SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.S. SARKARIA AND P.N. SHINGHAL, JJ.
State of Maharashtra, Appellant
Versus
Kondiba Tukaram Shirke, Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 254 of 1971,
D/- 6-4-1976.
Advocates appeared
Mr. S. B. Wad, Mrs. Jayashree Wad and Mr. M. N. Shroff, Advocates, for Appellant; Mr. S. L. Chibber, Advocate, Amicus Curiae, for Respondent.
Criminal Procedure Code – Section 161 – Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 136 - Order of acquittal - Imprisonment for life – Appeal against conviction - Whether Kondiba had left Laxman with them - He was living in a hut in hamlet of village - He was married to one and had from her two daughters but no son - Daughters were married - In order to get a son decided to marry a second wife mother of deceased boy was earlier married to one of village - She however had developed illicit intimacy with one of village and became pregnant - As a result her husband drove her out of the matrimonial home for good and repudiated marriage - Thereupon returned to house of her father in village - There she gave birth approached father and requested him to remarry with him but he was initially unwilling to take with him - However ultimately marriage was settled on condition that respondent would keep and bring up also in his house - At time of this settlement some writing was also executed between parties - Marriage of respondent thus took place towards end of March – Thereafter started living with respondent and his first wife in of village - In morning went away from hut to fetch water from a tank at a short distance leaving behind respondent her son in hut - She returned and went a second time to fetch more water from tank - At this time also and respondent both were present at hut - But when on this second occasion she returned with water she found that both and respondent were missing - She asked regarding whereabouts told her that he had taken with him for leaving him two neighboring girls who were out in fields to graze cattle - Returned to hut asked them whether - She learnt from those girls that boy was never left with them - Court do not fully endorse reasoning of High Court for not acting on evidence of this extra-judicial confession court think for reasons of court own that version in regard to this alleged confession could not be safely accepted - Firstly there is no mention of this vital fact in her statement recorded by police on October - Story of this extra-judicial confession appears for first time in her deposition in court which was recorded on May - Thus it is obvious that this piece of evidence was subsequently engrafted on prosecution case as an afterthought - Second suspicious circumstance which surrounds this piece of evidence and further undermines its credibility is that Sub-Inspector after taking over investigation on October did make an unsuccessful attempt to get confession of respondent recorded by a Magistrate - He sent respondent to a Magistrate for this purpose but it seems that accused refused to make any confessional statement – Thus there was an anxiety on part of investigating officer to procure this type of evidence - Since statement had already been recorded by Head-Constable under Sec. 161, Cr. P. C. earlier this extra-judicial confession could not find mention in that statement - Third suspicious circumstance to be noted in this connection is that Head-Constable according to his own showing had on reaching the hut of accused questioned accused - Thereafter he stayed for the night at hut of the accused - Head constable was on ota of hut when the accused is said to have come inside for a while to take water and there made a confession before Anjira. There was thus reason to suspect that the alleged confession, even if made, was made at a time when he was under surveillance of the Head Constable - Fourthly if any such confession was really made by respondent as alleged natural reaction who was unfortunate mother of murdered child should have been to pass on that information immediately to Head-Constable - But she did nothing of this kind – Nay she did not mention about it even at any subsequent stage of investigation to any person - Appeal dismissed
Judgment
SARKARIA, J.:- The respondent Kondiba, aged about 55 years, was tried and convicted for the murder of a boy, named Laxman aged about 2 years, by the Sessions Judge, Satara, and sentenced to imprisonment for life. On appeal, the High Court of Bombay acquitted him.
2. The State has now come in appeal by special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution against the order of acquittal.
3. The prosecution case was as follows:
Kondiba works as a barber. He was living in a hut in the hamlet of village Chaturbet. He was married to one Jaibai and had from her two daughters but no son. The daughters were married. In order to get a son, Kondiba decided to marry a second wife Anjira, the mother of the deceased boy, Laxman, was earlier married to one Bapu Shripati Pawar of village Devle. She, however, had developed illicit intimacy with one Shantaram Pawar of village Vakan, and became pregnant. As a result, her husband, Bapu Sripati Pawar, drove her out of the matrimonial home for good and repudiated the marriage. Anjira thereupon returned to the house of her father, Dharma Babaji Sapkal in Vakan village. There, she gave birth to Laxman. Kondiba approached Anjiras father and requested him to remarry Anjira with him but he was initially unwilling to take Laxman with him. Laxman was then 1 1/4 or 1 1/2 years of age. However, ultimately, the marriage was settled on the condition that the respondent would keep and bring up Laxman also in his house along with Anjira. At the time of this settlement, some writing was also executed between the parties. The marriage of the respondent and Anjira thus took place towards the end of March 1968. Thereafter, Anjira and Laxman started living with the respondent and his first wife, Jaibai in the Nhavyache Gaothan of village Chaturbet.
4. Despite the assurance given by the respondent to Anjiras father, the respondent started ill-treating the child, Laxman and giving him frequent beatings. Anjira complained about this conduct of the respondent to the villagers, including PWs. 1 and 4, and also to her father.
5. On October 10, 1968, in the morning, Anjira went away from the hut to fetch water from a tank at a short distance, leaving behind the respondent, her son Laxman, and Jaibai in the hut. She returned and went a second time to fetch more water from the tank. At this time also, Laxman and the respondent both were present at the hut. But when on this second occasion she returned with water, she found that both Laxman and the respondent were missing. She asked Jaibai regarding the whereabouts of Laxman. Jaibai told her that Kondiba had taken Laxman with him for leaving him with Leela and Kala, two neighbouring girls, who were out in the fields to graze cattle. Leela and Kala returned to the hut at about 9-30 a.m. Anjira asked them whether Kondiba had left Laxman with them. She learnt from those girls that the boy was never left with them. Anjira and Jaibai, accompanied by the two girls then set out in search of the boy but could not find him. The respondent returned home at about 5 or 5-30 in the evening from Manghar where he used to work. Anjira asked him regarding the whereabouts of Laxman. The respondent gave no reply. The respondent and his cousin Anusuya then went to the Police Patil of the village and reported about the disappearance of the boy. A desultory search was made during the night in the village. Next morning, the Patil collected a large number of villagers and organized a search party which was divided into three batches. Each batch went to search for the boy in a different sector. One batch, which included the respondent and PWs Janu Lakhu Dhabe, and Ambaji Kondi Jadhav, proceeded towards the rocky terrain which is at a distance of about three or three and half furlongs from the hut of the respondent. This batch found the dead-body of Laxman at the foot of a cliff. Janu was the first to notice it there. All the three search batches then gathered at that spot. The Patil, Janu and the r
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.