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

2006 Supreme(AP) 305

2006(2) Crimes 195 (SC)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Bombay High Court)
S.B. Sinha and P.P. Naolekar, JJ.
Sahebrao and Anr.—Appellants
versus
State of Maharashtra—Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1507 of 2005
Decided on 3-5-2006
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : Sudhanshu Choudhary, Naresh Kumar Advocates.
For the Respondent : V.N. Raghupathy, Advocate.

IMPORTANT POINT
Delay in filing FIR by itself cannot be a ground to doubt the prosecution case and discard it.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 376, 302 and 379 — Rape and murder of 10 year old girl and removal of her gold ear-rings — Prosecution case based on circumstantial evidence — Conviction by trial Court — Appeal — Dead body of victim girl was recovered from the attic in- side the room which was owned by appellant and his family — Dumping of body on the attic could not be the handiwork of an outsider — Appellant was found hovering around the place of occurrence when people of locality were in search of missing victim girl — Appellant tried to mislead people in search of victim girl and that unusual and unnatural act of appellant was rightly taken note of by trial court — At the time of recovery of dead body, appellant was found missing from house and when on next day he was apprehended by PW 2, 7 and 8, witnesses found marks of blood on his loongi — Accused on interrogation by those witnesses made a confession — No reason to disbelieve the extrajudicial confession which appeared to be voluntary and did not appear to be an outcome of threat, promise or inducement — Accused was examined by doctor on same day who found abrasion on his penis and prominent finger nails and it was rightly considered as an important circumstance to link up the chain — What accused stated before witnesses in a confession got due corroboration from doctor who conducted post-mortem — Stolen ear-rings of victim were recovered at instance of appellant from a packet kept hidden behind a photo of deity inside the house — Though two independent witnesses of recovery turned hostile, no reason to disbelieve recovery — All circumstances pointed to involvement of appellant in the offence and conviction called for no interference.(Paras 18 to 25)

       Result : Appeal dismissed.

       

JUDGMENT

P.P. Naolekar, J.—The accused appellants Sahebrao (A-1) and Bhausaheb (A-2) were tried along with their mother Shanti Bai (A-3) for committing offences under Sections 304B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The judgment dated 06-06.1992 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad found A-1 and A-2 guilty under Sections 306 and 498-A, IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default, rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 306 IPC. No separate sentence was passed under Section 498-A, IPC. A-3 was acquitted. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court, the accused appellants filed an appeal before Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court. The High Court by its order dated 31-10-2005 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the sentence passed by the trial Court. That is how the appellants are before us in this appeal.

2. The relevant facts deduced from the evidence are that the marriage of accused-appellant A-2, resident of Village Babulkheda, and deceased-Sangita, daughter of the complainant-Ramrao Laxman Darekar (PW-1), took place on 13-05-1990 at Village Pathri. The distance between Village Pathri and Babulkheda was 15 Kms. just after the marriage, A-2 insisted for a tape recorder. PW-1 persuaded that the tape recorder would be given to him in due course of time. Three days after the marriage, the elder son of PW-1, Sudam (PW-3) along with his maternal uncle, Karbhari Vithal Jadavh (PW-4) went to village Babulkheda to take the deceased back to Village Pathri. On return, PW-3 told his father PW-1 that elder brother of A-2, accused-appellant Sahebrao (A-1) was demanding additional dowry amount of Rs. 10,000/- as the dowry paid at the time of marriage was not as per their status and A-2 was insisting for a tape recorder. The deceased stayed with her father for 5-6 days and thereafter. Ambadas-brother of A-2, took her to Village Babulkheda. Ambadas on return told PW-1 that A-1 was demanding Rs. 10,000/- and A-2 was insisting for a tape recorder. About 2-3 days later, PW-1 went to his daughter’s matrimonial home. She told him that A-1 and A-2 were troubling her for an amount of Rs. 10,000/- and a tape recorder. PW-1 though expressed his inability to pay the amount, sent PW-3 to Aurangabad for purchasing the tape recorder. After 5-6 days, PW-3 and PW-4 went to the matrimonial home of Sangita, gave the tape recorder to the accused persons and took her to her parent’s place at Village Pathari. After a week, Mansub-younger brother of A-2, came to the house of PW-1 to take her back to Village Babulkheda and informed him that A-1 had demanded an amount of Rs. 10,000/- and the deceased would not accompany him unless the amount is given. He also informed PW-1 that A-1 would get angry if the amount was not paid. PW-1 somehow managed to send the deceased to her matrimonial home along with Mansub. In the month of ‘Jaistha’, when PW-1 went to see his daughter, accused persons started questioning him as to why he had not paid the amount and asked him to take his daughter back. The deceased was taken back by PW-1 and she stayed at her maiden home for a month. Mansub, once again, came to take her back to the matrimonial home. This time also, Mansub, demanded the additional dowry of Rs. 10,000/-. In September 1990 the deceased came back to her father’s place and on reaching there she started weeping loudly and told PW-1 and her mother that she was beaten by the accused persons and pointed out the marks of beating on her back and requested PW-1 not to send her back to Village Babulkheda. However, in the hope that situation would improve, PW-1 left his reluctant daughter to the matrimonial home on 06.09.1990. That time also A-2 told him that since the amount was not given PW-1 should take back his daughter. While returning back to his village on 07-09.1990, the deceased daughter met him on the way and told him that it would be very difficult for her to stay

































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