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

2010 Supreme(Bom) 637

High Court of Judicature at Bombay
MR. JUSTICE B.H. MARLAPALLE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.A. SAYED
Chandrakant Digambar Tanksale
Versus
State of Maharashtra
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.320 OF 1991
Decided on: 27-04-2010

Advocates Appeared:
Mrs. Smita Kadu, Advocate appointed for the Appellant. Mrs. P.P. Shinde, APP for the Respondent-State.

The voluntary and truthful nature of a confessional statement recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, its compliance with procedural requirements, and its corroboration with other evidence are crucial in establishing its reliability and influencing the court's decision.

Headnote:

Confession Statement - Murder - Indian Penal Code Section 302, Criminal Procedure Code Section 164, 281 - The court discussed the relevance and reliability of the confessional statement recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code and its corroboration with other evidence. The court emphasized the voluntary nature of the confession and its compliance with procedural requirements. The confession statement was found to be truthful and made voluntarily, leading to the confirmation of the order of conviction and sentence.

Fact of the Case:

The accused was convicted for the murder of Mohan, who was found dead with head injuries in a farmhouse. The prosecution relied on the last seen theory and a confessional statement recorded by a Judicial Magistrate. The accused denied involvement and alleged that the confession was not voluntary.

Finding of the Court:

The trial court accepted the prosecution's case based on the last seen theory and the confessional statement, while the defense disputed the reliability of the confession. The court found the confession to be voluntary and reliable, leading to the confirmation of the conviction and sentence.

Issues: The issues revolved around the reliability of the confessional statement, its voluntary nature, and its corroboration with other evidence. The defense challenged the confession's reliability, while the prosecution emphasized its compliance with procedural requirements and corroboration with other evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the voluntary and truthful nature of the confessional statement, its compliance with procedural requirements, and its corroboration with other evidence. The confession was found to be reliable and formed the basis for confirming the conviction and sentence.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the order of conviction and sentence was confirmed. The accused was entitled to set off under Section 428 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The appointed advocate's professional fees were quantified at Rs.4,000.

Judgment :-

B.H. Marlapalle, J.


1. This appeal arises from the order of conviction and sentence passed on 28th March, 1991 by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge at Solapur, in Sessions Case No.154 of 1989 and by the said order the appellant - Accused has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Cod and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment. On filing this appeal he was released on bail on 3rd June, 1991 on the same terms as before the trial Court. By our order dated 25th March, 2010 we had cancelled the bail granted to the appellant as he did not cause his appearance through an advocate and therefore as of now he continues to be in jail. We, therefore, appointed Smt. Smita Kadu, Advocate to argue this appeal.


2. Digamber Nagnath Tanksale and Ramchandra Nagnath Tanksale are two of the six sons of Nagnath Tanksale. The family of Digamber stayed in Sangvi-2 and that of Ramchandra stayed in Sangvi-I. It appears that Sangvi was only one and it got divided into two different parts on account of Ujani Dam. Ramchandra had three sons i.e. Prabhakar, Bharat and Mohan. About a week prior to the date of the incident, he had lost his second son Bharat and therefore the accused and his family had come to the house of Ramchandra. In his agriculture land, Ramchandra has also built a farmhouse and on the night of 11th April, 1988 the accused was in the said farmhouse. His dinner was brought by the deceased-Mohan, the youngest son of Ramchandra and they had dinner together and went to bed in the same farmhouse. On the next morning the accused, who claimed to be sleeping outside the farmhouse/hut opened the door and noticed that Mohan who was sleeping inside was lying in a pool of blood and was dead. The accused, therefore, went to his uncle Ramchandra PW6 and informed him that someone in the night had killed Mohan. The Village Police Patil and some other family members came to the farmhouse and saw that the Mohan was dead with head injuries. The Police Patil PW4 Shri Uttam Madhavrao Patil went to Kem Outpost and lodged a complaint (FIR at Exh.22). Nobody suspected the accused till 15th April, 1988, despite the fact that the dead body of Mohan was sent for postmortem and as per the postmortem notes Mohan had died a homicidal death. However, on 16th April, 1988 the Police Patil and others were called to the Karmala Police Station and therefore while waiting at the bus stand of Kavitgaon, Shri Krishnath Potdar inquired with the accused as to how Mohan was killed and it appears that the accused made an extra judicial confession. This was intimated to the Police Station and on the same day the accused was arrested and the arrest panchnama at Exh.50 was prepared.


3. PW9 Mohan Ithape, P.S.I., had already drawn Inquest Panchanama, Exh.10 and spot panchanama Exh.8 on 12th April, 1988 itself. He had recorded the statement of some people. On the arrest of the accused his clothes were seized under panchnama at Exh.24. When the dead body of Mohan was handed over to PW6 for the last rites, the clothes from his person were also seized under panchanama at Exh.11. PW9 continued with the investigation till 22nd May, 1988 and from 23rd May, 1988 the investigation was taken over by PSI Mali. He submitted the charge sheet on 7th July, 1988 and C.A. Report was received at Exh.41 and 42. As per the C.A. Report at Exh.41 the blood group of the deceased was detected to be "A" and that of the accused was "O". The accused was released on bail on 12th July, 1988 by the Sessions Court.


4. The prosecution examined in all 9 witnesses and there is no eye witness to the incident. It relied upon the last seen theory and a confessional statement of the accused recorded by PW8 Shri S.P. Hoshing, the learned J.M.F.C. at Karmala at the relevant time, on 2nd May, 1988 (Exh.38). The panchnama at Exh. 8, 10 and 11 were the admitted documents and PW1 Pandurang Dolas, PW2 Dinkar Jadhav, PW3 Rajendra Manjare and PW5 Ashok Mane were the punch w
























































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