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
(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.
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
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.