Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

BOMBAY HIGH COURT
V.K. Jadhav and Shrikant D. Kulkarni, JJ.
Shailendrasingh Shivmurtisingh
Thakur and Ors. —Appellants
versus
State of Maharashtra and Ors. —Respondents
Criminal Appeal No.64 of 2014 with Criminal Appeal No.480 of 2014 with Criminal Application No.657 of 2015 in Criminal Appeal No.480 of 2014 with Criminal Appeal No.503 of 2013
Decided on 8.4.2022

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
Criminal Appeal No.64 of 2014
For the Appellant Nos.1 to 3 and 5:Mr. A.Y. Pandule, Advocate (appointed)
For the Appellant No.4: Mr. Sohail Subhedar h/f Mr. N.S. Ghanekar
For the Respondent-State: Mr. Shashibhushan P. Deshmukh, APP
Criminal Appeal No.480 of 2014
For the Appellant:Mr. A.Y. Pandule, Advocate (appointed)
For the Respondent-State: Mr. Shashibhushan P. Deshmukh, APP
Criminal Appeal No.503 of 2013
For the Appellant-State: Mr. Shashibhushan P. Deshmukh, APP
For the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 and 6:Mr. A.Y. Pandule, Advocate (appointed)
For the Respondent No.5: Mr. Sohail Subhedar h/f Mr. N.S. Ghanekar

IMPORTANT POINT
Dacoity with murder – Simply on recovery of stolen articles, no inference can be drawn that person in possession of stolen articles is guilty of offence of murder and dacoity.

Headnote:
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 396, 397, 412, 452, 120-B read with Section 34 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Illustration (a) of Section 114 – Dacoity with murder, house trespass and conspiracy – Prosecution case is based upon circumstantial evidence – There is no direct evidence to actual incident of dacoity with murder – Simply on recovery of stolen articles, no inference can be drawn that person in possession of stolen articles is guilty of offence of murder and dacoity – In order to attract presumption in Illustration (a) of Section 114 of Evidence Act, nature of evidence is required to be considered – No fix time limit can be laid down to determine whether possession is recent or otherwise and each case must be judged on its own facts – In instant case, appellants-accused were found in possession of incriminating articles soon after crime – Presumption under Section 114 Illustration (a) could be safely drawn and recovery of those articles within a short span after incident from possession of accused unerringly point out their involvement in commission of crime – There are connecting links unerringly pointing out involvement of appellants-accused in commission of dacoity with murder – There is no reason to doubt identification of the Muddamal property – On the basis of established circumstances, prosecution has fully established guilt of appellants-accused persons – Circumstances in form of recovery of articles coupled with other connecting circumstances are having conclusive nature and tendency – Trial court has rightly found appellants-accused guilty of offence punishable under Sections 396, 397, 412, 452, 120-B r/w 34 of IPC. (Paras 11, 28, 29 and 35)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 396, 397, 412, 452, 120-B read with Section 34 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 354(3) – Dacoity with murder, house trespass and conspiracy – Respondents-accused persons have committed crime with premeditation and it involves extreme brutality – They have committed brutal murder of two innocent middle aged persons in a cruel and diabolic manner – They have committed gruesome, brutal murder of two middle aged helpless and hapless persons out of lust for money and ornaments – It was a pre-planned, calculated, cold blooded murder – This crime resulted in public abhorrence and shocked judicial conscience and conscience of society – Two innocent lives were snuffed out – Crime has been committed with extreme depravity and in a merciless manner – It falls in category of rarest of rare case – It merits death penalty – Death sentence awarded to one accused. (Paras 36-a, 39, 42 and 48)
Result: Criminal Appeals Partly allowed.

JUDGMENT

V.K. Jadhav, J.—Criminal Appeal No. 64 of 2014 preferred by original accused nos. 2 to 6 and Criminal Appeal No. 480 of 2014 preferred by original accused no.1 are directed against the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar dated 21.10.2013 in Sessions Case No. 51 of 2008.

Criminal Appeal No. 503 of 2013 is also directed against the same judgment and order of conviction passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, for enhancement of the sentence with a specific prayer that death sentence may be awarded to all the accused persons.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the prosecution case are as follows:

(a) The informant Sunil Shantilal Munot resides in Rushikesh bungalow near Keshar Gulab Mangal Karayalaya on Sahakar Sabhagruha Road, Ahmednagar. He has four uncles namely (1) Dr. Ashok, (2) Ramesh (since deceased), (3) Mohan and (4) Amrutlal. They are having two factories name and styled as K. G. Foam and Monish Spoke at Pune and three factories namely, Sumesh Industries at Kedgaon, Classic Factory at M.I.D.C., Ahmednagar and Sushant Industries, behind A.D.C.C. Bank, Ahmednagar. Informant Sunil runs the said business of factories along with his said uncles. Uncle deceased Ramesh Munot and aunt deceased Chitra w/o Ramesh Munot were residing in Basant bungalow at Manik Nagar, Chandan Estate, Ahmednagar with their two sons namely, Sagar and Sumit. Informant Sunil, his father Shantilal, uncle Ramesh and cousin Sumit were looking after the affairs of industry situated at Ahmednagar.

(b) On 02.12.2007, the informant had conversation with uncle Ramesh up to 8.15 p.m. on his mobile from time to time. Thereafter, they had no talk with each other. On 03.12.2007, at 6.30 a.m., Sharad Gundecha, who is residing in the neighborhood of uncle Ramesh, informed him on mobile phone that there was something wrong in the bungalow of uncle Ramesh. The watchman of the said bungalow had come to his house having his hands and legs tied and the informant should come there early. Accordingly, informant Sunil went to the said bungalow. PW4 Sumitkumar Tiwari was standing at the gate of the said bungalow.

(c) On making inquiry with PW4 Sumitkumar Tiwari, he told that at about 9.30 to 10.00 p.m., one person came to the gate of the bungalow and asked him to give message to deceased Ramesh that Subhash has come to see him. PW4 Sumitkumar Tiwari thus opened the gate and asked the said person to wait till he informs about the same to deceased Ramesh. Thus the person came inside. At that time, 4 to 5 persons were standing by the side of road in front of the gate. PW4 Sumitkumar Tiwari when turned to make a call to deceased Ramesh, at that time, those persons covered his face with cloth and tied his hands, legs and mouth and then took him from the gate of the bungalow upto the latrine behind the watchman room and tied him to one electric pole. One person amongst them stopped near him. After some time he had heard the cries of deceased Chitra (wife of deceased Ramesh). PW4 Sumitkumar Tiwari was lying at the same place in tied condition. In the dawn time, anyhow PW4 Tiwari went upto the bungalow of neighbour Sharad Gundecha and informed him the above incident. Informant Sunil had inspected the bungalow. There were blood stains everywhere in the bungalow. His uncle Ramesh was lying dead in the pool of blood near west side wall of the living room. There were injuries on right side of his forehead, on both sides of chest and adhesive tape was fixed on his mouth. His daily use wrist watch was found missing. In the bed room, his aunt Chitra was found tied to a wooden chair, having adhesive tape fixed on her mouth and her both hands were tied by a telephone wire and a cloth piece. She was dead. There was bleeding injury on her throat. Her wrist watch was also found missing. Informant Sunil has also seen th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

IMPORTANT POINTDacoity with murder – Simply on recovery of stolen articles, no inference can be drawn that person in possession of stolen articles is guilty of offence of murder and dacoity.

Cases Referred (10)

IMPORTANT POINT
Dacoity with murder – Simply on recovery of stolen articles, no inference can be drawn that person in possession of stolen articles is guilty of offence of murder and dacoity.