authorities concerned that he had gone to his sister’s house at Akurdi, Pune. As it was found to be unsatisfactory, he was punished under the Army Act.
4. In the meanwhile on 10.2.83, Vimal’s father went to Tisangi in response to her letter requesting him to come immediately. She was not available and the parents of the appellant could not give an explanation for her absence to his satisfaction. He went back to his village in a disgusted mood.
5. On 13.2.83 a headless dead body was found in a well in Pusegaon Village. The body was in a highly decomposed state. It was found that there was only a blouse on the trunk and both the legs were tied with a green cloth piece. Some injuries were found in the neck and the thumbs of the hands were found cut. Certain other fingers were also found half cut. After autopsy, search was made for the head but it could not be found. The fact was proclaimed by beat of drums in the nearby villages so that the trunk of the body could be identified. But nobody could identify the same and the same was cremated.
6. On 17.2.83 the appellant approached some of the superior officers and confessed before them that he had killed his wife Vimal. He was told by them to put in writing whatever he wanted to say. He wrote out a confessional statement in Marathi language and signed below it. The writing was attested by four military officers. He was kept under watch by the higher authorities in the guard room. The military authorities informed the Superintendent of Police at Sangli about the confessional statement and sent a copy of the same to him. They were requested to contact the Superintendent of Police, Satara as the offence was alleged to have been committed at Pusegaon in District Satara. The military authorities communicated to the Superintendent of Police the information of 22.2.83. The police commenced the investigation and obtained on 2.3.83 a warrant from the Judicial Magistrate, Kavathe-Mahankal for the arrest of the appellant. Pursuant to the same, he was arrested and produced before the Magistrate on 5.3.83. During the interrogation the appellant mentioned the name of his friend Baban Shankar Suryavanshi as his accomplice. The latter was also questioned and he offered to
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
