Back
2021 Supreme(Bom) 1411
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Sadhana S. Jadhav, Prithviraj K. Chavan, JJ.
Dattaram Hari Pandare - Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 114 of 2016
Decided On : 29-10-2021
Nasreen S.K. Ayubi, Advocate, Arfan Sait, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on the testimony of the sole eye-witness, medical evidence, and conduct of the accused and deceased to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
Headnote:
MURDER - EVIDENCE - INDIAN PENAL CODE - SECTION 302, 201 - The judgment discusses the evidence and conviction of the appellant for the offence of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The court relied on the testimony of the sole eye-witness, medical evidence, and other documentary evidence to establish the guilt of the accused. The court also considered the delay in lodging the FIR and the conduct of the accused and deceased to reach its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased Murgesh Gavandar was found missing from his residence, and his wife Bharati lodged a missing report with the Police Station. Later, the skeleton of Murgesh was found in a septic tank, leading to the filing of a charge-sheet against the appellant and deceased Bharati under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellant guilty of the offence of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The court acquitted the appellant of the offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the delay in lodging the FIR, the authenticity of the prosecution case, and the veracity of the evidence presented by the witnesses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the testimony of the sole eye-witness, the medical evidence, and the conduct of the accused and deceased to establish the guilt of the accused. The court also considered the delay in lodging the FIR and the threats received by the witness as reasons for the delayed disclosure of the incident.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment and order of conviction rendered by the learned Sessions Judge were upheld.
JUDGMENT
Prithviraj K. Chavan, J. - Dattaram H. Pandare, the appellant herein, has preferred this appeal against a judgment and order of conviction rendered by the Sessions Judge, Sindhudurg on 17th August, 2015 holding him guilty of the offence of murder and sentencing him to life imprisonment.
2. The facts in brief are as follows :-
3. Deceased Murgesh Gavandar was a resident of village Shirgaon. He was residing with his wife Bharati (since deceased and accused no.1) along with three children. PW-7 Aditya Murgesh Gavandar is the son of deceased Murgesh.
4. Sometime in the year 2010, deceased Murgesh was found missing from his residence. When his brother Shanmugam Gavandar inquired with his wife deceased Bharati, she informed that Murgesh had eloped with one lady after performing a marriage. On 12.04.2011 Bharati lodged a missing report with the Police Station, Deogad stating that her husband (deceased Murgesh) was missing w.e.f. 03.01.2010 from village Shirgaon. Bharati thereafter started living at Kankavali with her son and two daughters. However, she died due to accidental burns on 06.08.2012 (Exh.53).
5. PW-7 Aditya, thereafter started residing with his grandfather and uncle at Rangneli Indiranagar. Tal. Tarikere, Dist. Chikmangloor, State-Karnataka. In the year 2014 Krishnan Gavandar father of the deceased Murgesh, after informing his family members, came to Deogad Police Station to inquire about the whereabouts of his son Murgesh. When he was about to leave for Deogad, PW-7 Aditya, for the first time, informed his grandfather that his mother Bharati along with her paramour Dattaram Pandare committed murder of Murgesh by throwing a grinder stone ("????") on his head and that the dead body of the deceased Murgesh was thrown into the septic tank of the latrine at Shirgaon. Therefore, on 28.07.2014 father and brother of the deceased Murgesh approached the Police Station, Deogad along with PW-7 Aditya and informed the police about the occurrence.
6. On the same day, PW-8 Shri. Bodake, P.I. along with other police staff visited house of PW-6 Nitin Tawade at Shirgaon, where the deceased Murgesh used to reside with his family before missing.
7. PW-7 Aditya, had shown the septic tank of the latrine which was beside the house of PW-6 Nitin Tawade, in the presence of Tahasildar, Deogad. When lid of the septic tank was removed, the skeleton of Murgesh with full pant was found in the septic tank. The skeleton was removed from septic tank and when it was properly arranged, it was found to be a full skeleton of a human. A spot panchanama (Exh.10) was drawn and a panch yadi (Exh.9) was also drawn on the spot itself. Inquest panchanama of the skeleton (Exh.37) was prepared in the presence of panch witnesses. The hind portion of the skull was found pressed. On the same day, Shanmugam Gavandar lodged an FIR (Exh.45) bearing Crime No. 26 of 2014 under Section 302 and 201 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
8. During investigation, the skeleton was referred to the Department of Anatomy, Medical College, Miraj and it was reported that all the bones found in the septic tank are of human and the approximate age of the deceased was between 32 to 40 years. It was a skeleton of a male.
9. The Doctor had informed that skull exhibits evidence of depressed fracture of left parietal bone extending on to left temporal bone and left side of occipital bone. It was further reported that all the bones are of a same person (Exh.43). Femur bone of the skeleton and blood samples of PW-7 Aditya and Krishnan Gavandar were referred to Forensic Laboratory, Kalina, Mumbai for its opinion (Exh.28).
10. Statement of PW-7 Aditya also came to be recorded by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Deogad under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Exh.46). After investigation and as a result of investigation a charge-sheet came to be filed in the Court of J.M.F.C., Deogad against the appellant as well as deceased Bharati under Section 302, 201 read with 34 of the Indian Penal C
