Back
2017 Supreme(Bom) 1996
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
T.V. NALAWADE, ARUN M. DHAVALE, JJ.
Popat s/o. Laxman Tikhole & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. - Respondents
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 489, 591 OF 2002
Decided On : 14-12-2017
For the Appellant :Mr. K.B. Khatke h/f. Mr. S.B. Talekar, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. S.J. Salgare, A.P.P.
The admissibility of the statement given by accused No. 1 under section 27 of the Evidence Act and the proof of homicidal death and motive for the crime were the central legal points established in the given judgment.
Headnote:
MURDER - Indian Penal Code - Section 302, Section 201, Section 34 - The court discussed the evidence related to the homicidal death, other evidence, and the missing report. The court found that the prosecution proved the homicidal death and the motive for the crime. The court also discussed the admissibility of the statement given by the accused under section 27 of the Evidence Act and held that it was admissible. The court concluded that the benefit of doubt needs to be given to accused No. 2, and the decision of the Trial Court by which accused No. 1 is convicted and accused No. 2 is acquitted is upheld.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased Bapu Mote was murdered, and accused No. 1 was convicted for the offences punishable under sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused No. 2 was acquitted of the same offences. The evidence presented included the discovery of the dead body, the missing report, and the admissibility of the statement given by the accused under section 27 of the Evidence Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution proved the homicidal death and the motive for the crime. The court also discussed the admissibility of the statement given by the accused under section 27 of the Evidence Act and held that it was admissible. The court concluded that the benefit of doubt needs to be given to accused No. 2, and the decision of the Trial Court by which accused No. 1 is convicted and accused No. 2 is acquitted is upheld.
Issues: The issues included the admissibility of the statement given by the accused under section 27 of the Evidence Act, the proof of homicidal death, and the motive for the crime.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the statement given by accused No. 1 under section 27 of the Evidence Act was admissible and proved the discovery of the dead body. The court also found that the prosecution proved the homicidal death and the motive for the crime. The court concluded that the benefit of doubt needs to be given to accused No. 2, and the decision of the Trial Court by which accused No. 1 is convicted and accused No. 2 is acquitted is upheld.
Final Decision: The decision of the Trial Court by which accused No. 1 is convicted and accused No. 2 is acquitted is upheld.
T.V. NALAWADE, J.
1. Both the appeals are filed against judgment and order of Sessions Case No. 165/2001, which was pending in the Court of learned 3rd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Ahemadnagar. Accused No. 1 is convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC' for short) and he is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and so, he has filed Criminal Appeal No. 489/2002. The respondent from the Criminal Appeal No. 591/2002 was accused No. 2, but she is acquitted of the aforesaid offences and so, the decision of acquittal is challenged by the State. Both the sides are heard.
2. Deceased Bapu Mote was son of uncle of first informant Bandu Mote. Accused No. 2 Mangal is the widow of deceased Bapu. Accused No. 2 is daughter of maternal uncle of accused No. 1 Popat and the deceased and the deceased was related to accused No. 1 as a cousin from maternal side. Mother of the deceased and mother of accused No. 1 were real sisters.
3. For about two years prior to the incident, accused No. 1 Popat had illicit relations with accused No. 2 Mangal. Popat used to visit residential place of Bapu situated in village Motewadi frequently and due to that there used to be quarrels between the deceased on one side and accused on other. The deceased had disclosed to the first informant (Bandu) and also to other brother (Bansi) that there were quarrels on aforesaid count. He had also disclosed that Popat had given threat to him when he had asked Popat to remain away from his residential place. The deceased was having two issues at the relevant time, but they were kids. Accused No. 1 Popat is resident of village Gavhanwadi, Tahsil Shrigonda, District Ahmednagar.
4. On 8.8.2001 Bapu visited residential place of first informant situated at the distance of 50 ft. from the house of Bapu and there, he took dinner. He left for his house at about 9.00 p.m. At about 11.30 p.m. on the night between 8th and 9th of August 2001 when first informant was sleeping in the courtyard of his house, he heard shouts of Bapu coming from his house. The first informant thought that probably thieves had entered the house of Bapu and so, after informing his wife, he went towards the house of Bapu. When he gave calls to Bapu from outside, initially nobody responded. Another neighbour also came there by name Dina and both gave calls to Bapu and then without opening door, accused No. 2 informed that nothing had happened between her and the deceased and there was no problem. Due to this, the first informant and Dina returned to their respective houses. The first informant went to his other brother Bansi to inform him about the incident, but Bansi also expressed that quarrel between the deceased and accused No. 2 was not a new thing and he should ignore it.
5. On 9.8.2001 at about 5.30 a.m. to 6.00 a.m. the first informant again went to the house of Bapu. This time, he noticed that the door of the house was open. When he inquired about Bapu, accused No. 2 informed that Bapu had just left home after putting clothes and nothing had happened between them on previous night.
6. The first informant then went to the field for work and in the noon time, when he again visited the house of Bapu, he noticed that Bapu was not at home. He learnt that accused No. 2 had gone to village Andhalgaon to attend a function. As Bapu was not seen by him for quite some time, he went to village Dhok Sangavi, to the house of sister Kantabai to see as to whether Bapu had gone there, but Bapu was not in Dhok Sangavi also.
7. On 10.8.2001 Kantabai, her husband and two brothers of Bapu viz. Bandu and Bansi started searching for Bapu. They brought accused No. 2 to Motewadi from Andhalgaon. They informed to Police Patil of village Hingli that Bapu was missing. Police Patil advised to give missing report to police and so, the two brothers of Bapu took accused No. 2 to police for giving missing report and due to insistence o
