Back
2017 Supreme(Bom) 2314
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
V.K. TAHILRAMANI, REVATI MOHITE DERE, JJ.
Ramtilak Chotelal Dhuria Indian Inhabitant - Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 149 of 2011
Decided On : 25-01-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. S.G. Shirsat
For the Respondent: Ms. G.P. Mulekar
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of circumstantial evidence and the principle of Section 106 of the Evidence Act in establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Headnote:
Circumstantial Evidence - Murder - Indian Penal Code - Section 302, Section 449, Section 37(1) r/w Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of two individuals in an office premises. The case was based on circumstantial evidence, including last seen evidence, extra judicial confession, recovery of knife and blood stained clothes, and motive.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellant guilty of the murder based on the chain of circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution. The court applied the principle of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, emphasizing the appellant's failure to provide a reasonable explanation for the evidence against him.
Issues: The main issue was whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principle of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, which places the burden of proving facts within the knowledge of a person upon that person. The court also emphasized the lack of explanation provided by the appellant for the evidence against him.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
V.K. Tahilramani, J.
1. The appellant – original accused has preferred this appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 24th November, 2008, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No.832 of 2007. By the said Judgment and Order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘I.P.C.’) and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default rigorous imprisonment for one month.
2. The prosecution case briefly stated, is as under:-
Bhavarlal Ravatmal Singhi-PW.1 had the business of garments. His office was situated at Jaihind Building, First Floor, Room No.8 in Bhuleshwar, Mumbai. Eight persons were working with him as full time employees and two persons were working as part-time employees in his office at Mumbai. The names of the workers were Mangalkumar Zawar (deceased), Mohitkumar Duggad (deceased), Ramtilak Dhuria (appellant), PW.8-Vrushali Kurshna Bane, PW.9-Bhupendra Bhismide Pande, Rajendrakumar Parekh, Bajaranglal Kumavat and Pravinkumar Shah. The names of the part-time employees were Amitkumar Jain and Mrs.Suman Jain. The office timings were from 8.00 a.m. to 8.30 p.m. Some of the employees used to sleep in the office premises. The persons who were sleeping in the office premises were Rajendrakumar Parekh, Bajaranglal Kumavat, Mangalkumar Zawar, Mohitkumar Duggad and sometimes on Saturday and Sunday, the appellant also used to stay at night in the office.
On 22nd June, 2007, Bhavarlal - PW.1 left his office at about 9.00 p.m. At that time only Mangalkumar and Mohitkumar were present in the office. On the next day in the morning at about 9.15 a.m., Bhavarlal received a phone call from the appellant. The appellant informed him that the office is closed and inspite of calls made by the appellant, no one was opening the office. Bhavarlal told the appellant to wait there and that he was coming to the office. Bhavarlal came to his office at about 10.15 a.m. The door of the office was closed. Thereafter, the office was opened with duplicate key. Bhavarlal noticed a foul smell coming from the office. He saw blood spread on the floor. He saw Mangalkumar and Mohitkumar lying in pool of blood. They had been murdered brutally with the help of sharp weapons. There were several injuries on the person of Mangalkumar and Mohitkumar. Bhavarlal then informed the police about these facts on telephone. Within 10 to 15 minutes, police rushed to the spot. Thereafter, Bhavarlal lodged FIR (Exihibit-10). Thereafter, investigation commenced. The dead bodies of Mangalkumar and Mohitkumar were sent for postmortem. PW.10-Dr.Sachin Shivaji Sonawne conducted the postmortem on the dead bodies of Mangalkumar and Mohitkumar. According to Dr. Sonawne the cause of death in both the cases was due to ‘haemorrhage and shock due to multiple stab injuries and the death was unnatural'. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed.
Charge came to be framed against the appellant under Sections 302 and 449 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 37(1) and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed to be tried. His defence is that of total denial and false implication.
3. After going through the evidence adduced in this case, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the appellant under Section 449 of the I.P.C and under Section 37(1) r/w Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. However, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant under Section 302 of the I.P.C. Hence, this appeal.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned A.P.P for the State. We have carefully considered their submissions, Judgment and Order passed by the learned Sessions Judge and the evidence in this case. For the below mentioned reasons, we are of the opinion that the appellant committed the murder of Mangalkumar and Mohitkumar.
5. There is no eye
