Back
2021 Supreme(Bom) 792
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Sadhana S Jadhav, N.R. Borkar, JJ.
Nanda Rajendra Zodge Alias Sunanda Shivaji Narawane - Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 81 of 2020, 342 of 2020
Decided On : 26-02-2021
Aniket U Nikam, Advocate, Aashish Satpute, Advocate, Piyush Toshnival, Advocate, Amit Icham, Advocate, Vivek Arote, Advocate, Mahesh Vishwakarma, Advocate, Angha Tandel, Advocate, Vishwakarma & Associates, Advocate, P.P. Shinde, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of legal principles for appreciating cases based on circumstantial evidence, as outlined in the case of Sharadkumar Birdhichand Sarda v/s. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116. The judgment emphasized the conclusive nature of the circumstances, the exclusion of any other possible hypothesis except the guilt of accused No. 1, and the complete chain of evidence that led to the finding of guilt.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code - Conviction under section 302 read with section 120-B - Summary of Acts and Sections: Indian Penal Code, section 302, section 120-B - The court upheld the conviction of accused No. 1 under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, but acquitted accused No. 2. The judgment discusses the evidence and circumstances that led to the conviction of accused No. 1 for causing the homicidal death of Rohan. The court analyzed the conduct and actions of the accused, the relationship between the accused, and the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution. The court found accused No. 1 guilty based on the conclusive nature of the circumstances and the chain of evidence that excluded any other possible hypothesis except the guilt of accused No. 1. The judgment also highlighted the legal principles established in the case of Sharadkumar Birdhichand Sarda v/s. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116, which were used to appreciate the case based on circumstantial evidence.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 read with section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code for causing the homicidal death of Rohan. The prosecution's case revolved around the relationship between accused No. 1 and accused No. 2, the events leading to Rohan's death, and the evidence presented by 47 witnesses to establish the guilt of the accused. The deceased, Rohan, had a criminal background and had a history of troubling his mother, accused No. 2. The judgment discussed the evidence of witnesses, including the presence of accused No. 1 near the crime scene, the actions and interactions of the accused and the deceased on the night of the incident, and the circumstantial evidence linking accused No. 1 to the crime.
Finding of the Court:
The court found accused No. 1 guilty of causing the homicidal death of Rohan based on the conclusive nature of the circumstances and the chain of evidence that excluded any other possible hypothesis except the guilt of accused No. 1. The court acquitted accused No. 2 as it was proved that she was in the house of another person at the time of the incident. The court also highlighted the insensitivity of the accused and their knowledge of the crime, leading to the conclusion that accused No. 1 was the perpetrator of the crime.
Issues: The issues revolved around the guilt of the accused in causing the homicidal death of Rohan. The court analyzed the relationship between the accused, the deceased's criminal background, the events leading to the death, and the evidence presented by the prosecution. The court also addressed the lapses in the investigation and the conduct of the accused in relation to the crime.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the legal principles established in the case of Sharadkumar Birdhichand Sarda v/s. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116, to appreciate the case based on circumstantial evidence. The judgment emphasized the conclusive nature of the circumstances, the exclusion of any other possible hypothesis except the guilt of accused No. 1, and the complete chain of evidence that led to the finding of guilt.
Final Decision: The court upheld the conviction of accused No. 1 under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and acquitted accused No. 2. Accused No. 1 was sentenced to suffer Imprisonment for Life. The court also noted that accused No. 1 was not entitled to any leniency due to his high-ranking position as a police officer and his breach of duty to uphold the rule of law. The judgment also ordered the release of accused No. 2 and the refund of any paid fine.
JUDGMENT
Sadhana S. Jadhav, J. - The appellants herein are convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 read with section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer Imprisonment for Life and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No. 100 of 2014 vide Judgment and Order dated 19/11/2019. Hence, this Appeal.
2. The case of the prosecution in a nut shell is as follows :
(i) The accused Shivaji Narawane (Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 342 of 2020) was earlier working as Senior Inspector of Police and was attached to Tilaknagar Police Station. In the year 2013 accused No. 1 was working as DYSP attached to Special Protection Unit, Dadar. He got acquainted with the accused No. 2 since she used to visit Tilak Nagar Police Station to file complaint against her notorious son Rohan.
(ii) The accused No. 2 (appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 81 of 2020) was a divorcee. She was mother of 2 sons namely, Rishabh and Rohan (deceased) and daughter Neha (P.W. 6). That Rohan was notorious. He had criminal antecedents. He was alcoholic and used to trouble his mother. There were more than 4 to 5 non-cognizable cases registered at Tilaknagar Police Station against Rohan at the behest of his mother (original accused No. 2). That, she was a Homeopathic doctor and was practising in Rohini Clinic at C.S.T. near Hanuman Mandir and her cell phone number was 9833804832. It is alleged that the accused No. 2 was in relationship with accused No.1. That he visited her house quite often.
(iii) It is the case of the prosecution that on 25/10/2013 Head Constable Audumbar Pawar, who was attached to Tilak Nagar Police Station, while he was on patrolling duty, at about 10.52 a.m., received a wireless message that an untoward incident had occurred in building No.158, room No. 5168, near Tilak Nagar Colony, Chembur, Mumbai-89 which in fact happens to be the residential house of the accused No.2. The police reached the spot. There was a gathering of people who informed the police that Rohan Zodge, the son of accused No. 2 was killed by some one. The police found that Rohan was lying just outside the room No. 5168 in the passage and the dead body was facing to the earth. ASI Jadhav informed Tilak Nagar Police Station. The dead body was taken to Rajawadi Hospital. P.W. 2 Audumbar Pawar lodged a report at Tilak Nagar Police Station against unknown persons for an offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code at about 12 noon. On the basis of the said report, Crime No.345 of 2013 was registered at Tilak Nagar Police Station. Investigation was set in motion.
(iv) That, at about 10.52 a.m. when the police reached the spot, accused No.1 was present near the dead body and upon enquiry had introduced himself as DYSP Narawane. In the course of investigation, it had transpired that the accused No. 2 was in relationship with the accused No.1 and in the previous night accused No.1 had visited house of accused No.2 and there was a quarrel between accused No.2 and her son Rohan and thereafter, Rohan had died a homicidal death. Accused No. 2 was arrested on 25/10/2013.
(v) At the trial, prosecution has examined as many as 47 witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused. The material witnesses in the present cases are P.W. 2 Audumber Pawar, Head Constable who was the first to reach the scene of offence. P.W. 4 Nikhil Kamble who is the cousin of accused No.2, P.W.17, Chhaya Kamble, mother of P.W.4, P.W.5 Abhijeet Bhingardive and P.W. 9 Tejas Rawat friends of P.W.6 Neha, P.W. 7 Kartiki and P.W. 19 Ganesh Jadhav, resident of building No.158. P.W.18 Lalpratapsingh who has proved CCTV footage and P.W.26 Birju Singh who was panch for CCTV footage, P.W. 30 Vijay Shinde, Nodal officer who has proved the user of the cell phones seized from accused Nos. 1 and 2. P.W. 36 Sunil Tiwari, Nodal officer of Airtel company; P.W. 37 Vikas Phulkar - Nodal officer of Vodaphone Ltd., P.W. 41 Dr. Shivaji Kachare, Invest
