Back
2020 Supreme(Bom) 1019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH
V. M. Deshpande, Pushpa V. Ganediwala, JJ.
Sanjay Devaji Ramteke - Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra, through PSO, P.S. Ramnagar - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.476 of 2016
Decided On : 09-03-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. A. C. Jaltare, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. V. A. Thakare, A.P.P.
Point of Law : It is the direction of the Court that where evidence of the investigating officer shows that after effecting recovery of articles he did not affix the lac seals on them, no evidentiary value can be attached to said recovery.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 449 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313 – Offence of Murder – Evidence – Order of Conviction – PW1 and appellant reside in the same locality – Prosecution witness obtained hand loan from appellant – Pw1 received a phone call of PW2 and it was disclosed to him that her mother has suffered injuries on her head –PW3 registered offence vide Crime with Police against appellant for an offence punish able under Section 302 of the IPC – By impugned judgment and order of conviction, appellant stands convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and is directed to suffer life imprisonment and also to pay a fine amount of Rs.6,000/-. – Indefault of payment of fine, he is directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months – He is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 449 of the IPC and for that he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine amount of Rs.6,000/-. – In default of payment of fine, he is directed that he shall under go rigorous imprisonment for three months – Appeal is directed against order
Findings of Court:
Contemporary document, recovery panchanama (Exh.- 28) is conspicuously silent in respect of "sealing" of the clothes on the spot. – Evidence of Fulchand (PW6) does not show that steps were taken by the investigating officer to seal the clothes of the appellant. – Evidence of the investigating officer Sohansingh (PW4) is also silent on this aspect. He did not depose that after seizure, he applied seal to the bundle of clothes. – Seizure form (Exh.-28 A) regarding clothes of the appellant is also not having specimen of seal as given in format. – Ultimately, during cross-examination, the investigating officer was required to admit that inadvertently it remained. Contemporaneous documents and evidence of the prosecution witness Fulchand (PW6) and even the evidence of investigating officer does not show that clothes of appellant were sealed after those were seized from the spot – No importance can be attached to CA report and said cannot be used as an incriminating material against the appellant.– In addition to that even when appellant was examined under section 313 of the Cr.P.C.,1973 the said incriminating material was not brought to his notice and there by opportunity to furnish explanation was also denied to him. – Even investigating officer has admitted that he did not find any witness who noticed accused taking was lain house.– Investigating officer also admitted that he did not record statement of witness about the ownership of said was la. – It remains a mystery how was la came inside the house. – Reasoning, as given by trial Judge, shows that all these evidence have not been evaluated incorrect perspective. – On reappreciation of entire prosecution case, Court have no hesitation to record a finding that the chain of evidence is not complete. – Thus, there is no reasonable ground to come to the conclusion that it is only the appellant who can be held guilty for committing murder of Kunda.– Judgment and order passed by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, in Sessions Case is quashed and set aside
Result: Appeal Allowed
JUDGMENT :
V. M. Deshpande, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 09.12.2016 passed by learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur in Sessions Case No.86/2015. By the impugned judgment and order of conviction, the appellant stands convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and is directed to suffer life imprisonment and also to pay a fine amount of Rs.6,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he is directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. He is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 449 of the IPC and for that he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine amount of Rs.6,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he is directed that he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. The sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2. The prosecution case, as it is disclosed during the course of trial is narrated as under:
(i) Purushottam Undirwade (PW1) and appellant reside in the same locality. They were having good family relations. This prosecution witness obtained hand loan of Rs.2,000/- from the appellant and also purchased sand for an amount of Rs.1200/- on credit. Thus, he was to repay an amount of Rs.3200/- to appellant. On 30.04.2015, the appellant came to the house of Purushottam and demanded money. Upon that, he was told that the amount will be repaid after a period of one week.
(ii) On 02.05.2015, Purushottam (PW1), in the morning at 09.00 O’clock went to Bhadrawati for his work. That time, his daughter Pratiksha (PW2) and wife Kunda, the deceased were present in home. Purushottam received a phone call of Pratiksha (PW2) at 10.15 a.m. and it was disclosed to him by Pratiksha that her mother has suffered injuries on her head. It was also informed to him that her maternal uncle Bandu Nimgade took her to the Government hospital. Therefore, he returned to Chandrapur and proceeded directly to the hospital to notice that his wife sustained injuries on her nose, face and was about to be taken to Nagpur for treatment. He, therefore, went to the house for bringing clothes. Thereafter, they started proceeding in an ambulance to Nagpur. However, during journey, she died. Therefore, they returned to the hospital and he went to Police Station and lodged the report.
(iii) When Purushottam (PW1) had been to Police Station to lodge report, that time API Nirmala Kinnake (PW3) was discharging duties. She registered the offence vide Crime No.217/2015 with Police Station, Ram Nagar, Chandrapur against appellant for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC.
(iv) As per report (Exh.-8), when Purushottam reached to hospital, on getting information on phone from Pratiksha (PW2), he noticed that his wife was admitted in an injured condition and treatment was going on and she was not in a position to speak. Since the injured was referred for further treatment at Medical College, Nagpur, Purushottam (PW1) went to his house for bringing the clothes. That time, Pratiksha (PW2) disclosed that when Purushottam went for his work, the appellant came to his house at 09.30 and gave Rs.50/- for purchasing kharra (mixture of tobacco and beetle nut). When she was returning after purchasing kharra, she found that the house was closed from outside and when she opened the door, she noticed that her mother was lying in an injured condition and weapon Wasla was lying there. These are the material statements in the FIR.
(v) After registration of crime, API Nirmala Kinnake (PW3) went to spot of incident and prepared spot panchanama (Exh.-18). Inquest was done over the dead body vide inquest panchanama (Exh.-19). Body was sent for post mortem and after post mortem, it was handed over to the relatives. The weapon was seized from the spot itself. API Nirmala PW3) handed over investigation to API Sohansingh Parmar (PW4).
(vi) API Parmar (PW4) received the investigation papers of Crime No.217/2015 on 03.05.2015. He arreste
