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

2016 Supreme(Bom) 344

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
A. V. NIRGUDE & INDIRA K. JAIN, JJ.
Jawedkhan @ Tingrya - APPELLANT
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra - RESPONDENT
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 516, 281, 468 OF 2012
Decided on : 8.3.2016

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. M. A. Tandale, Advocate (appointed) for Appellant.
Mr. S. P. Sonpawale, APP for Respondent / State.

Important Point—Death sentence must be awarded in cases of rape and murder.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860—Sections 302 and 376—Rape and murder—Life sentence—Acquittal of co-accused—Considering nature of offence, manner in which it was committed and upon evaluating aggravating and mitigating circumstances, this is a case which falls in category of rarest of rare case—Sentence of death awarded to Accused No.1—Court not inclined to enhance sentence against Accused Nos.2 and 3.

       (B) Criminal Law—Motive—In a case based on circumstantial evidence, motive assumes pertinent significance as existence of motive is an enlightening factor in a process of presumptive reasoning in such a case—Absence of motive puts court on its guard to scrutinize circumstances more carefully to ensure that surmises and conjectures do not take place of legal proof.

       Result—Appeals dismissed.

JUDGMENT : ( Per Indira K. Jain, J. )

These three appeals arise out of judgment and order passed on 24th January, 2012 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge3, Aurangabad in Sessions Case No.463 of 2009. By the said judgment and order Accused No.1 Jawedkhan, Accused No.2 Pradip Chandaliya and Accused No.3 Ram Bodkhe were convicted and sentenced for various offences as under :

Accused No.1 Jawedkhan :

Conviction under Section

Sentence

456

Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.300/in default Simple Imprisonment for ten days.

457

Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.300/in default Simple Imprisonment for ten days.

458

Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.300/in default Simple Imprisonment for ten days.

392 read with 397

Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs.300/in default Simple Imprisonment for ten days.

302

Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.300/in default Simple Imprisonment for ten days.

376

Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs.300/in default Simple Imprisonment for ten days.

201

Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.300/in default Simple Imprisonment for ten days.

Accused No.2 Pradip Chandaliya :

Conviction under Section

Sentence

411

Fine of Rs.1000/in default Simple Imprisonment for fifteen days.

Accused No.3 Ram Bodkhe :

Conviction under Section

Sentence

411 and 414

Fine of Rs.1000/each in default Simple Imprisonment for fifteen days each.

2. Learned Additional Sessions Judge found that Accused were not guilty of some of the offences alleged against them and accordingly acquitted the Accused as under :

Accused

Acquittal under sections

Accused No.1

Jawedkhan 394 and 459

Accused No.2

Pradip Chandaliya 412, 414, 109 and 212

Accused No.3

Ram Bodkhe 412, 109 and 212

3. Criminal Appeal No.281 of 2012 is by the State of Maharashtra for enhancement of sentence awarded by the Trial Court. Criminal Appeal No.468 of 2012 is also by the State of Maharashtra against the order of acquittal. Accused No.1 Jawedkhan being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction has preferred Criminal Appeal No.516 of 2012.

4. The instant case reveals a sordid story in which the alleged brutal sexual assault on a young helpless girl followed by merciless murder by dastardly act of the Accused is said to have been committed. Most disgusting feature is that an innocent college going girl of 21 year fell a prey to the unbridled lust of the Accused. The story sends shocking waves to everyone having slighted sense of human value and dignity.

5. Factual matrix of prosecution case may be stated in brief as under –

i. Complainant Aniket Shankarrao Deshpande was resident of Purwa Apartment situated at Ahinsa Nagar, opposite Akashwani, Aurangabad and was serving in Sterlight Technology Company situated at MIDC Waluj, Aurangabad. Mansi 21 year old sister of Aniket was residing with him. She was studying in IInd year B.C.S. in MGM College, Aurangabad. Aniket and Mansi lost their mother in 2006. At the time of incident their father was posted at Shrinagar.

ii. On 11th June, 2009, Aniket left for office at around 09:00 am. Mansi was alone in the house. Aniket was to return home from work at 07:00 pm. He could not return on time as some problem had cropped up in one machine and he was required to over stay in the company to attend the problem of machine. Aniket came back home on 12th June, 2009 at 05:00 am. He called Mansi on her mobile at around 05:00 am. Her phone was switched off. For 5 to 10 minutes Aniket knocked the door. He did not receive any response from Mansi so again he phoned her. He thought that Mansi might be fast asleep and her mobile battery might have discharged. So instead of disturbing Mansi he wen

































































































































































































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