Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
T.V. NALAWADE, VIBHA KANKANWADI, JJ.
Rajaram S/o Baburao Dhotre – Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 0713 of 2014, 001 of 2015
Decided On : 29-08-2018
DNA Test - Criminal Offence - Sec. 302, 201 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code - Sec. 27 of Evidence Act, Sec. 8 of Evidence Act, Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik v/s Lata Nandlal Badwaik, Anil alias Anthony Arikswamy Joseph vs. State of Maharashtra
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the conviction of two accused for the murder of a female child. The prosecution presented evidence including a DNA test to establish the parentage of the child and the involvement of the accused in the crime. The accused challenged their conviction in respective appeals.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the DNA test conclusively proved the accused as the parents of the deceased child. The court also held that the conduct of the accused in leading to the discovery of the dead body was admissible under Sec. 27 and Sec. 8 of the Evidence Act. The court acquitted one accused based on lack of evidence of common intention, while dismissing the appeal of the other accused.
Issues: The key issues included the admissibility and interpretation of DNA test results, the relevance of the accused's conduct in leading to the discovery of the dead body, and the establishment of common intention in the commission of the crime.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik v/s Lata Nandlal Badwaik and Anil alias Anthony Arikswamy Joseph vs. State of Maharashtra cases to establish the admissibility and accuracy of DNA test results in criminal investigations. The court also applied Sec. 27 and Sec. 8 of the Evidence Act to uphold the admissibility of the accused's conduct in leading to the discovery of the dead body.
Final Decision: One accused was acquitted, and the other accused's appeal was dismissed based on the court's findings regarding the admissibility and interpretation of the DNA test results and the accused's conduct in the case.
VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.
1. Appeal No. 713 of 2014 has been filed under Sec. 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, by original accused No. 2 challenging his conviction for the offence punishable under Sec. 302, 201 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code and Appeal No. 1 of 2015 has also been filed under Sec. 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, by original accused No. 1 challenging her conviction for the offence punishable under Sec. 302, 201 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Majalgaon, Dist. Beed in Sessions Case No. 33 of 2013 on 05.11.2014. Since both the appeals are arising out of same judgment, they are proposed to be disposed of by this common judgment.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case was that one Angad Dyanoba Sudke was the Police Inspector of Dharur Police Station. He received secret information on 07.02.2013 that accused No. 1 has buried a female fetus, aged three days, behind her house in Zopadpatti, in front of Rural Hospital, Dharur. Therefore, he took Tahsildar Shri. Mahesh Parandekar and two panchs with him. The dead body of the fetus was exhumed and was sent for post mortem. It was opined by the Medical Officer that the death has occurred due to strangulation. Hence, P.I. Sudke made inquiry. It was revealed that there was illicit relation between accused Nos. 1 and 2. Accused No. 1 became pregnant from accused No. 2 and gave birth to the female child. The girl was alive for three days. Thereafter, accused Nos. 1 and 2 had killed the child, in furtherance of their common intention, between 14.00 to 15.00 hours of 06.02.2013 by strangulation and then by digging a pit, behind the house of accused No. 1, the dead body was buried in order to make the evidence of murder disappear, in order to screen themselves. Hence, after the inquiry P.I. Sudke himself has lodged First Information Report (FIR) on behalf of State against accused. Offence was registered vide C.R. No. 17 of 2013 and investigation was undertaken.
3. The panchanama was already prepared in respect of exhumation. Accused persons came to be arrested. Evidence in respect of delivery of accused No. 1 was collected. Statements of witnesses were recorded. Inquest panchanama and post mortem report were collected. Both the accused persons were referred to doctor for taking samples for DNA. The samples were sent and DNA report was collected. After the completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed.
4. Both the accused appeared before the Trial Court. Charge was framed against them. Both of them have pleaded not guilty. Trial has been conducted. Prosecution has examined in all 12 witnesses to prove the guilt of the accused. After considering evidence and hearing both sides, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Majalgaon, has held both the accused guilty of committing offence. Both the accused have been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for 5 months for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. Further both the accused have been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for 5 months for the offence punishable under Section 201 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. Both the accused persons are challenging their conviction in respective appeals.
5. Heard learned Advocate Shri. S.J. Salunke for appellants and learned A.P.P. Shri. M.M. Nerlikar for Prosecution. Perused the record.
6. It has been submitted on behalf of appellants that the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence properly. PW-1 Baburao Gaikwad was the panch to the spot panchanama. He has turned hostile. It is stated that the spot was shown by PW-11 PI Sudke. This reflects that the police persons were already having knowledge about the spot. PW-2 Kamalbai is the neighbour of accused No. 1. She has also turned hostile. In fact, mother of the accused No
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
