Back
2017 Supreme(Bom) 934
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
S.S. SHINDE AND S.M. GAVHANE, JJ.
Gajendra s/o Babu Gorad & Ors. - APPELLANTS
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra - RESPONDENT
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 276 OF 2013
Decided On : 17-07-2017
For the Appellants :Mr. V.R. Dhorde Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. K.S. Patil, A.P.P
The judgment establishes the principle that the evidence of interested witnesses must be carefully scrutinized, and the guilt of the accused can be established based on circumstantial evidence and the consistency of the evidence with the hypothesis of guilt.
Headnote:
Criminal Appeal - Conviction under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code - Summary of Acts and Sections: Indian Penal Code, Section 302, Section 34 - The court discussed the prosecution's case, the evidence of illicit relations, the recovery of weapons and clothes, and the circumstantial evidence. The court analyzed the testimonies of witnesses and the chain of circumstances to establish the guilt of the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution alleged that the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, intentionally caused the death of Santosh Nagnath Gorad. The deceased was found in the house of the accused, and the prosecution presented evidence of illicit relations between the deceased and one of the accused. The accused claimed innocence, citing lack of eyewitnesses and circumstantial evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court convicted the accused based on the chain of circumstances and the consistency of the evidence with the hypothesis of guilt. The court found the accused guilty based on the evidence of illicit relations, recovery of weapons and clothes, and the prompt lodging of the FIR.
Issues: The main issues were the establishment of illicit relations, the recovery of incriminating evidence, and the reliance on circumstantial evidence in the absence of eyewitnesses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court carefully scrutinized the evidence of interested witnesses, considered the chain of circumstances, and found the accused guilty based on the consistency of the evidence with the hypothesis of guilt.
Final Decision: The Criminal Appeal was dismissed, affirming the conviction of the accused under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
S.S. SHINDE, J.
1. This Appeal is directed against the Judgment and order dated 20th June, 2013, passed by the Sessions Judge, Osmanabad in Sessions Case No.55 of 2012 thereby convicting accused No.1/ Appellant No.1 Gajendra Babu Gorad and accused No.2/Appellant No.2 Sou. Padminbai Gajendra Gorad for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "I.P. Code") and sentencing them to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.25000/- each, and in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for five years each.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is as under:-
(A) It is the case of the prosecution that, during intervening night of 26th December, 2011 to 27th December, 2011, accused persons in furtherance of their common intention, intentionally caused death of Santosh Nagnath Gorad.
(B) Informant is the father of the deceased Santosh Gorad. Deceased Santosh met with homicidal death. He died due to shock due to hemorrhagic shock and throat cut injury. He sustained two of such fatal injuries, one on head, the vital part, causing hemorrhage and another grievous injury on neck. Both the injuries are sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death.
(C) The family of the deceased consisting of his wife and children, parents, brother and wife of brother, resides in habitant, called "Gorad Vasti". In-terse, both accused are husband and wife. They reside nearby and in the Gorad Vasti. The dead body of the deceased Santosh was found in the first room, after entrance on right hand side of house of accused lying in a pool of blood on a blanket. The accused persons and informant know each other not only because they are neighbourers but because they are close relatives. Accused No.1 is cousin of deceased. PW-1 Nagnath is father, PW-2 Vithabai is wife and PW-3 Anil is the brother of the deceased.
(D) It is the prosecution case that, there were illicit relations in between Santosh and Padminbai since 1 and 1/2 years prior to the incident. It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased was called by accused for dinner on earlier night. The deceased went to attend the dinner in the house of accused persons. Therefore, PW-1 Nagnath, PW-2 Vithabai and PW-3 Anil all state that the deceased was last seen in the company of accused persons.
(E) It is further the case of the prosecution that on the day of incident, at about 1.00 O'clock, between intervening night of 26th December, 2011 to 27th December, 2011, PW3 Anil woke up for the purpose of starting electric pump installed from inside the well, so as to fetch the water and give it to the field. While returning back from the well, PW-3 Anil saw both accused hurriedly going by a path way leading to village Nilegaon at about 2 O'clock in that night, and he asked them about Santosh who was with them during night for a dinner, but they did not pay heed to Anil and went away speedily on the pat-hway.
(F) It is the case of the prosecution that thereafter PW-3 Anil went to the house of Gajendra and peeped through the window and found that dead body of Santosh was lying in the house of Gajendra. After hearing shouts of Anil, PW-1 Nagnath and PW-2 Vithabai also came there and saw the dead body of Santosh lying in the house of accused.
(G) On receiving the information about the incident, Police Station Officer directed the PW10 Baburao Wakodkar, P.S.I. to visit the spot. He visited the spot of incident. PW1 Nagnath informed him about the incident. Thereafter Nagnath reached to the police station and as per the information given by Nagnath, PW10 Baburao Wakodkar registered the First Information Report bearing Crime No.182 of 2011 under Section 302 read with 34 of the I.P. Code and handed over investigation to PW11 API Shetkar. After arrests being made, accused allegedly made voluntary disclosure in respect of place where their clothes and weapons used for offence, were kept in lonely place of their knowledge.
(H) From in front of their house fro
