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

1985 Supreme(Bom) 137

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
B.A. Masodkar V.S. Kotwal, JJ.
Surendrasingh B. Saud others.... Appellants.
Versus
State of Maharashtra.... Respondent.
Criminal Appeal Nos. 737 with 819 of 1984 with Criminal Revision Application No. 435 of 1984, decided on 3-7-1985.
Advocates appeared :
M.K. Pathare with Miss P.S. Mane, for appellants Nos. 1 2-original accused Nos. 1 2.
R.S. Bhonsale with Mrs. V.R. Bhonsale, for appellant Nos. 3-original accused No. 3.
Y.V. Patil, P.P., for State.

The court held that the circumstantial evidence was not sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused, that the investigation was not fair and independent, that the police had failed to investigate the possible involvement of the builder, and that there had been a miscarriage of justice.

Headnote:

MURDER - Circumstantial Evidence - Motive - Discovery of Articles - False Report - Investigation - Fair and Independent - Circumstantial Evidence - Principles - Tenanted Premises - Bombay Rent Act - Injunction - Civil Court - Landlord and Tenant - Police Investigation - Miscarriage of Justice - Compensation - Inherent Power of Court - Section 482, Cr.P.C. - Token Compensation.

Fact of the Case:

The deceased, Pritipal, was found murdered in her tenanted bungalow, Ratanshaw Bungalow, in Versova, Greater Bombay. The prosecution alleged that the accused, who were the occupants of the bungalow along with the deceased, had committed the murder and disposed of the body by putting it in a pit in the bungalow. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, including motive, discoveries of articles allegedly made by the accused, and a false report regarding abduction and assault lodged with the police by one of the accused.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the investigation was unfair and independent and that the circumstantial evidence was not sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused. The court also found that the police had failed to investigate the possible involvement of the builder, who was interested in evicting the deceased from the bungalow, and that there had been a miscarriage of justice.

Issues: 1. Whether the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused. 2. Whether the investigation was fair and independent. 3. Whether the police had failed to investigate the possible involvement of the builder. 4. Whether there had been a miscarriage of justice.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the circumstantial evidence was not sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused. The court found that the discoveries of articles were not made in a fair and independent manner and that the false report regarding abduction and assault was not corroborated by other evidence. 2. The court held that the investigation was not fair and independent. The court found that the police had failed to investigate the possible involvement of the builder and that they had not carried out a comprehensive and all-sided investigation. 3. The court held that the police had failed to investigate the possible involvement of the builder. The court found that the builder had a motive to evict the deceased from the bungalow and that he had been involved in litigation with the deceased over the property. 4. The court held that there had been a miscarriage of justice. The court found that the accused had been wrongly convicted and that they had suffered a miscarriage of justice.

Final Decision: The court acquitted the accused of the offences for which they had been convicted and directed the State Government to pay each of the accused a sum of Rs. 3,000/- as token compensation.

Judgment

B.A. MASODKAR, J.:---On the sprawling outskirts of Greater Bombay lies the area which is known as Versova, an erstwhile fishermen village now turned into a concrete jungle. In Yari Galli of this area was situate Ratanshaw Bungalow. It was a house standing as if a lone island surrounded on all sides by huge and tall concrete structures developed and erected by builders. This Ratanshaw Bungalow was tenanted property and one R.R. Todiwalla appears to be its landlord. It is said that one Harbachansingh Sidhu was the original tenant.

2. The record shows that Harbachnasingh Sidhu left Bombay for Punjab some time before 1980. The tenement was occupied by his wife Pritipal, the victim of the homicidal death, and Miss Bhupinder Kuar, accused No. 3. The occurrence, according to the prosecution, took place between the night of April 18 and April 19, 1983 during which Mrs. Pritipal was done to death and her dead body was buried in the compound near the fencing lying to the back side of this bungalow. Mrs. Pritipal was in her fifties. The post-mortem report made by Dr. Subhash Khanolkar (P.W. 16) shows that she must have been killed after she had taken food. The contents of the stomach noted in the post-mortem notes at Exhibit 38 collectively go to show that she had recently taken food material without any odour. The homicidal death of Pritipal is not in dispute. The testimony of Dr. Subhash Khanolkar (P.W. 16) further goes to show that when he examined the dead body of Pritipal on April 21, 1983 between 10.30 a.m. and 1.15 p.m., he found external injuries, being contused lacerated wounds, mostly located on the forehead and occipital regions. Similarly, he found abrasions and contusions. Upon internal examination, he found it possible to opine that pressure must have been applied on the neck of the deceased and that the death might have occurred within 24 hours prior to the hour the dead body was brought to the hospital. The doctor opined that the cause of death was strangulation associated with the injuries which could be fatal.

3. This unfortunate lady who succumbed to such a homicidal attack and whose dead body was found in the pit, according to the police, near the fencing of this bungalow, Ratanshaw Bungalow, was residing there with the family consisting of her husband and her daughter, including accused No. 3. The tenancy of this bungalow was quite old one and the record shows that it was much prior to 1959. One R.R. Todiwalla appears to be the landlord. By reason of threats to this tenements from builders and also for the purposes of security, it appears that accused Nos. 1 and 2 were called and were staying in the family of the deceased Pritipal. Thus, on the day of the incident, accused Nos. 1 and 2 were the occupants along with accused No. 3 of the bungalow.

4. Accused No. 3 is a young lady and appears to be usefully engaged and as the prosecution evidence shows was working as a Telephone Operator in the Ambassador Hotel. The defence states that at the relevant time she was working with the Starways Hotel.

5. It is the case of the prosecution that during the night at about 1.15 a.m. accused No. 2 approached the D.N. Nagar Police Station and made certain report, which was recorded as per Exhibit 40 by Sub-Inspector Bhikusingh Chavan (P.W. 17). This report led to the registration of the offence concerning abduction and assault on the deceased Pritipal from the Ratanshaw Bungalow. After the report was so taken, the D.N. Nagar Police Station sprung into action and first went to the scene of offence, i.e., the bungalow itself, and recorded panchnama as per Exhibit 8. It is the case of the prosecution that statements of accused were recorded at about 5 or 6 a.m. and after that they were allowed to go back, while it is the case of the three accused that they were detained in the Police Station. The Police then got in touch with builder Virendrakumar Jhamb (P.W. 15) and he having reached the Police Station by 7 a.m. his statement































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
whatsapp-icon Back to top