2017 Supreme(SC) 15

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, ARUN MISHRA, A.M. KHANWILKAR, JJ.
KISHORE BHADKE - APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA - RESPONDENT
Criminal Appeal No. 467 of 2010 With Criminal Appeal No. 854 of 2010 & Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 2015
Decided On : 03-01-2017

IMPORTANT POINTS
When both the courts below recorded concurrent finding of facts, Supreme Court therefore should focus its analysis on the legal aspects emanating from the concurrent findings so recorded. It should not re-appreciate the entire evidence.
Criminal Court trying offence of murder is not required to decide issue of title of the land or to consider the relief of specific performance.
When more than one accused Nos.2 and 3 disclose, one after another, the spot of disposal of body of deceased and the dead body is discovered only after accused Nos.2 and 3 were taken together to the spot; such fact disclosed by them, and discovery made at their instance, would be admissible against all the accused.
Signature of accused on recovery Panchnama is not required under any provision of law.
Recording of statements of all accused separately but in part on different dates would be substantial compliance of section 313 CrPC.

Headnote:(a) Constitution of India – Both the courts below recording concurrent finding of facts – Supreme Court therefore should focus its analysis on the legal aspects emanating from the concurrent findings so recorded – It should not re-appreciate the entire evidence. (Para 13)

       (b) Criminal trial – Criminal Court trying offence of murder – Not required to decide issue of title of the land or to consider the relief of specific performance. (Para 15)

       (c) Criminal trial – Circumstantial evidence – Motive – Last seen together – Evidence of PW-1 corroborated by PW-15 about transaction of land not demolished in cross examination – Circumstance of motive supported by relevant facts established by prosecution witnesses – No reason to discard the same – Prosecution establishing that deceased was last seen with the accused persons – Thereafter accused were seen carrying a gunny bag in a vehicle – Prosecution succeeding in establishing circumstance of motive and last seen together indicating involvement of the appellants-accused. (Para 15, 17)

       (2012)7 SCC 646; (2002) 6 SCC 715; (2015) 4 SCC 393; (2003) 12 SCC 377; (2007) 13 SCC 399; (2007) 13 SCC 284 – Distinguished

       (2010) 6 SCC 525; (2011) 11 SCC 754; 1995 Supp. (4) SCC 502 – Referred

       (d) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 27 – Both the accused Nos.2 and 3 disclosing, one after another, the spot of disposal of body of deceased – Discovery of dead body made only after accused Nos.2 and 3 were taken together to the spot – Dead body recovered from disclosed spot at the instance of both the accused Nos. 2 and 3 – Fact disclosed by them, and discovery made at their instance, was admissible against both the accused. (Para 19)

       (2005) 11 SCC 600 – Relied upon

       AIR 1956 SC 217 – Distinguished

       (e) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 27 – Absence of signature of accused on recovery Panchnama – Not required under any provision – Signature of accused on statement u/s 27 is enough. (Para 22)

       AIR 1995 SC 2345; (2012) 11 SCC 205; (2009) 17 SCC 106 – Distinguished

       (f) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 120-B – Accused No. 3 charged u/s 120-B – His presence at relevant time in house of accused No. 1, while loading the gunny bag in the vehicle and him travelling in the vehicle – Establishes his complicity in the crime. (Para 25)

       (2001) 1 SCC 378; 1994 Suppl.(2) SCC 372; (2016) 1 SCC 550; (2014) 4 SCC 715; (2014) 10 SCC 264 – Distinguished

       (g) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313 – Statements of all accused recorded separately – Recording made in part on different dates – Section 313 complied substantially – Does not vitiate the trial. (Para 33)

       (h) Criminal trial – Recovery – Gold ring recovered at the instance of accused 6 – Plea of absence of blood on the ring and ready availability in market – Of no avail in absence of any explanation of possession of the ring identified to be that of the deceased – Conviction upheld. (Para 37)

       (2012) 11 SCC 205 – Distinguished

       Facts of the case:

       On 10th May 2003, Shriniwas son of Wasudeorao Tonpe lodged a report that his elder brother Raman has gone missing since morning of 8th May 2003.

       On the next day i.e. 11th May 2003 another brother of the missing person, Madan son of Wasudeorao Tonpe lodged a second report suspecting that accused No.1- Nalini, her husband Vijay Dhpake, accused No.2-Rinku, and accused No.7- Suresh Chandra might have abducted his brother Raman in order to commit his murder.

       On the same evening, the I.O. arrested both Nalini and Rinku and thereafter accused No.3 - Kishor, accused No.4 - Tarachand in the mid night of 12th May 2003.

       Accused No.2- Rinku and accused No.3- Kishor, during interrogation confessed that on 8th May 2003 between 1.00 p.m.to 1.30 p.m. they along with accused No.4-Tarachand and accused No.6-Satish with the help of accused No.1-Nalini and accused No.5-Arun had committed murder of Raman by strangulation in the cattle shed of one Nitin Rai. The dead body of Raman was thereafter taken away in a gunny bag and then thrown in a valley near "Deona Darshan Point". Before throwing the dead body, they had removed the clothes and wrist watch from the dead body. They then burnt the gunny bag as well as the rope used for strangulation including some documents possessed by the deceased by pouring petrol at some other place at a distance of 10 km. before Deona Darshan Point.

       The offence was then converted and registered under Section 364, 302 and 201 read with Section 34/120-B of the IPC. Thereafter remaining accused i.e. accused No.5- Arun, accused No.6-Satish and accused No.7-Suresh Chandra were arrested.

       The Trial Court convicted the accused under Section 364, 302, 201 read with Section 34 in the alternative 120-B of IPC.

       The High Court dismissed Appeals filed by accused Nos.2, 6, and 7; 1; and 3; and allowed the Appeal filed by accused No.4.

       Finding of the Court:

       Court upheld the finding of guilt as against these accused Nos.1,3 and 6 as recorded by the courts below as also the sentence imposed in respect of the offence committed by them.

       Result: Appeals dismissed.