Allowed

The State of Maharashtra v. Renukabai @ Rinku @ Ratan W/O.Kiran Shinde and Anr.

Bombay HC8 Sept 2004CONF/2/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this confirmation case following a criminal appeal, the High Court convicted the two appellants, who were accomplices in a serial child kidnapping ring, for the kidnapping and murder of several children. The court confirmed the death sentences for the murders of specific victims while modifying convictions on conspiracy and kidnapping counts, acquitting them of charges lacking sufficient eviden

What did the court decide?

Death sentences confirmed for the murder of Santosh, Anjali, Shradha, Gauri, and Pankaj; convictions modified for conspiracy and kidnapping counts; other charges acquitted; sentences modified.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Renukabai @ Rinku @… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2004)

¶1

 : 1 :

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 APPELLATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

¶3

CONFIRMATION CASE NO.2 OF 2001

¶4

`The State of Maharashtra )..Original` `) Complainant` `Versus )` `)`
`1. Renukabai @ Rinku @ Ratan )` `W/o Kiran Shinde )` `)`
`2. Seema @ Devki @ Devli Mohan )` `Gavit )..Respondents` `)(Org.Accused` `) Nos.1 & 2)`
`W I T H`
`CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.718 OF 2001`
`1. Renukabai @ Rinku @ Ratan )` `W/o Kiran Shinde )` `)`
`2. Seema @ Devki @ Devli Mohan )` `Gavit )..Appellants` `)(Org.Accused` `Versus ) Nos.1 & 2)` `)`
`The State of Maharashtra )..Respondents` `----`

¶5

 Mrs.S.A.Pai, Additional Public Prosecutor for the
 State of Maharashtra.

¶6

 Mr.H.S.Venegaonkar Advocate for Respondent Nos.1
 and 2.
 ----
Coram : R.M.S.Khandeparkar &
 R.S.Mohite,JJ
 Date :

¶7

Judgment :- ( Per : Mohite, J)

¶8

 1. Criminal Appeal No.718 of 2001 has been filed by
 Renukabai @ Rinku @ Ratan, wife of Kiran Shinde (
 Here-in-after referred to as ‘Renuka’ ) and Seema @

¶9

 : 2 :

¶10

 Devki @ Devli Mohan Gavit ( Here-in-after referred
 to as ‘Seema’). The Appeal seeks to quash and set
 aside a Judgment and order passed by the Additional
 Sessions Judge, Kolhapur on 28.06.2001 in Session
 Case Nos.55 and 56 of 1997. In the aforesaid two
 Session cases the present 2 accused were tried for
 having kidnapped 13 children, attempting to kidnap
 one more child and committing the murder of 9 of the
 13 children kidnapped by them. Since the trial
 involved the kidnapping and murder of children over
 a long period of time, commencing in June-1990 and
 ending in October-1996, it would be convenient to
 deal with the facts as separate incidents. These
 incidents, the related convictions and the sentences
 imposed by the trial court can be categorised as
 under :-

¶11

 (A) The conspiracy entered into between the accused,
 accused Anjanabai (Here-in-after referred to as
 ‘Anjanabai’) and approvar Kiran Shinde
 (Here-in-after referred to as ‘Kiran’) in June-1990

¶12

 in the house of one Saste in Pune city. For this
 act of conspiracy the trial court has convicted the
 accused under Section 120-B of the Penal Code and
 has sentenced them to death by hanging, subject to
 confirmation by the High Court.

¶13

 (B) The kidnapping of a child named Santosh aged
 about 1 & 1/2 years in the first week of July-1990

¶14

 : 3 :

¶15

 at Kolhapur by the accused and Anjanabai, his
 subsequent murder by Anjanabai on instigation by the
 accused at S.T.Stand Kolhapur and the disposal of
 the dead body by accused no.1 Anjanabai and Kiran at
 a spot near a rikshaw parked at about 15 minutes
 walking distance from the said S.T.Stand. For these
 incidents, the accused have been convicted and
 sentenced as under :-

¶16

 (i) Under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of the
 Indian Penal Code, the sentence being death by
 hanging subject to confirmation by the High court.

¶17

 (ii) Under Section 363 read with Section 120-B of
 the Indian Penal Code, the sentence being rigorous
 imprisonment for 3 years with a fine of Rs.2000/-
 each, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for
 one year on each count.

¶18

 (iii) Under Sections 364, 365, 344 and 466 read with
 Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, the sentence
 being rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a
 fine of Rs.2000/- each, in default to suffer further
 rigorous imprisonment for one year each on each
 count.

¶19

 (iv) Under Section 201 read with Section 120-B of
 the Indian Penal Code, the sentence being to suffer
 rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay fine of

¶20

 : 4 :

¶21

 Rs.5000/- each, in default to suffer rigorous
 imprisonment for 2 years.

¶22

 (C) The kidnapping of a child named Naresh aged

¶23

 about 9 months from Thane S.T.Stand in
 December-1991, causing of hurt to this child, the
 abandoning of this child on 28.2.1992 at Ramkunj

¶24

 Temple situated near Panchavati Ganga Ghat at Nasik
 and the filing of a false and forged application in
 the court by accused no.1 seeking the custody of
 this child. For these incidents, the accused are
 convicted and sentenced as under :-

¶25

 (i) For the offence punishable under Section 364

¶26

 read with Section 120-B of the Penal Code to suffer
 rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine
 of Rs.2000/- each, in default to suffer rigorous
 imprisonment for one year each.

¶27

 (ii) For offences punishable under Sections 468,

¶28

 469, read with Section 120-B of the Penal Code,

¶29

 being sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for
 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- each, in
 default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 1 year
 each on each count.

¶30

 (iii) For offences punishable under Section 323 read
 with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, being

¶31

 : 5 :

¶32

 sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6
 months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each, in
 default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3
 months.

¶33

 (D) The kidnapping of a male child namedBuntyaged
 about 1 year and a girl childSwatiaged about 2
 years in April-1993 by the accused and Anjanabai
 from Kalyan Railway station, the kidnapping of a
 male child named Gudduaged about 2 & 1/2 years and
 a girl child named Meenaaged about 3 years by the
 accused and Anjanabai in May-1993 from the
 V.T.Station at Bombay, the release of Swati in the
 bazar at Loni Karbhor along Solapur road at Pune in
 or about July-1993, the murder of Bunty and Guddu by
 the accused in a car near Khandala ghat, the
 throwing of the dead body of Bunty in the Khandala
 ghat valley by Anjanabai, the throwing of the dead
 body of Guddu on the side of the road at Shil-phata
 by Anjanabai, the rescue of Meena from Matwad chawl
 situated at Kothrud Pune by the Police. For these
 incidents, the accused are convicted as under :-

¶34

 (i) Under Sections 363, 364 read with Section 120-B
 of the Penal Code for the kidnapping of Bunty, the
 sentence being rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and
 a fine of Rs.2000/- each, in default to suffer
 rigorous imprisonment for 1 year each, on each
 count. ( It may be mentioned here that though both

¶35

 : 6 :

¶36

 the accused were charged for the offence punishable
 under Section 302 & 201 read with Section 120-B of
 Indian Penal Code for the killing and disposal of
 the body of Bunty, they were acquitted of the said
 charge by partially dis-believing the accomplice
 Kiran Shinde (PW 1). It may further be mentioned
 that though the trial court in its reasoning found
 the accused guilty of the kidnapping of Swati in the
 operative order, the trial court appears to have
 missed convicting and sentencing the accused for
 this offence.

¶37

 (ii) For offences punishable under Sections 363,
 364, 342, 323, 344 read with Section 120-B of the
 Indian Penal Code for the kidnapping of Guddu and
 Mina, the sentence being rigorous imprisonment for 1
 year and a fine of Rs.2000/- each, in default to
 suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6 months each on
 each count. ( The accused were acquitted for the
 charges under Section 302 read with Sections 120-B
 and 201 read with 120-B framed in connection with
 the murder of the child Guddu).

¶38

 (E) The kidnapping of Anjali @ Pinky, a girl child
 aged about 2 years by the accused and Anjanabai from
 Kalika Mandir, Nasik on 18.10.1994, killing of the
 said child by accused and Anjanabai in November-1994
 at the house of one Khopde situated at
 Gondhalinagar, Hadapsar Pune and the disposal of the

¶39

 : 7 :

¶40

 dead body of this child by Kiran, Anjanabai and
 accused no.1 near Saswad road at Pune. For this
 incident, the accused have been convicted and
 sentenced as under :-

¶41

 (i) Under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of the
 Indian Penal Code, the sentence being death by
 hanging subject to confirmation by the High court.

¶42

 (ii) Under Sections 363, 364 read with Section 120-B
 of the Indian Penal Code, the sentence being
 rigorous imprisonment for 3 years with a fine of
 Rs.2000/- each, in default to suffer rigorous
 imprisonment for 1 year each, on each count.

¶43

 (iii) For offences punishable under Sections 344,
 346 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal

¶44

 Code, the sentence being rigorous imprisonment for 2
 years with a fine of Rs.2000/- each, in default to
 suffer rigorous imprisonment for 1 year each, on
 each count.

¶45

 (iv) For offences punishable under Section 201 read
 with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, the
 sentence being rigorous imprisonment for 5 years
 with a fine of Rs.5000/- each, in default to suffer
 rigorous imprisonment for 2 years on each count.

¶46

 (F) The kidnapping of Swapnil @ Raja, a male child

¶47

 : 8 :

¶48

 aged about 7 months in the first week of March-1995
 by the accused, Anjanabai and Kiran from S.T.stand
 Kolhapur, the killing of the said child in the 2nd
 week of March-1995 by accused no.2 in the house of
 Khopde, situated at Gondhalinagar, Hadapsar, Pune
 and the disposal of the dead body of this child by
 throwing the same in the area of Khandala ghat. For
 these incidents, the accused have been convicted and
 sentenced as under :-

¶49

 (i) Under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of the
 Indian Penal Code, the sentence being death by
 hanging subject to confirmation by the High Court.

¶50

 (ii) Under Sections 363, 365, and 342 read with
 Section 120-B of the Penal Code, the sentence being
 rigorous imprisonment for 2 years with a fine of
 Rs.2000/- each, on each count, in default to suffer
 rigorous imprisonment for 1 year each, on each
 count.

¶51

 (iii) For offences punishable under Section 201 read
 with Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code, the
 sentence being rigorous imprisonment for 5 years
 with a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default to suffer
 rigorous imprisonment for 2 years each, on each
 count.

¶52

 (G) The kidnapping of a girl child namedShradha @

¶53

 : 9 :

¶54

Rani @ Bhagyashri, aged about 1 year & 9 months by
 the accused and Anjanabai from Mahalaxmi Temple,
 Kolhapur, the killing of this child in the last week
 of May by Anjanabai on the suggestions given by the
 accused, in a taxi, on the road leading to Surat and
 the disposal of the dead body of Shradha by accused
 no.1. For these incidents accused have been
 convicted and sentenced as under :-

¶55

 (i) For the offence punishable under Section 302
 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code,
 the punishment being death by hanging subject to
 confirmation by the High Court.

¶56

 (ii) For the offences punishable under Sections 363,
 364 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal
 Code, the sentence being rigorous imprisonment for 3
 years with a fine of Rs.2000/- each, in default to
 suffer rigorous imprisonment for 1 year each, on
 each count.

¶57

 (iii) For offence punishable under Section 201 read
 with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, the
 sentence being rigorous imprisonment for 5 years
 with a fine of Rs.5000/- each, in default to suffer
 rigorous imprisonment for 2 years each, on each
 count.

¶58

 (H) The kidnapping of the childKranti aged about 9

¶59

 : 10 :

¶60

 years by the accused from the house of her father on
 29.8.1995 and the killing of Kranti by the accused
 in the sugar crane crop situated on a land near
 Narsoba-wadi, Dist-Kolhapur. For these incidents,
 the conviction and sentence of the accused are as
 under :-

¶61

 (i) For offences punishable under Sections 363, 364,
 365 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal
 Code, the sentence being rigorous imprisonment for 3
 years with a fine of Rs.2000/- each, in default to
 suffer rigorous imprisonment for 1 year each, on
 each count.

¶62

 (ii) For offences punishable under Sections 342,
 343, 344 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal
 Code, the sentence being rigorous imprisonment for 1
 year with a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default to suffer
 rigorous imprisonment for 6 months each, on each
 count. ( It may be mentioned here that by partially
 dis-believing the story of the approvar Kiran Shinde
 (PW 1) in respect to the murder and disposal of the
 dead body of Kranti, the trial court has acquitted
 the accused of the charges under Sections 302 read
 with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code as well
 as the charge under Section 201 read with Section
 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

¶63

 (I) The attempt to kidnap a child by the name of

¶64

 : 11 :

¶65

Devli from Rani Laxmibai Primary school, Nasik on
 10.10.1996 by the accused. For this incident, the
 accused have been convicted as under :-

¶66

 (i) Under Sections 363, 364, 365 read with 120-B of
 the Indian Penal Code, the sentence being rigorous
 imprisonment for 3 years with a fine of Rs.2000/-,
 in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 1
 year each on each count. ( It is noted here that
 though the charge was for an attempt, the conviction
 appears to be wrongly made for the offence of
 kidnapping and its aggravated forms without the use
 of section 511 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶67

 (J) The kidnapping of a girl child named Gauri @
Bhavna aged about 1 & 1/2 years on 3.1.1996 by the
 accused and Kiran from the Ganga ghat vegetable
 market in Nasik, killing of this child by Anjanabai
 at the instigation of accused no.2 on 12.5.1996 at
 Pallavi Lodge, Kolhapur and the disposal of the dead
 body of this child on the same day in the womens
 lavoratory in Usha Theatre situated near the said
 lodge. For these incidents, the accused have
 been convicted and sentenced as under :-

¶68

 (i) For the offence punishable under Section 302
 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code,
 the sentence being death by hanging subject to
 confirmation by the High court.

¶69

 : 12 :

¶70

 (ii) For the offences punishable under Sections 363,
 364, 365 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal
 Code, the sentence being to suffer rigorous
 imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of
 Rs.2000/-, in default to suffer rigorous
 imprisonment for 1 year each, on each count.

¶71

 (iii) For the offences punishable under Sections
 342, 344 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal
 Code, being sentenced to suffer rigorous
 imprisonment for 1 year and to pay a fine of
 Rs.5000/- each, in default to suffer rigorous
 imprisonment for 6 months each on each count.

¶72

 (iv) For the offence punishable under Section 201
 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code,
 being sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for
 5 years with a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default to
 suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 years each.

¶73

 (K) The kidnapping of a male child namedPankajaged
 about 4 years on 27.7.1996 from Vithal Mandir,
 Wadala, Mumbai by the accused, killing of this child
 in September-1996 in the house of Indirabai Mahimkar
 situated at Shivshahi Apartment, Kothrud, Pune and
 the disposal of this child in a gunny bag thrown in
 the area of Karve Nagar in Pune. For these
 incidents, the accused have been convicted and

¶74

 : 13 :

¶75

 sentenced as under :-

¶76

 (i) For the offences punishable under Section 363,
 364 and 365 read with Section 120-B of the Indian
 Penal Code, the sentence being rigorous imprisonment
 for 2 years with a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default to
 suffer further rigorous imprisonment for 1 year
 each, on each count.

¶77

 (ii) For the offences punishable under Sections 342,
 344 & 346 read with Section 120-B of the Indian
 Penal Code, the sentence being rigorous imprisonment
 for 1 year with a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default to
 suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6 months each, on
 each count.

¶78

 (iii) For the offence punishable under Section 201
 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code,
 the sentence being rigorous imprisonment for 5 years
 with a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default to suffer
 further rigorous imprisonment for 2 years each, on
 each count.

¶79

 . (It may be stated that as regards each of the
 aforesaid incidents pertaining to kidnapping and
 murder, there was also a charge relating to the
 substantial offences read with Section 34 of the
 Indian Penal Code but the conviction has not been
 made with the aid of Section 34).

¶80

 : 14 :

¶81

 2. The brief prosecution case sought to be brought
 on record through the evidence of approvar Kiran
 Shinde (PW 1) as also through 155 other witnesses
 examined by the prosecution and several documents,
 narrated in a chronological sequence was as under :-

¶82

 (a) that (PW 1) approver Kiran is a person who
 hailed from Pune. He was educated upto the 7th
 standard but left his school in the year 1982 when
 he was in the 7th standard. On leaving school he
 was learning the work of tailoring in the shop of
 one Suresh Tailor in Hadapsar area. While he was so
 working in the tailoring shop he came into contact
 with accused no.1 Renuka in 1983. Kiran fell in
 love with Renuka and consequently on 17.12.1989 he
 married Renuka at Shirdi in the temple of Saibaba.
 Subsequently, in the year 1990 Kiran and accused
 no.1 Renuka alongwith accused no.2 Seema, Ashish,
 the son of Renuka from her first marriage and
 Anjanabai came to reside as tenants in the house of
 one Saste at Gondhalinagar situated in Hadapsar area
 of Pune. Anjanabai, Renuka and Seema were thieves
 who used to commit theft of articles like
 mangalsutra, indulged in chain snatching and the
 entire family as aforesaid used to maintain itself
 out of income derived from such thefts. In such
 circumstances, the first of 3 children of Renuka &
 Kiran i.e. Kishor was born on 23.3.1991, the second

¶83

 : 15 :

¶84

 son Tushar was born on 6.2.1994 and the 3rd son
 Gaurav was born on 19.1.1995.

¶85

 HATCHING OF A CONSPIRACY :-

¶86

 . That in April-1990, while the aforesaid family
 was residing in the house of Saste, Kiran, accused
 no.1 Renuka and Ashish had gone to Chatursinghi for
 darshan. At that place Renuka who was with Ashish
 tried to snatch a purse from a person in the mob but
 was caught by the said person. Renuka started to
 raise a hue and cry and she gave abuses to the
 person who had caught her asking him as to why he
 was holding his hand when she was having a child
 with her. Many persons gathered at the spot and
 helped in getting Renuka released. The person who
 had caught Renuka, seeing the mob gathering, left
 the spot. In the month of June-1990, Kiran, Renuka
 and Seema had a meeting in the house of Saste in
 which Renuka narrated the incident that had occurred
 in Chatursinghi and as to how she had got herself
 released by taking advantage of having a child with
 her. By that time, Anjanabai has been arrested in
 about 15 to 16 cases of theft, Renuka had been
 arrested on about 5 to 6 occasions and even Seema
 had been arrested on 2 to 3 occasions. Renuka
 raised an issue as to what was required to be done
 to evade such arrests. It was concluded by them at
 that meeting that if small children could be taken

¶87

 : 16 :

¶88

 with them at the time of incident of theft, they
 could, if caught, get the sympathy of persons and
 there was a reduced possibility of being involved in
 the offence. They decided to kidnap small children
 below 5 years of age as such children would not be
 able to follow what was going on and would not be in
 a position to speak out. They arrived at this
 device to reduce the possibility of arrest. They
 decided to kidnap such children from public places
 such as railway stations, temples, fairs, public
 gardens etc. as such places usually had a big
 crowd. They further decided that if the children
 caused any trouble in the course of their work or if
 there was any possibility of their being involved by
 such kidnapped children then the children would be
 killed. It is the prosecution case that a criminal
 conspiracy to kidnap and kill was thus hatched by
 Kiran, Renuka and Seema in this meeting and in
 pursuance of this criminal conspiracy, from
 June-1990 to October-1996, the accused, Anjanabai
 and Kiran kidnapped 13 children from various public
 places like Thane, Kalyan, Mumbai, Nasik, Kolhapur
 etc., attempted to kidnap one child and killed 9 of
 the children whom they had succeeded in kidnapping.

¶89

 INCIDENTS RELATING TO SANTOSH :-

¶90

 (b) That after the hatching of the aforesaid
 conspiracy in July-1990, the accused and Anjanabai

¶91

 : 17 :

¶92

 had gone to Kolhapur. There, Renuka met a female
 begger with a child on the S.T.stand. She gave an
 assurance to that begger that she would get her a
 job and under this pretext brought her to Karad.
 There, Renuka took the child, gave a slip to the
 begger and alongwith Seema and Anjanabai returned to
 their house at Pune alongwith this child who was
 named by them as Santosh. Later in July-1990 Renuka
 & Seema had gone to Shirdi for the purposes of
 committing thefts. Kiran remained behind in the
 house of Saste at Pune. As Renuka and Seema did not
 return for 5 to 6 days, Anjanabai alongwith Ashish
 had gone to Shirdi in order to find out as to what
 had happened to them. About 6 to 7 days thereafter,
 Shirdi police alongwith Anjanabai, Renuka & Seema
 came to the house of Saste at Pune alongwith the 2
 children Ashish & Santosh. Renuka, Seema and
 Anjanabai had been arrested by the Shirdi police for
 theft and they had come to take the search of their
 house at Pune. Upon taking search the police
 attached various stolen items like tape-recorder,
 T.V., Camera and some ornaments. Kiran gave some
 amount to the Shirdi police in order to evade his
 arrest. After some time, Renuka, Seema and
 Anjanabai alongwith 2 children were transferred by
 the Shirdi police to the Pune police and were kept
 at the lock-up of Faraskhana police station at Pune.
 In the month of February-1991 Renuka was released
 from jail. She came out of the jail alongwith child

¶93

 : 18 :

¶94

 Ashish. After about 4 to 5 days, Seema was also
 released from jail. In the first week of March-1991
 Anjanabai was released from jail and Santosh came
 out of the jail alongwith her. On 23.3.1991 Renuka
 delivered her first child Kishor. On 14.4.1991
 Kiran, Ashish, Kishor, Santosh, Renuka, Seema &
 Anjanabai left for Kolhapur in order to commit petty
 thefts. They halted at Mahalaxmi Dharmashala at
 Kolhapur where they reached at about 8.00 P.M. The
 room in the Dharmashala was taken in the name of
 Seema. After keeping their articles in the room,
 they proceeded towards Mahalaxmi temple where a
 crowd was likely to gather in the evening. Kishor
 was with Kiran and Ashish was with Renuka, Anjanabai
 was carrying Santosh. Seema attempted to snatch a
 purse from one person but was caught and beaten.
 Anjanabai then intervened and threw Santosh on the
 ground. Santosh fell down and sufferred a bleeding
 injury on his head. Many persons gathered on the
 spot and due to the pleas and apologies of Anjanabai
 and on seeing the bleeding wound caused to the child
 Santosh, the matter was not carried further to the
 police. Renuka then suggested that they should go
 to Kolhapur S.T.stand for committing further thefts.
 They accordingly, came to Kolhapur S.T.stand at
 about 11.00 P.M. Renuka & Seema alongwith Kishor &
 Santosh had gone to commit theft while Kiran &
 Anjanabai were sitting in one corner of the
 S.T.stand alongwith Ashish. After about 1 & 1/2

¶95

 : 19 :

¶96

 hours, Renuka & Seema alongwith the children
 returned back alongwith 2 to 3 purses. They
 purchased Wada-pav and while they were eating
 Wada-pav, Santosh started to cry. Renuka told Kiran
 that the child was crying because it has sustained
 injury due to being dropped by Anjanabai. She told
 Kiran that the child was not useful as it was
 attracting the attention of the persons while theft
 was being committed. Seema then told Anjanabai that
 because of the child Santosh, there was a
 possibility of arrest and therefore, it was better
 to put an end to his life. Anjanabai then pressed
 the mouth of Santosh and dashed his head repeatedly
 on the iron bar which had been put in place for the
 benefit of passengers. Santosh sustained further
 injuries on his head. There was oozing of blood
 from his head and his clothes were sustained with
 blood. While she was killing the child Santosh,
 Renuka & Seema were sitting at a distance of 10 feet
 and were eating wada-pav. Santosh died on the spot.
 Anjanabai then removed the clothes from the person
 of Santosh and told Seema to go to the water tap and
 to wash his clothes. Seema accordingly, washed the
 clothes of Santosh. Renuka then told Kiran to
 search for a lonely place for disposing the dead
 body of Santosh. Kiran then came out and found such
 a place. He carried the dead body of Santosh on his
 shoulders and alongwith Anjanabai and Renuka came
 out of the S.T.stand. At a walking distance of

¶97

 : 20 :

¶98

 about 15 minutes, one scraped rikshaw has been
 parked. They kept the dead body of Santosh near the
 scraped rikshaw. They returned back to the
 S.T.stand in a rikshaw where they collected Seema
 and told the rikshaw driver to take them back to
 Mahalaxmi Dharmashala. On coming near the
 Dharmashala they had a quarrel with the rikshaw
 driver but the quarrel was settled by paying Rs.60/-
 to him. They stayed in the Dharmashala thereafter
 for 4 days and then left the Dharmashala. In the
 meanwhile, in the morning of 15.4.1991 one Hemgiri
 Bankar found the dead body of Santosh and reported
 the matter to (PW 53) Ashok Baburao Yenechavandikar
 who was a police head constable attached to the
 Laxmipuri police station. The said constable
 registered an accidental death under A.D.No.26/91.
 After recording the accidental death, he handed over
 the investigation to (PW 58) Piraji Ganpat Kamble
 who proceeded to the spot where the dead body was
 lying alongwith Hemgiri and took the dead body of
 the child in his custody under panchanama.
 Photographs of the dead child were taken. However,
 inspite of his best efforts, no accused could be
 traced in the said case and on failure to trace the
 accused the said witness submitted an A-final report
 to the court.

¶99

 INCIDENTS RELATING TO NARESH @ KALPESH @ ANIKET :-

¶100

 : 21 :

¶101

 (c) After the murder of Santosh, sometime in
 April-1991, the entire family of the accused shifted
 to the room of one Indubai Shinde in Pune. After
 shifting, from April-1991 to December-1991 the
 accused & Anjanabai used to go out for committing
 theft and Kiran used to stay in the house for
 maintaining Ashish & Kishor. On one such occasion,
 in the month of December-1991 the accused, Anjanabai
 and Kiran left Pune for Thane by S.T.bus. They
 reached Thane at about 11.00 P.M. and near the
 S.T.stand they saw one lady sitting with a child.
 They went towards the lady and cultivated a
 friendship with her. Renuka was talking with the
 said lady. At about 1.15 a.m. the child began to
 cry and Renuka told the child’s mother that the
 child would stop crying if she held the same. The
 lady agreed and handed over the child to Renuka.
 After a while, the lady told Renuka that she wanted
 to bring milk for the child. Accordingly, she went
 to bring milk and at that instant, Renuka and others
 decided to run away from the spot with the child,
 came out of the S.T.stand and engaged a rikshaw
 which took them to the S.T.stand of Bhivandi. They
 reached Bhivandi at about 3.30 a.m. and from there
 they came to Pune by S.T.bus. The child kidnapped
 by them was aged about 8 to 9 months and was named
 as Naresh. On 28.8.1992 the accused alongwith
 Anjanabai, Kiran and 3 children including Naresh had
 gone to Nasik to attend the fair of Kumbh mela.

¶102

 : 22 :

¶103

 They had plan of committing thefts at the fair.
 However, on reaching Nasik, Naresh became sick and
 started to cry. Renuka who had developed a special
 affinity for the child Naresh as he was suckling on
 her person, suggested that Naresh should be
 released. Naresh was accordingly left near the
 Ram-kund temple at Nasik. The family stayed at
 Nasik for a day and came back to the room of Indubai
 Shinde at Pune thereafter. On the morning of
 28.8.1992 (PW 107) Ratnamala Powar who was a lady
 head constable had gone to the area of Ram-kund
 temple at Nasik. She saw Naresh raising a hue &
 cry. A mob was gathered on the spot. She made
 enquiries about the parents of the child but there
 was nobody to claim the child. She took Naresh to
 Panchavati police station and filed a report about
 the finding of the boy to the Police Inspector.
 Naresh was then taken to the Civil hospital, Nasik
 for medical examination, as such an examination was
 required before admitting him to the childrens’

¶104

 Home. Naresh was in the Civil hospital till
 2.2.1992 and there he was examined by (PW 91)
 Dr.Kanchan Desale. On medical examination, Naresh
 was found to have an abrasion on his left frontal

¶105

 region 1 cm x 1 cm and an abrasion on the right side
 of his abdomen (illic fossa) 2 cm x 2 cm. On
 release from the hospital, after obtaining an order
 from the Juvenile Justice Board, Naresh was remanded
 to the Adhar ashram which was a public charitable

¶106

 : 23 :

¶107

 trust situated at Nasik. He was remanded to the
 institution from 29.1.1992 and was being brought up
 in the said institution as a Hindu child. He was
 admitted in the institution in the name Kalpesh.
 (PW 106) Vishnu Khalage and his wife Vimal led a
 barren existence at Nasik. They yearned to have a
 child and decided to adopt one. They visited the
 Adhar ashram and chose Naresh for adoption. On
 14.7.1993 Vishnu Khalage filed an application for
 being appointed as the guardian of Naresh under
 Section 8(4) of the Guardians & Wards Act r/w Hindu
 Adoption and Maintenance Act in the court of the
 District Judge at Nasik. He also obtained interim
 custody of the child from the court and after
 obtaining interim custody, changed the name of the
 child to Aniket. In the meanwhile, Renuka started
 pressing Kiran to find out as to what had happened
 to Naresh. Kiran had come to Nasik and he made an
 attempt to search for Naresh. He also visited
 Adhar-ashram. The officer of the Adhar ashram
 however told him that the child had been given to
 Vishnu Khalage. Kiran went back to Pune and
 conveyed this news to Renuka. In or about
 December-1993 the accused, Kiran & Anjanabai decided
 to go to Nasik in order to claim the custody of
 Naresh through the court. They engaged (PW 96)
 Advocate Jayprakash Kasaliwala to file an
 application in the court on their behalf.
 Accordingly, in Civil Misc.Application No.214/93

¶108

 : 24 :

¶109

 already filed by Vishnu Khalage, Anjanabai styling
 herself as Shantabai Patil Gavit submitted an
 intervention application on 17.12.1993. In this
 application she claimed that the child Naresh @
 Kalpesh was the child of her neice by name Rekha.
 On 7.6.1994 she filed her say in the main Civil
 Misc.Application No.214/93 and also filed a separate
 application on the same day for grant of interim
 custody of the child. In these applications, the
 child Naresh has been described as Kalpesh which was
 the name given to the child by the institution.
 Anjanabai claimed that she was a blood relation of
 the child which belonged to her neice Rekha. On the
 application for interim custody the court passed an
 order on 13.6.1994 refusing the grant of interim
 custody as the interim custody of the child had
 earlier been given to Vishnu Khalage. On 4.7.1996
 Renuka again approached (Pw 96) Advocate Jayaprakash
 Kasaliwala and informed him that Naresh was really
 her twin son. Advocate Kasaliwala told her that he
 had already accepted the Vakalatnama of her mother
 and was therefore not in a position to accept her
 Vakalatnama. He suggested that she should contact
 Advocate Shetye. He called Advocate Shetye to his
 chamber and the 2 Advocates confirmed the facts.
 Accordingly a second intervenor’s application on
 behalf of Renuka was filed by Advocate Shetye on
 4.7.1996. In this application, Renuka claimed to be
 the real mother of Naresh whom she claimed to be her

¶110

 : 25 :

¶111

 twin son. This is a fact which was sought to be
 falsified by the prosecution by examining Dr.Sanjay
 Bidiye who had delivered the 3 children of Renuka.
 Ultimately, applications made by Anjanabai and
 Renuka were dis-allowed and by his final order dated
 6.10.1997 the IInd Extra Joint District Judge, Nasik
 allowed Civil Misc. Application No.214/93 filed by
 Vishnu Khalage and appointed him as the natural
 guardian, further permitting him and his wife to
 take Naresh @ Kalpesh in adoption. After adoption
 they named this child as Aniket.

¶112

 INCIDENTS RELATING TO BUNTY, SWATI, GUDDU & MINA :-

¶113

 (d) In the last week of March-1993 the family of the
 accused left the house of Indubai and went to reside
 at Labade chawl situated in Shastri Nagar, Kothrud,
 Pune. They had purchased a Fiat car on 15.1.1993.
 They started using the said Fiat car in April-1993
 for visiting places to commit theft. In April-1993
 they had gone to Kalyan in their Fiat car with the
 aim of kidnapping children and committing theft.
 They parked their car near the railway station at
 Kalyan and thereafter accused and Anjanabai had gone
 to the railway station at Kalyan to see if there was
 any opportunity of kidnapping children. Kiran,
 Ashish and Kishor were waiting in the car. The
 accused and Anjanabai returned after about a hour
 alongwith a boy aged 1 & 1/2 years and a girl aged

¶114

 : 26 :

¶115

 about 2 & 1/2 years. They informed Kiran that they
 had kidnapped these children from the plat-form of
 Kalyan railway station. These 2 children were
 crying and they were carried by the family to their
 house at Labade chawl. Renuka named these children
 as Bunty & Swati. These 2 children were being used
 by the accused for committing thefts. The girl
 child Swati was not liked by Renuka and hence,
 within about 2 & 1/2 months she was abandoned by the
 family in the bazar at Loni Karbhor on Solapur road
 at Pune. Within 15 to 20 days of kidnapping Bunty &
 Swati the family had visited V.T.station at Bombay.
 They reached V.T.station at about 8.30 P.M. Again
 the accused and Anjanabai had been to the plat-form
 to kidnap children. They had taken Bunty alongwith
 them. The approver remained seated in the car. The
 accused and Anjanabai returned after about half an
 hour alongwith 3 children. One child was aged about
 2 to 2 & 1/2 years, another was aged about 9 to 10
 years and there was one girl aged about 2 to 3
 years. They put these children into the Fiat car
 and started to proceed to Pune. The boy who was
 aged 9 to 10 years, being old and able to talk
 properly, was released by the family at S.T.stand
 Panvel. The remaining 2 children were brought by
 the family to Pune and were named by Renuka as Guddu
 and Meena. These children were also being used for
 the purpose of committing thefts alongwith Banti &
 Swati. In due course Banti & Guddu became sick.

¶116

 : 27 :

¶117

 Banti became sick on account of sustaining an injury
 which became septic. Guddu became sick on account
 of loose motions. Their illness caused these two
 children to often raise a hue & cry and therefore,
 the family decided to kill these 2 children.
 However, before killing them, they decided to shift
 out of Labade chawl and accordingly in June-1993
 they obtained premises at Mathwad chawl situated at
 Azad Nagar, Pune. In May-1993, with a view to kill
 Bunty & Guddu the accused, Anjanabai and Kiran
 proceeded from Pune towards Khopoli in the evening.
 On the way at about 11.30 P.M. they stopped the
 vehicle in Khandala ghat. Kiran got down from the
 vehicle. Bunty & Guddu were asleep. Bunti was with
 Renuka and Guddu was with Seema. Renuka pressed the
 neck of Bunty and similarly Seema pressed the neck
 of Guddu. Anjanabai then got down from the vehicle
 and threw the dead body of Banti in to the valley.
 She told Kiran that it was not sensible to drop both
 the dead bodies at the same place and therefore,
 they took the vehicle to Shil-phata by proceeding
 towards Khopoli. Near Shil-phata Anjanabai got down
 from the vehicle and dropped the dead body of Guddu
 on the side of the road. They then returned to
 their house at Labade chawl at Pune. They reached
 Pune early in the morning and on the same day
 engaged a tempo to shift their house-hold articles
 from Labade chawl to the new house at Mathwad.

¶118

 : 28 :

¶119

 . On 30.6.1993 the dead body of Guddu was found by
 one Prakesh Choudhary near village Mil situated near
 Shil-phata. He reported the finding of the dead
 body to (PW 94) Maruti Tamane who was the PSO at
 Khopoli police station. The police registered
 A.D.No.10/93. (PW 94) visited the place where the
 dead body was lying, took out photographs, prepared
 a panchanama in the presence of panchas and found
 injuries on the dead body of the child. He sent the
 dead body for post mortem. Advance death
 certificate was issued by the Doctor which mentioned
 that the death of the child was caused due to
 strangulation and axphyxia. On receipt of such a
 certificate, (PW 94) Maruti Tamane registered a
 crime for an offence under Section 302 of IPC, under
 C.R.No.101/93. Eventually, the investigation was
 taken over by (PW 144) Vithoba Gavali who was then
 the Dy.S.P. attached to CID crime branch, Nasik.
 The Dy.S.P. obtained all the papers of
 investigation which included the post mortem notes,
 seized the fiat car belonging to the family of the
 accused from a garage in Karve road, Pune, recorded
 several statements and handed over all the papers to
 (PI) Bodhe, the Chief investigating officer in the
 present case. After having shifted to Mathwad
 chawl, an incident occurred on 6.7.1993 in which the
 police rescued the remaining girl Mina from the
 clutches of the family. On 6.7.1993 at about 4.00
 P.M. (PW 82) Shyamrao Shinde, who was a driver in

¶120

 : 29 :

¶121

 MSEB, had gone to Mathwad chawl in connection with
 the grievance relating to electric supply in that
 area. There were 3 technicians with him. He
 stopped his vehicle in front of Mathwad chawl and
 the technicians went to work. While he was waiting
 in the vehicle, he heard the cries of a child from
 room no.2 of Mathwad chawl. There was a lock from
 outside the door of that house and even the windows
 were also closed. On hearing this noise, he got
 down from the vehicle, took a stool and opened the
 door through the ventilator. He found a girl aged
 about 3 to 4 years who was alone and crying in the
 room. There was a swelling on the face of the girl
 and there was a bleeding injury on her forehead
 which was also swollen. In the meanwhile, the owner
 of the chawl also came there. The small girl was
 crying out for her mother. This witness and the
 technicians left the spot after completion of their
 work. However, the owner of the chawl (PW 102)
 Dattatray Mathwad reported the incident to Shastri
 Nagar police station. (PW 115) Suresh Bhagwat who
 was the PSO, came to the room alongwith a constable
 and when he arrived, he found that the room was
 open. The door was however, shut from inside and
 when the police knocked and entered, they found
 Anjanabai with 3 children in the room. They took
 search of the room and found ornaments worth
 Rs.50,000/-. Anjanabai and the children were
 removed to the police station. The PSI Suresh

¶122

 : 30 :

¶123

 Bhagwat found injuries on the girl. The police
 arrested Anjanabai and Seema in connection with this
 incident and sent the child Meena for medical
 treatment. (PW 115) then handed over the
 investigation to PI Powar attached to the Kothrud
 police station. In the course of this
 investigation, while the police had custody of these
 accused recovery of ornaments worth Rs.62,147/- was
 made and 2 new offences of theft pertaining to the
 Deccan Police station were detected. As far as Mina
 was concerned, (Pw 176) Dr.Kishor Chabukswar on
 medical examination, found 6 injuries in the nature
 of abrasions and contusions on her body. He opined
 that the same were caused by a hard and blunt object
 within 2 to 5 days. Kiran & Renuka who had not been
 arrested in this crime left Mathwad chawl on
 15.7.1993, on which day (PW 102) Dattatray Mathwad
 returned the deposit amount of Rs.28,000/- after
 deducting Rs.6000/- towards rent. Then they resided
 temporarily at 2 different places at Pune city and
 ultimately, during the Ganpati festival of 1994
 (Middle of September-1994) they shifted to the room
 of one Khopade in the Gondhalinagar area situated in
 Hadapsar area of Pune.

¶124

 INCIDENTS RELATING TO PINKI @ ANJALI :-

¶125

 (e) While the family was residing in the house of
 Khopade as aforesaid, during the period of Navratri,

¶126

 : 31 :

¶127

 the accused, Anjanabai, Ashish, Kishor & Tushar had
 gone to Nasik for committing thefts and for
 kidnapping other children. They returned to Pune
 after 7 to 8 days. During this period, Kiran
 continued to stay in the house of Khopade. On
 18.10.1994 (PW 10) Sujata Diwan had gone to Kalika
 mandir situated on Agra road at Nasik. She was
 accompanied by her husband and her 2 daughters
 Sheweta and Anjali. At that time, Anjali was aged
 about 2 to 2 & 1/2 years. At the temple, Sujata
 went ahead for performing Pooja and filling the oti
 of the deity. Her child Anjali was with her
 husband. For the purpose of giving her articles of
 pooja, her husband kept Anjali on the ground and
 went towards her. After the prayers, her husband
 took pradakshina around the deity. When he
 returned, he found that Anjali was missing. They
 searched for the child the entire night up to 8.00
 A.M. in the morning. Thereafter Sujata became
 unconscious. When she regained consciousness, they
 went to the police station and gave information to
 the police, which was recorded by (PW 9) PSI Mahadu
 Saundane who was then attached to the Satpur police
 station. On the basis of this information, a
 missing entry bearing no.70/94 was registered by the
 police. Later, on 1.11.1996 the father of the child
 (PW 62) lodged a complaint of kidnapping with the
 Panchavati police station, which was recorded under
 C.R.303/96 for offences under Sections 363, 364 r/w

¶128

 : 32 :

¶129

 34 of IPC against the present accused and Anjanabai.
 Before this complaint of kidnapping was recorded,
 accused and Anjanabai had already been arrested in
 another case of kidnapping. In the meanwhile, the
 accused, Anjanabai and the children had returned to
 the house of Khopade in Pune alongwith Anjali.
 Renuka narrated the manner in which the child had
 been kidnapped to Kiran and on her say, Kiran named
 the child as Pinky. Pinky remained with the family
 for about 1 to 1 & 1/2 months. Kiran used to move
 Pinky on his bicycle whe she used to raise hue &
 cry. Pinky was killed in November-1994 in the room
 of Khopade at Gondhalinagar. The reason why she was
 killed was that she used to always remain sick and
 used to frequently cry. On one such occasion, while
 Pinky was raising a hue & cry, Anjanabai remarked
 that she was of no use. She pushed Pinky @ Anjali
 down the staircase of the house. Pinky started
 crying loudly. At this stage, Kiran, Anjanabai &
 Renuka came down the staircase. Anjanabai pressed
 the mouth of Pinky, when her hands and when the
 child’s legs started shaking in a death spasm, they
 were caught hold of by Renuka. Seema was witnessing
 this incident. She started pressing the mouth and
 nose of Pinky. Pinky @ Anjali died at the spot.
 Kiran was standing near the staircase and witnessing
 this incident. That after killing Pinky @ Anjali,
 Renuka removed the clothes of the child and the dead
 body was put in a bag. After having meals, Kiran,

¶130

 : 33 :

¶131

 Anjanabai and Renuka, at about 1.30 A.M. took the
 dead body and had gone along the Saswad road upto
 the canal where the body was dropped in some shrubs
 near a compound wall. Thereafter they returned to
 the house of Khopade. (PW 22) Rajendra Sankpal was
 running a Nursery adjacent to the canal near Saswad
 road. On 23.11.1994 while he was going towards his
 nursery, he saw some persons gathered outside his
 nursery. He entered the mob and saw the dead body
 of a child aged about 2 years. He saw ligature
 marks on the neck of the dead body. He went to the
 Hadapsar police chowky and filed a report. The
 report was reduced to writing by (PW 25) Narsinh
 Kendgale who was then the police head constable
 attached to Hadapsar police chowky. This police
 officer went to the spot. He prepared a panchanama
 of the spot (PW 24) Raghunath who was the
 photographer who had accompanied him, took 3
 photographs of the dead child ( Exh.89, 90 & 91).
 The police officer sent the dead body to the Sasoon
 hospital where he prepared a separate inquest
 panchanama. He then handed over the investigation
 to PSI Mujawar. (PW 131) Dr.Laxmikant Bade
 conducted the post mortem on the body of Pinky @
 Anjali. He found 10 antemortem injuries on the body
 of the child. There was fracture of the teeth,
 contusion on both the lips, abrasion on the mouth &
 chin and contused abrasion on the neck, linear
 imprint abrasion on sternal notch, faint ligature

¶132

 : 34 :

¶133

 mark, linear abrasion on neck and contusion on
 middle back. He opined that the cause of death was
 asphyxia as a result of smothering. He accordingly,
 prepared the post mortem notes.

¶134

 INCIDENTS RELATING TO RAJA @ SWAPNIL :-

¶135

 (f) In March-1995 a male child was kidnapped from
 the S.T.stand at Kolhapur. The entire family had
 gone from Pune to Kolhapur for the purposes of
 effecting a kidnapping. At the S.T.stand at
 Kolhapur, at about 3.00 P.M. they came across (PW
 112) Sharmila Godgire. Sharmila was with her son by
 name Swapnil. Renuka approached this lady and
 enquired from her as to where she wanted to go.
 Sharmila informed Renuka that she wanted to go to
 Talandage. Renuka was sitting and talking to this
 lady. Renuka took her son by saying that she was
 going to buy a banana. She gave Sharmila her basket
 contained a towel. Renuka did not return. Sharmila
 started searching for her son but could not trace
 him. Her son was wearing silver rings on his wrists
 and gold muddis in his ears. Sharmila then went to
 the police station and lodged a complaint of
 kidnapping. The said complaint was registered under
 C.R.No.54/95 under Section 363 of IPC by (PW 110)
 PHC Baburao Hukkeri who was attached to the
 Shahupuri police station. After some investigation,
 PHC Hukkeri handed over the investigation to (PW

¶136

 : 35 :

¶137

 111) PSI Ajit Khadake. PSI Ajit Khadake attached
 the basket and towel which was given by Renuka to

¶138

 Sharmila. After kidnapping the child, Renuka met
 Kiran and they all together fled from the S.T.stand
 and went into Kolhapur city. At about 10.00 PM on
 that day they returned to the house of Khopade.
 They named the newly kidnapped child as Raja. The
 said child was aged only about 7 months. The said
 child was with them for only about 8 days. After
 about 8 days of the kidnapping, once Seema was
 moving in the house with the child Raja and the said
 child started crying. She dropped Raja on the
 flooring of the house and the said child died
 instantly. Kiran, Renuka and Seema then carried the
 body of the child into the area of Khandala ghat.
 They went to Khandala ghat in a hired jeep. The
 body of the child was dropped at Khandala ghat at
 about 10.00 P.M. in the darkness. The said body
 was never recovered thereafter.

¶139

 INCIDENTS RELATING TO SHRADDHA @ BHAGAYSHRI :-

¶140

 (g) In the last week of April-1995 the accused and
 Anjanabai had gone to Kolhapur for kidnapping
 children. Kiran remained in the house of Khopade at
 Pune. At Kolhapur, on 24.4.1995, the accused,
 Anjanabai and 2 children who accompanied them
 checked into the Mahalaxmi Dharmashala at about 8.20
 P.M. They booked a room for 3 days and the booking

¶141

 : 36 :

¶142

 was done in the name of Seema. The other 2 ladies
 gave their names as Vaishali Kiran Shinde and Kamla
 Raju Bhor. They were given room no.4 in the
 Dharmashala. They had a quarrel with the Manager
 (PW 45) Ganesh Une over the lack of cleanliness of
 the room. The room was then cleaned. The 3 ladies
 alongwith 2 children left the room at about 10.00
 A.M. by telling the Manager that they would return
 at about 2.00 P.M. Then they went Mahalaxmi temple.
 (PW 33) Vijaya Mali had come to the Mahalaxmi temple
 alongwith her grand-child Yogesh aged about 5 years
 and her grand-daughter Bhagayshri aged about 1 year
 & 9 months. The mother of these children Jyoti was
 serving in Karnataka State but had come to Kolhapur
 for completing her M.A. She used to be in the
 college for the entire day and the children used to
 be left in the custody of the grand-mother. At the
 temple while (PW 33) Vijaya was taking darshan,
 Bhagayshri was lost in the area of temple. The
 child was wearing a gold earring on her person and
 silver chains in her legs. The said child was
 kidnapped by the accused and Anjanabai. (PW 33)
 Vijaya lodged a missing report with the Juna Rajwada
 police station which came to be recorded by (PW 35)
 Najir Mayandar. The police attempted to search for
 the child but could not trace the child. The
 accused and Anjanabai alongwith the 2 children and
 the newly kidnapped child returned to Mahalaxmi
 Dharmashala at about 11.00 A.M. They informed the

¶143

 : 37 :

¶144

 Manager (Pw 45) that they were leaving the room and
 after receiving the deposit amount, these 3 ladies,

¶145

 2 children and one girl left the lodge. After
 leaving the lodge, all these persons returned back
 to their residence in the house of Khopade at Pune.
 They narrated the manner in which child was
 kidnapped to Kiran. The child was re-named as
 Shradha and they lived together for about 1 & 1/2
 months and during this time, Shradha was used for
 committing thefts. The family had gone to Surat,
 Ahmedabad and Baroda with Shradha and other children
 to commit thefts. On their first trip to Surat they
 had halted at Sahil Lodge where a room was taken in
 the name of Seema. They stayed in the said lodge
 for 4 days, during which period, accused, Anjanabai
 & Shradha committed thefts at Surat. During these
 periods, Kiran used to look after the children by
 staying in the lodge. After leaving this lodge,
 Kiran went to Pune to attend the marriage of his
 friend whereas the ladies and these children
 proceeded to Ahmedabad. At Ahmedabad they halted at
 the Revabai Bhai Shankar Dharmashala for 5 days.
 They committed thefts at Ahmedabad by using Shradha
 and earned large amounts. From Ahmedabad they came
 to Baroda and after staying in Baroda for 3 days,
 they returned to Pune. From this trip the family
 earned about Rs.40,000 to Rs.45,000/- and also
 collected several gold and silver ornaments. After
 about 3 days of staying in the house of Khopade,

¶146

 : 38 :

¶147

 Renuka suggested that the family should go to Thane
 and Bombay for committing thefts. They then went
 towards Thane and Bombay by a S.T. bus. On the way
 Shradha became sick and Renuka suggested that her
 life should be ended. This proposal was accepted by
 Anjanabai and Kiran. At the S.T.stand at Thane,
 Renuka told Kiran to search for a taxi to go to
 Surat. Kiran engaged one taxi and they all then
 proceeded towards Surat at 11.00 P.M. in the night.
 While the taxi was proceeding, Anjanabai pressed the
 neck of Shradha with her feet and killed her. Kiran
 was sitting on the front side alongwith the taxi
 driver, whereas the accused Anjanabai and children
 were sitting on the rear side of the taxi. Kiran
 heard the noise of a low hiccough while the taxi was
 running. Renuka touched him with her hand and
 confirmed that the child had been killed and
 indicated that it was necessary to stop the taxi.
 Kiran stopped the taxi under the pretext that the
 ladies wanted to attend natures call and suggested
 to the taxi driver that they should halt at some

¶148

 distance. Kiran and taxi driver went ahead for
 about 1/2 furlong. During this time, the child was
 dropped by the accused and Anjanabai. On the return
 of Kiran and the taxi driver, Renuka twinkled her
 eye by way of a signal to Kiran to indicate that the
 body of Shradha had been dropped and thereafter they

¶149

 proceeded onward in the same taxi. At Surat, they
 once again halted at Sahil lodge. They stayed at

¶150

 : 39 :

¶151

 Sahil lodge for 3 to 4 days and committed several
 thefts and earned about Rs.10,000 to Rs.12,000/-
 before returning to Pune. After the killing of
 Shradha they stayed in the house of Khopade at Pune
 for about 3 months and left the said house in
 August-1995 after receiving Rs.10,000/- by way of
 refund of deposit.

¶152

 INCIDENTS RELATING TO KRANTI :-

¶153

 (h) After leaving the house of Khopade, the accused
 alongwith Anjanabai, Ashish, Kishor, Tushar and
 Gaurav went to stay at Nasik. They left because
 they felt that the police were keeping a watch on
 them. Kiran started residing separately in one room
 in Pune. The ladies and children started to reside
 in the flat of one Makwana in front of the office of
 the telephone exchange at Nasik. Kiran used to
 visit them from time to time when he needed money.
 While they were staying at Nasik on 29.8.1995 at
 about 9.30 P.M., the accused went to the house of
 (PW 21) Pratibha Mohan Gavit. Pratibha was the 2nd
 wife of the father of the accused Mohan Gavit.
 Mohan had earlier been married to Anjanabai. The
 accused told (PW 21) Pratibha and their father Mohan
 that they would like to take Kranti with them to
 meet their mother Anjanabai. Mohan Gavit raised an
 objection on the ground that Kranti was under- going
 her examination. However, on the accused pressing

¶154

 : 40 :

¶155

 him, he gave his consent to the accused to carry
 Kranti with them. The accused gave them their
 address at Nasik. Thereafter both the accused left
 alongwith Kranti in a rikshaw. They however, did
 not return Kranti on the next day and when (PW 21)
 and Mohan took search of the address given to them,
 they could not trace the accused or their daughter
 Kranti. Kranti was noticed by Kiran on one of his
 visits to the flat where the ladies were staying.
 Kiran enquired from Renuka as to who this girl was
 and as to why she had been brought to reside with
 them, to which, Renuka replied that Kranti was her
 step-sister and she had been brought by them because
 her mother wanted to take revenge on Mohan Gavit for
 abandoning her. On 5.12.1995 the accused Anjanabai
 alongwith Kranti and the children came to the room
 of Kiran Shinde at Pune. They reached the said room
 at about 8.30 P.M. Renuka told Kiran that she
 wanted to kill Kranti and that Kiran should come
 alongwith them to Kolhapur. Kiran agreed to this
 suggestion. On the very day, Kiran alongwith
 accused, Anjanabai and all the 4 children started to
 go to Kolhapur from Pune. After reaching the
 S.T.stand at Kolhapur, Renuka told Kiran that there
 was a fair going on at Narsoba-wadi and that the
 family should proceed there in order to commit
 thefts. They had reached Kolhapur early in the
 morning at 5.30 A.M. They booked a room in Maharaja
 lodge situated in front of Kolhapur S.T.stand. The

¶156

 : 41 :

¶157

 said room was taken in the name of Seema and they
 left for Narsoba-wadi immediately after freshning
 up. They went towards Narsoba-wadi in a taxi which
 they engaged from the S.T.stand at Kolhapur. They
 started at about 11.00 A.M. and reached
 Narsoba-wadi after about 1 to 1 & 1/2 hours. While
 they were near Narsoba-wadi, the taxi was stopped.
 Kiran, Renuka & Kranti got down under the pretext of
 eating sugar cane. Anjanabai alongwith all the
 children came out of the taxi and were sitting at
 one spot. Kiran, Renuka & Kranti entered the crop
 of sugar cane and crossed a distance of about 10
 minutes walk from the taxi. On reaching a spot
 where the sugar cane was of the height of Kiran,
 Renuka made Kranti to lie on the ground and pressed
 her mouth and neck. When Kranti’s hands and legs
 were spasming in her death throes, they were held by
 Seema. Kranti died on the spot. They left the dead
 body of Kranti at the same spot and returned back to
 the taxi. They found that the taxi driver was
 sleeping in the taxi. Then they proceeded towards
 Nrusihawadi where they took a darshan of the idol of
 Datta. They returned after darshan and woke up the
 driver. The driver enquired as to where was Kranti.
 Renuka told him that the girl had met her mother at
 the fair at Nrusihawadi and she had gone away with
 her mother. The family then returned back to
 Kolhapur and reached Kolhapur at 4.00 P.M. In the
 same evening they started to go to Pune. Both the

¶158

 : 42 :

¶159

 accused alongwith Anjanabai and children thereafter
 went back to Nasik. On 20.10.1996 the mother of
 Kranti (PW 21) had been to the vegetable market at
 Nasik where she saw both the accused. She accosted
 them and asked them as to where was Kranti. The
 accused told her as the martial life of their mother
 had been spoiled by Pratibha, she would not get back
 her daughter. Pratibha came home and informed this
 incident to her husband. She and her husband came
 to the market where accused had been sighted but
 they could not trace the accused. Then they went to
 the Panchavati police station and lodged a report.
 (PW 142) Dilip Boraste was the PSO of Panchavati
 police station. On the FIR of Pratibha, he recorded
 C.R.No.303/96 under Section 363 of the IPC against
 the accused and Anjanabai. At about 5.40 P.M., on
 the very day he effected the arrest of the accused
 under a panchanama and thereafter proceeded with the
 investigation. It is in the course of custodial
 interrogation after the arrest in this case that the
 story of killing of various children by the accused,
 Anjanabai and Kiran started emerging gradually.

¶160

 INCIDENTS RELATING TO DEVLI :-

¶161

 (i) After the kidnapping of Kranti, an attempt was
 made by the accused to kidnap Devli, the sister of
 Kranti on 10.10.1996. On that day at about 2.00
 P.M. the accused went to Rani Laxmibai Primary

¶162

 : 43 :

¶163

 school at Nasik where Devli was studying. There
 they met (PW 26) Sumanbai Navale who was the peon in
 this school and told him that they were the
 step-sisters of Devli and informed the peon that the
 sister of Devli was sick and that her mother had
 sent them to bring Devli with them. The peon
 refused to accede to this request. The accused then
 tried to bribe the peon by offering Rs.1000/- for
 the release of Devli. Not-with-standing this, the
 peon refused and therefore, the accused had to
 return back. The peon Suman then reported the
 matter to (PW 27) Mangala Parnerkar who was the
 teacher in this school. The teacher informed about
 the incident to the mother of Devli (PW 21) Pratibha
 when Pratibha had visited the school in the same
 evening at 5.00 P.M. On 16.10.1996 Pratibha had
 lodged a complaint regarding the attempt by the
 accused to take away her daughter, with the
 Panchavati police station and this incident was also
 investigated as a part of C.R.No.303/96 registered
 on 22.10.1996 after recording a detailed FIR of
 Pratibha. In this C.R., Anjanabai came to be
 arrested on 29.10.1996.

¶164

 INCIDENTS RELATING TO GAURI @ BHAVANA :-

¶165

 (j) In January-1996 Kiran visited the accused and
 Anjanabai in the flat of Makwana at Nasik. Kiran
 and the accused had then gone to Ganga-ghat

¶166

 : 44 :

¶167

 vegetable market to purchase vegetables on 3.1.1996.
 On the same day the mother of (PW 17) Chhaya had
 also been to the same vegetable market to purchase
 vegetables accompanied by her grand-daughter
 Bhavana. The child was missed in the market as she
 was kidnapped by the present accused. The
 grand-mother in a distraught condition, made an
 attempt to trace her grand-daughter but when she
 could not do so, she returned home weeping and
 informed her daughter Chhaya that Bhavana was lost.
 The parents of Bhavana made every attempt to search
 her. Ultimately on 4.1.1996 (PW 17) Chhaya filed a
 report with the police stating that her daughter was
 missing. This report was lodged with the Panchavati
 police station and was recorded by (PW 87)
 Chatursingh Rajput who was the Police head constable
 and PSO at the said police station. After recording
 the complaint he handed over the investigation to
 (PW 71) PHC Sahebrao Wagh. (PW 71) made an attempt
 to search for the missing girl. He also gave her
 discription in the newspaper and continued the
 investigation for a period of 1 year, till the same
 was ultimately handed over to PI Damane of the CID,
 Crime. In the meanwhile, after kidnapping Bhavana,
 the accused had brought Bhavana in a rikshaw to the
 flat of Makwana at Nasik. Kiran stayed in the flat
 for about 2 to 3 days. Renuka re-named this child
 as Gauri. Kiran used to thereafter frequently visit
 the flat of Makwana, whenever he was in need of

¶168

 : 45 :

¶169

 money and for this purpose he used to come to Pune.
 On 23.3.1996 it was the birthday of Kiran’s son
 Kishor and therefore, he came to Nasik to celebrate
 the birthday. There was a function at which
 photographs were taken. He returned back to Pune
 after taking an amount of Rs.3000/- from Renuka.
 When he was at Nasik, Anjanabai and Renuka told him
 that Gauri was always raising a hue & cry. They
 planned to go to Kolhapur for committing theft. In
 the 2nd week of May-1996 they came to Kolhapur.
 They reached Kolhapur at 5.30 A.M. They went to
 Pallavi lodge. Cinema theatre by name Usha Theatre
 is situated near Pallavi lodge. The record
 indicates that the family checked into Pallavi lodge
 on 10.5.1996. (PW 80) Dayanand was the Manager of
 Pallavi lodge and he admitted one male, 2 females
 and 5 small children into the lodge at about 6.00
 A.M. The single room being room no.203 was taken in
 the said lodge in the name of Seema. In the morning
 the family raised some disputes regarding the
 service which had to be sorted out by (PW 80)
 Dayanand the manager and (PW 83) the chief manager
 Ashok Bongale. At about 4.00 P.M. on that day (PW
 80) Dayanand had gone to the room on the ringing of
 the bell. He found an elderly lady sitting with a
 girl child who was crying. He took the girl child
 to the balcony and gave her 2 biscuits. At about
 8.00 P.M. on that day, Kiran and the accused had
 gone out of the lodge and returned after an hour.

¶170

 : 46 :

¶171

 On their return, Gauri started to raise a hue & cry.
 Anjanabai asked what should be done with this
 troublesome child and Seema suggested to her mother
 that she should kill the child. Anjanabai then
 pressed the throat of the child and killed her.
 Anjanabai then asked Seema and Renuka as to what has
 to be done of the dead body. Seema suggested that
 they should all go to see a movie and dispose off
 the dead body in the theatre. This was agreed to by
 Kiran and Renuka. Renuka then removed the clothes
 from the dead body of Gauri. They left the hotel
 with a rexine bag containing the dead body of Gauri
 at about 10.00 P.M. (PW 80) Dayanand saw them
 leaving alongwith the bag and made some enquiry as
 to why they were going out at such odd hours. Seema
 told him that they were going to watch a cinema.
 The manager asked them as to why such a big bag was
 being carried by them, to which Seema replied that
 the bag contained the clothes to be given to the
 laundry. By the time they reached Usha theatre, the
 picture had already started. (PW 86) Appasaheb
 Avati was the watchman who was sitting at the gate
 at the talkies. On seeing this group, he told them
 that the picture had already started and they would
 not be able to get tickets. Kiran told him to take
 them to the booking clerk and that he would settle
 the matter with the booking clerk. They managed to
 pursuade the booking clerk to give them tickets and
 went to the theatre to watch the movie. The rexine

¶172

 : 47 :

¶173

 bag with the dead body had been noticed by (PW 86)
 Watchman Avati. The same was with Renuka. They
 watched the movie till the interval and at the
 interval Kiran & Renuka had come out for a cup of
 tea by keeping the dead body with Seema. Renuka
 went to the Lavoratory of ladies to attend natures
 call. On coming back, she said that the lavoratory
 was in darkness and suggested that it was a good
 area to keep the bag containing the dead body.
 Kiran agreed to this proposal. 15 to 20 minutes
 after the interval, both the accused came out of the
 theatre with the bag. Seema and Renuka went to the
 lavoratory and dropped the dead body there. A piece
 from a saree of Renuka which was also in the bag was
 also dropped there. They returned back to the
 theatre and then, after collecting Seema started to
 leave the theatre. The watchman once again noticed
 them and observed that they had come late, quarreled
 and were now leaving early. Kiran told the watchman
 that there was a pain in the abdomen of his wife.
 Ultimately, (PW 86) Appasaheb Avati allowed them to
 go out. Kiran and the accused then returned back to
 Pallavi lodge. They resided in the said lodge even
 thereafter for a period of about 4 days and during
 this period, the staff of the lodge did not notice
 Gauri with them. In the meanwhile, on 13.5.1996 the
 dead body of the child was discovered and the
 partner of the theatre (PW 78) Rohit Shah was
 informed. He immediately telephonically informed

¶174

 : 48 :

¶175

 the Shahupuri police station. The call was taken by
 (PW 73) Raghunath Chougale and he directed PHC
 Subhash (PW 75) to proceed to the spot. Subhash (PW
 75) on reaching the spot, prepared an inquest
 panchanama of the dead body and sent the dead body
 to the hospital. He called for a photographer and
 directed him to take photographs of the dead body.
 Accordingly, photographs were taken of the dead body
 by (PW 76) Patil. Further investigation was then
 handed over to (PW 88) Ravindra Salokhe, who
 registered the case under sections 302, 201 of IPC
 under C.R.No.103/96. In the hospital (PW 135)
 Dr.Ashwini Sadolikar conducted the post mortem. In
 the post mortem though no external injuries were
 found, the Doctor found pulmonary odema i.e.
 swelling over the lung. Lungs were found congested.
 Frothy blood was found in the lungs. Trachea
 contained a white coloured froth and the doctor
 opined that the death was caused due to pulmonary
 odema. After returning from Pallavi lodge, Kiran
 went back to stay in his room at Pune situated at
 Satavade and the females with the children went to
 stay in their room at Nasik.

¶176

 INCIDENTS RELATED TO PANKAJ :-

¶177

 (k) In July-1996 Renuka came to meet Kiran in Pune.
 She told him that it was necessary to take a room at
 Pune. They therefore, took 3 rooms in Shiv-Shahi

¶178

 : 49 :

¶179

 apartments Kothrud on rent from the owner Indirabai
 Mahimkar. The rooms were taken in the name of

¶180

 Renuka on execution of an agreement for a period of
 11 months. Immediately on the next day, Kiran,
 accused and Anjanabai and the children once again
 came to reside together at Pune. While they were
 staying in this room, the family decided to go to
 Bombay in order to commit thefts and kidnap
 children. With this aim, in the last week of
 July-1996 they came to Wadala area in Bombay by a
 S.T. bus. They got down at the S.T. stand at
 about 6.00 P.M. While Anjanabai remained sitting
 near the fire-brigade office, both the accused and
 Kiran had gone to the area of Vithal mandir to
 commit thefts and kidnap children. At about 7 to
 7.30 P.M. while they were near the temple of Vithal
 Mandir, Renuka and Seema picked up 2 purses. They
 then came across 2 young ladies and one child.
 These ladies had with them one boy aged about 3 &
 1/2 years. He was standing behind those ladies and
 the ladies were not attentive towards the child. On

¶181

 seeing this situation, Seema picked up this child.
 She started hastily running away with the child.
 Kiran & Renuka rushed towards Seema. Seema put her

¶182

 palm on the mouth of the child. The child was
 stating his name as Pankaj because he was of the age
 where he could speak a few words. The child
 continued to cry out for his mother. Anjanabai gave
 him 2 slaps and Seema also gave him blows.

¶183

 : 50 :

¶184

 Thereafter the child began to cry and went to sleep
 after some time. The family then brought Pankaj to
 the residential flat belonging to Indirabai. In the
 meanwhile, the mother of the child (PW 2) Sharmila
 Mhamahulkar missed her child and searched for him
 till 9.30 P.M. She informed about this incident to
 her mother-in-law on the phone. Her husband (PW 4)
 came there. They searched the child till the
 morning and on the next day morning i.e. on
 28.7.1996 (Pw 4) Suhas lodged a missing report with
 the Matunga police station, which came to be
 recorded by (PW 3) Shavadhar Singh. The police made
 an attempt to search for the child but could not
 find the child. The mother of the child (PW 2) was
 in such a disturbed state that the police could not
 record the statement of the mother immediately. The
 statement of the mother came to be ultimately
 recorded on 30.7.1996. The father of the child had
 produced the photographs of the child before the
 police station 3 to 4 days after lodging the
 complaint. The child was with the family for a
 period of 1 to 1 & 1/2 months and was used for the
 purpose of committing thefts in the area of Pune.
 After some time, the family found that the child
 Pankaj was going out of the house, talking with the
 neighbours and telling them that his father had a
 car and gave him chocolate and buble-gum. Pankaj
 was beaten for talking to the neighbours. When
 Renuka informed Kiran about the child’s behaviour,

¶185

 : 51 :

¶186

 Kiran told them that it was dangerous to keep the
 child with them. Anjanabai and Seema suggested that
 it would be better to kill this child. This was
 consented to by Kiran and Renuka. After this once
 again the child was found telling a neighbourhood
 lady that his father was at Bombay and had a car.
 The lady came to enquire with Renuka about this
 child. Renuka told the lady that he was the son of
 her maternal aunt. On the next day evening when
 both the accused, Kiran, Anjanabai, Pankaj & other
 children were in the house, Renuka and Seema picked
 up Pankaj and by holding his hands dashed him
 against the wall in the house itself. Pankaj was
 dashed against the wall for 20 to 25 times. He
 cried till he lost his life. He was then placed on
 the ground and Renuka took the clothes on his
 person. Renuka told Kiran to pack the dead body in
 a gunny bag. Kiran tied that gunny bag with the
 piece of cloth. Renuka put the gunny bag in a suit
 case. At about 11.00 P.M. Kiran and the accused
 left the house with the dead body of Pankaj. Then
 by a rikshaw these 3 came to the area of Karve
 nagar. The dead body of Pankaj tied in the gunny
 bag was then thrown near the compound of a temple
 and then accused alongwith Kiran returned to the
 house in Shivshahi apartments alongwith the empty
 suit case. While dropping of the dead body, a
 handkerchief belonging to Seema fell alongwith the
 gunny bag at the place where the gunny bag had been

¶187

 : 52 :

¶188

 thrown. On 11.9.1996 at about 11.30 a.m. (PW 8)
 Fransis Aadghav who was the API attached to Kothrud
 police station was informed by one Shivnand on the
 telephone that something was lying near the
 telephone pole in the area of home colony wrapped in
 a cement gunny bag. (PW 8) sent PHC Zunzarde on the
 spot. This police officer informed the API that the
 bag contained the dead body of a child aged 3 to 4
 years. The gunny bag was found lying near the
 compound of Maharshi Karve Shikshan Sanstha. The
 gunny bag was opened in the presence of 2 panchas
 and it was found to contain the dead body of a male
 child aged 3 to 4 years. There were injuries on the
 body of the child. One ladies handkerchief was
 attached near the gunny bag and all these articles
 were seized under a panchanama. The body of the
 child was carried to Sasoon hospital and in the
 presence of panchas, an inquest panchanama was
 prepared. The dead body was then handed over for
 post mortem. PHC Zunzarde then filed a complaint
 and an offence under Section 302 r/w 201 of IPC came
 to be registered vide C.R.No.206/96 at Kothrud
 police station. A photographer was called and 8
 photographs of the dead child were taken which can
 be found at (Exh.74 to 74-8). The shirt and half
 pant of the child of the dead body were taken into
 custody (Articles 47 & 48). The articles found on
 the spot and the thread around the dead body were
 also attached. (Articles 34 to 36 & 39

¶189

 : 53 :

¶190

 respectively). The post mortem of Pankaj was
 conducted by (PW 138) Dr.Milind Kamble. As many as
 42 wounds were found on the body of this child which
 included contusions, multiple abrasions,
 lascerations and incised wounds. Hematoma and
 haemorrhage was found in the parietal region. The
 doctor opined that the death was due to asphyxia as
 a result of smothering associated with other
 injuries. Much later when Seema was in custody,
 having been arrested in the case pertaining to
 kidnapping and murder of Kranti, she volunteered a
 statement to the police on 27.10.1996. This
 statement was given within a short period of her
 arrest on 22.10.1996. In pursuance of the
 memorandum drawn, the police and the panchas were
 led to the flat at Shiv-Shahi apartments. The
 police and the panchas reached this flat at 1.30
 A.M. on 28.10.1996. They found Anjanabai residing
 in the flat. The police searched the flat and from
 the loft, they found a big sized bag with 2 chains.
 There were handles and 2 wheels at the bottom of
 this bag. Blood was seen at the bottom of this bag.
 Seema also showed the place where Pankaj had been
 dashed against the wall. Some clothes of Pankaj
 were seized. Suffice it to say that these articles
 were sent to the Chemical Analyser and in the bag as
 well as in the scraping of the plastering, human
 blood of group-B came to be found by the Chemical
 Analyser. This human blood group tallied with the

¶191

 : 54 :

¶192

 blood group-B found on the clothes of deceased
 Pankaj.

¶193

 (l) After the arrest of the accused on 22.6.1996 in
 C.R.No.303/96 pertaining to the kidnapping of
 Kranti, through custodial interrogation the police
 started learning about the other incidents of murder
 of the children. On 4.11.1996 (PW 156) Shashikant
 Bodhe who was attached to CID Crime, was appointed
 to take over the investigation in C.R.No.112/91 and
 C.R.No.102/96 registered at Shahupuri police
 station. While pursuing this investigation, he
 called for the record from other police stations
 from Maharashtra and found other C.R.s where similar
 modus operendi was evident. He recorded several
 statements and on 13.12.1996 he obtained an order
 from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kolhapur
 directing the Special Judicial Magistrate (PW 143)
 Vasant Sapre to record a confession of Kiran.
 Accordingly, confession of Kiran came to be recorded
 by the aforesaid Special Judicial Magistrate from
 14.12.1996 onwards. From the information received
 from other police stations, the Chief Investigating
 officer also short-listed the other C.R’s which also
 contained similar modus operendi. The investigating
 officer also got conducted several test
 identification parades, in which different witnesses
 identified the photographs of the dead bodies, the
 clothes on the bodies as well as the present

¶194

 : 55 :

¶195

 accused. On 4.1.1997 the DIG CID appointed (PW 156)
 Bhode as the Chief Investigating Officer in the case
 and all the Investigating officers who were handling
 individual C.R. numbers handed their reports to (PW
 156) Bhode. The chief investigating officer then
 scrutinised all the documents and prepared a single
 charge-sheet against the accused Anjanabai, Renuka,
 Seema and Kiran. This charge-sheet was in respect
 of 9 C.R.s which were mentioned at the end of the
 charge-sheet. However, the Chief Judicial
 Magistrate of Kolhapur did not accept the
 charge-sheet as some of the offences had been
 committed out of his jurisdiction. The
 investigating officer then filed a Writ petition in
 the High Court on 27.1.1997 with a prayer that he
 should be allowed to submit a single charge-sheet.
 In the meanwhile, since the 90 days period was
 getting over, the chief investigating officer filed
 a charge-sheet before the JMFC, Nasik and another
 charge-sheet before the JMFC Kolhapur (which
 resulted in there being 2 separate session cases).
 Criminal Writ Petition No.114/97 was ultimately
 decided on 19.1.1997 and by the said Judgment &
 Order this court allowed the filing of a single
 charge-sheet in respect of the 9 C.R.s mentioned at
 the end of the charge-sheet. Thereafter a single
 charge-sheet in all the 9 C.R.s came to be filed by

¶196

 the Chief investigating officer on 31.1.1997. In
 due course, the matter was committed to the court of

¶197

 : 56 :

¶198

 sessions and the 2 session cases which arose as
 aforesaid were tried and disposed of by leading
 common evidence in Sessions Case No.56/97.

¶199

 (m) Pending the trial on 17.7.1997, (PW 1) Kiran
 Shinde made an application for grant of pardon and
 on being treated as an approver. This was
 conditionally agreed to by the prosecution and on
 17.10.1997, the trial court granted pardon to (PW 1)
 Kiran and permitted him to term approver subject to
 the condition that he would speak the truth. Before
 the commencement of the trial, accused Anjanabai
 expired in custody in December-1997. The present
 accused were therefore, re-arraigned as accused
 nos.1 & 2.

¶200

 (n) At the trial, the prosecution examined as many
 as 156 witnesses and produced several documents by
 way of documentary evidence. After the prosecution
 evidence was led, 313 statements of the accused were
 recorded. The defence of both the accused was of
 total denial simplicitor though the accused sought
 to file a written statement and did file a written
 statement. A perusal of the same, indicates that
 the same is a cryptic written statement consisting a
 few lines denying the prosecution case and making no
 positive assertions. Ultimately, by the impugned
 Judgment and order dated 28.6.2001, the Additional
 sessions Judge, Kolhapur, convicted and sentenced

¶201

 : 57 :

¶202

 the accused as stated here-in-above.

¶203

 3. On behalf of defence, the principal submissions
 made could be summarised as under :-

¶204

 (a) that the evidence of (PW 1) Kiran Shinde should
 be dis-believed as it was un-reliable and was not
 corroborated in material particulars. That Kiran
 had shown a tendency to give versions in which he
 had no role to play in the kidnapping or killing of
 any child. He had distanced himself from any actual
 kidnapping or killing. That this was intrinsically
 un-believable, when Kiran admitted to being present
 at the scene where many of the kidnappings and
 killing of all children took place. That in any
 case after Anjanabai expired pending the trial,
 Kiran had shown a tendency to ascribe the role
 originally attributed to Anjanabai in his
 confession, to the present accused in his
 substantial evidence. He had improved upon the
 version given in his confession to attribute
 additional overt acts to the present accused which
 did not find place in his confession and in so far
 as the actual manner and mode of the killing of

¶205

 children was concerned, there was no material
 corroboration to the evidence of Kiran. In order to
 indicate the several instances in which Kiran
 resiled from his confession and attributed the acts
 said to have been committed by Anjanabai in the

¶206

 : 58 :

¶207

 confession to the present accused in his substantive
 evidence, as also to improve the version given by
 him in the confession by attributing additional
 overt acts to the present accused, several examples
 were given. As we intend to refer to and analyse
 all these instances here-in-after, they are not been
 separately referred to at this stage.

¶208

 (b) That if the evidence of (PW 1) Kiran was
 dis-believed then the remaining evidence was
 circumstantial in nature. The links relating to
 each of these circumstances were not sufficiently
 established and did not form a complete chain
 required to secure a conviction with the aid of
 circumstantial evidence and left such wide gaps that
 reasonable doubts could be said to have been created
 regarding the culpability and involvement of the
 accused in these crimes. That the insufficiency of
 circumstantial evidence was of such a nature that
 the circumstances could be explained through other
 possible hypothesis and therefore, it would be
 improper to convict the accused for the offences
 charged. Consequently the accused were liable to be
 acquitted of all charges.

¶209

 (c) That in any case if the accused were convicted,
 this was not a fit case for imposition of the death
 penalty because of the existence of the several
 mitigating factors. According to him, amongst the

¶210

 : 59 :

¶211

 several mitigating factors, was the fact that the
 accused were very young when the crimes were
 committed, they were women, they were illiterate,
 abandoned by their father at a young age, brought up
 by a mother who herself was a thief and had neither
 taught them or inculcated better values. That in
 the case of a child named Naresh, accused no.1
 Renuka had shown some degree of affection, even
 attempting to secure custody of the child through
 the court. That if the conviction was with the aid
 of Section 34, the actual overt acts committed by
 these accused could not be specified and therefore,
 it could not be said that the acts committed by
 these accused were cruel in nature.

¶212

 4. On behalf of the State, the counter submissions
 in relation to the submissions made by defence could
 be stated as under :-

¶213

 (a) that the evidence of Kiran (PW 1) was acceptable
 and had rightly been relied upon by the trial court.
 The contradictions made by Kiran in his evidence
 were not major in nature and could not be said to be
 material contradictions. His evidence contained a
 wealth of details which would not have been given by
 any person except a person who had actually seen or
 heard the incidents as narrated. That in any case,
 it was not necessary that every part of the evidence
 of the approver should be materially corroborated.

¶214

 : 60 :

¶215

 A general corroboration in material particulars was
 sufficient and such corroboration had been obtained

¶216

 by the prosecution, both in the form of oral
 evidence as well as documentary evidence.

¶217

 (b) That in any case in respect of each of the
 incidents, there was reliable independent evidence
 to prove several individual circumstances, which by
 themselves, even without the aid of evidence of
 Kiran (PW 1) were sufficient to bring home the
 conviction to the accused. These circumstances in
 each case of kidnapping and murder formed several
 links. Such links formed by such different
 circumstances, were sufficient to form a complete
 chain to bring home the guilt of the accused and
 that such circumstances, if cumulitively taken, were
 of such a nature that they could not be explained by
 any other hypothesis except the involvement and
 guilt of the accused.

¶218

 (c) That if the accused were found guilty, this was
 a fit and proper case for the confirmation of the
 death penalty already imposed as there were several
 aggravating circumstances which would call for the
 imposition of the extreme penalty. Amongst the
 aggravating factors was the fact that the
 kidnappings & murders of the children were for petty
 gains without any thought of the consequences and
 anguish that such kidnappings of small children

¶219

 : 61 :

¶220

 would cause the parents and the families of such
 children. That the victims were innocent, some of
 whom could not even speak. That the injuries
 sufferred by the children indicated the extremely
 cruel and ruthless manner in which each of the child
 had been killed. That the killings were deliberate
 and pre-planned. That the killings had been made
 over a period of 6 years which indicated that there
 was no hope of any reformation on the part of the
 accused. It was submitted that the aggravating
 factors in this particular case far outweighed the
 mitigating circumstances.

¶221

 5. Both the sides have pointed out numerous
 authorities dealing with the manner in which the
 evidence of an accomplice/approver has to be dealt
 with. The relevant provisions of the Evidence Act
 i.e. Section 133 and Section 114 (b) have been the
 subject matter of numerous Judgments which have
 settled the law relating to this point. It may not
 be necessary to reproduce at length the law relating
 to this subject since the same is already well
 settled and known. Some of the important
 propositions of law laid down by the Apex court in
 this regard can be briefly stated as under :-

¶222

 (a) The evidence of an approver does not differ from
 the evidence of any other witness except that his
 evidence would be looked upon with great suspicion.

¶223

 : 62 :

¶224

 ( See : S.C.Bahari V/s. State of Bihar : AIR 1994
 SC 2420) approved in ( Jasbir Singh V/s. Vipin

¶225

Kumar Jaggi & others, AIR 2001 (8) SCC 289).

¶226

 (b) No distinction is made under Section 133 of the
 Evidence Act between an accomplice who is or is not
 an approver and the evidence of both are to be
 treated alike ( See : Narayan Chaudhary & Ors.
V/s. State of Maharashtra 2000 (8) SCC 457 ).

¶227

 (c) That the approver’s evidence must pass the
 double test of reliability and corroboration in
 material particulars. (See : Niranjan Singh V.
State of Punjab 1996 (9) SCC 98).

¶228

 (d) That before the court reaches the stage of
 considering the question of corroboration and its
 adequacy or otherwise, the first initial and
 essential question to consider is whether even as an
 accomplice the approver is a reliable witness. If
 the answer to this question is against the approver
 then there is an end of the matter and no question
 as to whether his evidence is corroborated or not is
 required to be considered. ( See : Saravanabhavan

¶229

V/s. State of Madras AIR 1966 SC 1278).

¶230

 (e) As regards the extent of corroboration to the
 evidence of an accomplice is concerned, 4 rules must
 be born in mind :-

¶231

 : 63 :

¶232

 (i) Firstly, it is not necessary that there should

¶233

 be independent confirmation of every material
 circumstance in the sense that the independent
 evidence in the case, apart from the testimony of
 the complainant or the accomplice should itself be
 sufficient for conviction. All that is required is
 that there must be some additional evidence
 rendering it probable that the story of the
 accomplice is true and that it is reasonably safe to
 act on it.

¶234

 (ii) Secondly, the independent evidence must not

¶235

 only make it safe to believe that the crime was
 committed but must in some way reasonably connect or
 tend to connect the accused with it by confirming in
 some material particular the testimony of the
 accomplice or complainant that the accused committed
 the crime.

¶236

 (iii) Thirdly, the corroboration must come from
 independent sources and thus ordinarily the
 testimony of one accomplice would not be sufficient
 to corroborate that of another.

¶237

 (iv) The corroboration need not be direct evidence

¶238

 that the accused committed the crime. It is
 sufficient if it is merely circumstantial evidence
 of his connection with the crime. ( See :

¶239

 : 64 :

¶240

Rameshwar Kalyan Singh V/s. The State of Rajasthan
 AIR 1952 SC 54).

¶241

 (f) The antecedents of an approver do not make him
 either better or worse. The evidence can only be
 accepted on its own merits and with sufficient
 corroboration. ( See : Saravanabhavan V/s. State
of Madras AIR 1966 SC 1278).

¶242

 (g) That delay on the part of the accomplice in
 applying to be made an approver may be one of the
 circumstances to be kept in mind as a measure of
 caution while appreciating his evidence. ( See :

¶243

Narayan Chaudhary & Others V/s. State of
Maharashtra 2000 (8) SCC 457).

¶244

 6. Coming to the factual position in the present
 case, the infirmities and suspicious circumstances
 in the evidence of approver Kiran referred to by the
 defence and as also noticed from the record by us,
 can be briefly stated as under :-

¶245

 (a) That in his entire evidence, Kiran has shown a
 tendency to make it look as if he was just a passive
 by-stander to most of the acts of kidnapping and

¶246

 killing of the various children. In his
 cross-examination, this witness has stated that he

¶247

 had not killed any of the 9 children. He had not
 pressed the neck of any child. He had not caught

¶248

 : 65 :

¶249

 the hands or legs of any child during the course of
 putting the end to the life of the child. No child
 was dropped by him on the ground. Infact the only
 act to which this witness claims to be a party in a
 few cases, is the act of disposing off the dead body
 of the child.

¶250

 (b) In the incident leading to the hatching of a
 conspiracy, the entire visit to Chatursinghi in
 April-1990, the attempt of Renuka to snatch a purse,
 her being caught, her raising a hue & cry and
 managing to secure her release because of the child
 being with her, is a complete and proved omission in
 the confessional statement of Kiran (PW 1). In his
 substantial evidence, Kiran talks about this
 incident for the first time and holds out that he
 was an eye witness to this entire incident. This
 omission gains importance because it is said to be
 the basis of the forming of a conspiracy in
 June-1990 between Kiran, Renuka and Seema while they
 had a sitting in the house of one Saste in Pune.

¶251

 (c) When deposing about the incident relating to
 Santosh, the version given by Kiran is that Renuka
 told Kiran that Santosh was crying because of his
 sustaining an injury due to being dropped by
 Anjanabai and that the child was not useful to them.
 Seema also told that while committing thefts,
 Santosh was crying and therefore, attracting persons

¶252

 : 66 :

¶253

 towards her. Seema further told Anjanabai that
 because of Santosh, there was a possibility of
 arrest and it was better to put an end to his life.
 These statements were proved omissions in the
 confessional statement of Kiran. They become
 material because they pertained to the present
 accused instigating Anjanabai to kill Santosh.

¶254

 (d) When deposing about the incidents concerning
 Bunti, Swati, Guddu and Meena, the approver Kiran in
 his substantive evidence stated that when they were
 proceeding in the vehicle towards Khopoli, the
 vehicle had stopped at Khandala ghat at about 11 to
 11.30 P.M. Kiran got down from the vehicle, Guddu
 was with Seema and Bunti was with Renuka in the
 vehicle. These children were sitting near
 Anjanabai. Bunti and Guddu were asleep. On this
 occasion, Renuka pressed the neck of Bunti and
 killed him. Seema also pressed the neck of Guddu
 and killed him. In this version the statements
 pertaining to the killing of Bunti by Renuka and the
 killing of Guddu by Seema are proved omissions in
 the confessional statement of Kiran. These proved
 contradictions have been marked in evidence and have

¶255

 been exhibited as (Exh.670). A glance at this
 exhibited portion indicates that in his
 confessionery statement Kiran had stated that while
 they were travelling to Khandala ghat, Anjanabai
 pressed the neck of Bunti & Guddu and killed them in

¶256

 : 67 :

¶257

 the vehicle. These contradictions were found to be
 material even by the trial court and as a
 consequence, the trial court acquitted the accused
 of the charges under Section 302 & 201 r/w. 34 and
 120-B of IPC in respect of the killing of Bunti &
 Guddu.

¶258

 (e) When deposing about the incident relating to the
 child Pinky @ Anjali, Kiran stated in his
 substantial evidence that one day when Pinky was
 crying, Anjanabai said that this crying child was of
 no use and pushed Pinky down the staircase of the
 house. Kiran, Anjanabai and Renuka came down,
 Anjanabai pressed the mouth of Pinky and when she
 started to shake her hands and legs, they were
 caught hold of by Renuka. Seema was also witnessing
 this incident. Seema came at the spot and separated
 Anjanabai. Seema also pressed the mouth and nose of
 Pinky. In this version, the statement that Seema
 also pressed the mouth and neck of the Pinky is a
 proved omission in the confessional statement of
 Kiran before the Special Judicial Magistrate. This
 omission is material because it seeks to attribute a
 specific overt act to Seema in the killing of the
 child.

¶259

 (f) While deposing about the incident relating to
 Raja @ Swapnil, in his substantive evidence, Kiran
 stated that once Seema was moving in the house with

¶260

 : 68 :

¶261

 the child Raja who was crying. She dropped Raja on
 the flooring of the house itself and Raja died
 instantly. That he, Renuka and Seema then dropped
 the dead body of Raja in the Khandala ghat. This
 version of Kiran is a proved omission in his
 confessional statement recorded by the Special
 Judicial Magistrate. It is obviously material
 because for the first time, the witness attributed
 the overt act of killing Raja to Seema and further
 attributed the role of disposing of the dead body of
 the child to Renuka and Seema.

¶262

 (g) While deposing about the incident concerning
 Shradha @ Bhagayashree, in his substantive evidence,
 Kiran stated that the 2 accused told him to kill
 Shradha. This is a proved omission in Kiran’s
 confessional statement in so far as accused Seema is
 concerned, as the instigation on her part to kill
 Shradha does not appear in the said confessional
 statement.

¶263

 (h) In relation to the incidents relating to Gauri @
 Bhavana, Kiran stated in his substantial evidence
 that Seema told Anjanabai to kill Gauri, whereupon
 Anjanabai pressed the neck of Gauri and killed her.
 That later Renuka removed the clothes from the dead
 body of Gauri. These 2 statements are proved
 omissions from the confessional statement of this
 witness before the Special Judicial Magistrate in so

¶264

 : 69 :

¶265

 far as he has admitted in his cross-examination that
 he did not make any such statements. These
 omissions are material as they relate to overt acts
 by the accused.

¶266

 (i) When deposing about the incidents pertaining to

¶267

 the child Pankaj, Kiran has stated in his
 substantial evidence that Anjanabai and Seema told
 him that it was better to end the life of Pankaj,
 that Renuka and Seema dashed Pankaj against the wall
 20 to 25 times. These statements are proved
 omissions in the confessional statement of this
 witness before the Special Judicial Magistrate and
 are material as they relate to overt acts by the
 accused.

¶268

 7. We have carefully considered the aforesaid
 omissions, contradictions and improvements made by
 the approver Kiran. In our view, it is very
 difficult for us to believe that this witness though
 present at every killing, was a passive by-stander
 who merely looked on while the killing of the
 children by the ladies was in progress. These
 circumstances, in our view render the version
 relating to the killings as given by this witness
 intrinsically un-natural. The Apex court in the
 case of Rampal Rahidass V/s. State of Maharashtra,
reported in 1994 Cr.L.J. 2320 dealt with a similar
 situation where an approver Ramchandran claimed to

¶269

 : 70 :

¶270

 be a spectator of every fact and every moment, but
 asserted that he did not participate in any assault
 at any stage and remaining standing at a distance,
 taking care of clothes of some of the co-accused.
 The observation of the Apex court while appreciating
 the evidence of this approver was as follows :-

¶271

 . " From all the attendant circumstances, we are
satisfied that the approver Ramchandran is not a
reliable witness. His arrest was intrinsically
unnatural and his self-confessed participation in
the crime without taking any active part in it, not
acceptable. The approver has claimed to be a
spectator of every fact and of every moment but
asserted that he did not participate in the assault
at any stage and remained standing at a distance
taking care of the clothes of some of the
co-accused. His statement is almost of an

¶272

exculpatory nature. His statement as a whole does
not inspire confidence. His story is not worthy of
credence. We find ourselves unable to place any
reliance on his untrustworthy and unreliable
evidence and in that view of the matter we refrain
even from expressing any opinion about the effect of
the alleged non compliance with the provisions of

¶273

Section 306(4) of IPC r/w Section 307 of IPC."

¶274

 . Apart from the aforesaid fact, we find that there
 are material improvements in Kiran’s version

¶275

 : 71 :

¶276

 relating to the manner and mode of killing every
 child. If the improvements were in relation to one
 child, the matter would have been understandable,
 but virtually on the killing of every child, there
 is a difference in version. In some cases overt
 acts attributed to Anjanabai in Kiran’s confessional
 statement, now after her death pending the trial,
 were attributed in the substantial evidence to the
 present accused. This could only have been done
 with the aim of aiding the prosecution in its case
 against the present accused. In the circumstances,
 we find that all these omissions, contradictions and
 improvements relating to the actual mode and manner
 of killing appear to be motivated to aid the
 prosecution and in the circumstances we do not find
 it safe to rely upon the evidence of the approver
 (PW 1) Kiran Shinde in so far as the same relates
 the actual manner and mode of killing of the
 children. However, though we would not rely upon
 the evidence of this witness on the actual manner
 and mode of the killing of the children we can place
 reliance on the evidence of this witness only to
 corroborate the other circumstantial evidence
 relating to the offences if found independently
 proved and reliable. With this observation, we now
 move on to consider the circumstantial evidence in
 relation to each of the individual incidents.

¶277

 7. As regards the hatching of the conspiracy,

¶278

 : 72 :

¶279

 though the evidence of Kiran relating to an earlier
 incident witnessed by him at Chatursinghi is not
 corroborated either by his confessional statement or
 by any other evidence, his version relating to a
 meeting in the house of Saste in June-1990 between
 the accused and himself, during which Renuka
 referred to the incident of being caught while
 carrying Ashish and their agreement to kidnap small
 children for the purposes of used in thefts, finds
 corroboration in the confessional statement of
 Kiran. Independent corroboration of this agreement
 between the accused and Kiran is obtained from the
 fact that as many as 13 children were actually
 kidnapped. However, the further version of Kiran
 that in the said meeting held in June-1990, it was
 also decided that if the kidnapped children caused
 any trouble in the course of the work of carrying
 out thefts or if there was a possibility of their
 being involved by such kidnapped children, then the
 children should be killed, finds no corroboration in
 the confessional statement or else-where. It cannot
 be lost sight of that the immediate reason given by
 the prosecution for the killing of various children
 were that the children had become ill or were

¶280

 crying. In the evidence of Kiran the immediate
 reason for killing appears to be some irritation
 caused by the child at the spur of the moment. We
 therefore, hold that there is sufficient evidence to
 indicate that the accused alongwith others were

¶281

 : 73 :

¶282

 involved in a conspiracy in or about June-1990 to
 kidnap young children in order to use them in their
 work of committing petty thefts. Nodoubt, it would
 have been desirable if the prosecution had examined
 witnesses who could depose about the actual use of
 such children in petty thefts. The prosecution in
 order to prove the antecedents of Anjanabai and the
 2 accused had vide Exhibits 520, 521 & 522 brought
 on record, the several criminal complaints of thefts
 registered against these 3 ladies. Amongst the
 cases which were referred to were several crimes
 relating to thefts during the period 1990 to 1996.
 The victims in these cases could have possibly
 thrown some light about the use of small children
 while thefts involving them were committed.
 However, though this evidence has not been led,
 other proved circumstances such as the accused
 moving around with these small children in different
 towns like Kolhapur, Thane, Mumbai, Surat, Baroda
 and Ahmedabad, in which towns they had no permanent
 residence, the identification of these children with
 the family of the accused by completely independent
 and un-interested witnesses and a complete lack of
 explanation on the part of the accused as to why
 these children were with them or were being carried,
 in our view, is sufficient to lead to the conclusion
 that the children were infact, kidnapped in
 pursuance of the conspiracy to use them in the work
 of committing petty thefts. There is also evidence

¶283

 : 74 :

¶284

 to indicate that un-accounted monies were found in
 the bank accounts of the accused and children of
 Renuka. Similarly, un-accounted gold ornaments were
 seized when the child Mina was rescued from the
 residence of the accused in Mathwad chawl on
 6.7.1993. These facts together with the fact that
 several crimes were registered in different police
 stations against the present accused and Anjanabai
 for thefts during the period 1990-1996, and the lack
 of any explanation coming forth by the accused to
 explain the source of income relating to the large
 amount of cash and the numerous gold ornaments, are
 corroborative of the fact that the accused and
 Anjanabai were infact petty thieves who later,
 alongwith Kiran, entered into a conspiracy for
 kidnapping small children for use while committing
 such petty thefts. In our view, the evidence of
 Kiran (PW 1) on the point of conspiracy to the
 extent that it finds corroboration as stated
 here-in-above is sufficient to convict the accused
 for an offence under Section 120-B of IPC in so far
 as the conspiracy related to the offence of
 kidnapping small children for use while committing
 petty thefts.

¶285

 9. As regards the incident relating to Santosh, the
 circumstantial and corroborative evidence against
 the accused is as under :-

¶286

 : 75 :

¶287

 (i) Last seen together at Pune with Santosh :-.

¶288

 . It is the case of the prosecution that after
 Santosh was kidnapped at Kolhapur in July-1990 from
 a begger, the accused alongwith Anjanabai returned
 with Santosh to their house at Pune. (PW 67)
 Vishwas Saste was a Hawaldar serving in the State
 Reserve Police Force . He was the owner of the
 house in which, Renuka, Seema, Anjanabai & Kiran
 were residing as tenants. The said house belonging
 to this witness was situated at Gondhalinagar in

¶289

 Hadapsar area of Pune. This witness also knew
 Ashish, the son of Renuka. He states that after
 about 2 to 3 months of the family of the accused
 residing in the house, he saw a new boy with them.
 The said child was aged about 1 & 1/2 years and his
 name was Santosh. He had asked about this boy to
 Anjanabai and had been told that the boy was
 belonging to a relative residing at Kolhapur and
 since there is nobody to look after this child, they
 had brought this child with them. This witness was

¶290

 given a bunch of photographs, amongst which was the
 photograph (Exh.235) of the dead body of Santosh and
 he identified this photograph as being of the child
 Santosh who was residing with the accused & family
 in his house. Nothing of any substance could be
 elicited in the cross-examination of this witness.
 It was suggested to him that he had seen the
 photographs of the accused in the newspapers but the

¶291

 : 76 :

¶292

 witness denied this suggestion. The prosecution
 also examined another neighbour (PW 68) Anuradha
Kshirsagar. The accused, Anjanabai & Kiran had
 resided as her neighbours for 1 & 1/2 years. This
 witness states that after about 2 months of residing
 as her neighbours in the house of Saste, one more
 child was seen with these ladies. This child was
 aged about 1 & 1/2 years and his name was Santosh.
 She enquired about this child with Anjanabai.
 Anjanabai told her that he was son of their
 relative, his mother was dead and therefore, they
 had brought the boy alongwith them. This witness
 also identified the photograph of the dead body of
 Santosh (Exh.235) in the court. Infact in the
 course of investigation, on 7.1.1997 an
 identification parade in respect of the photographs
 of Santosh had been held by (PW 127) Aniruddha
Sasane. This witness had identified the photograph
 of Santosh even in that identification parade.
 There is absolutely nothing of substance which was
 elicited in the cross-examination of this witness.
 It was not suggested to her that she was not the
 neighbour residing in the neighbourhood of the
 family of the accused for 1 to 1 & 1/2 years. There
 is no reason what-so-ever to discard the evidence of
 this witness. This witness further identified the
 accused and Kiran in the court as the persons who
 were residing as her neighbours for 1 to 1 & 1/2
 years. It is the prosecution case that after the

¶293

 : 77 :

¶294

 kidnapping of Santosh, in July-1990, Renuka and
 Seema had gone to Shirdi for committing thefts and
 as they did not return for 5 to 6 days, Anjanabai
 alongwith Ashish also gone to Shirdi as to see what
 had happened to them. There they were caught by the
 Shirdi police and ultimately were sent to jail at
 Pune. In the Jail at Pune, Renuka, Sima & Anjanabai
 were in custody alongwith 2 children Ashish &
 Santosh. (PW 124) Sunanda Nigot was a women
 constable serving in the female wing at Yerawada
 jail at PUne. She deposed to have admitted Anjana
 Mohan Dhale, Ratan Mohan Dhale and Sima Mohan Gavit
 in the said jail on 11.10.1990. The entry in the
 jail register to evidence such admission was proved
 by this witness at Exh.466. She deposed that a boy
 by name Santosh was admitted with Anjanabai and a
 boy Ashish was admitted with Ratan. Ratan and child
 Ashish were released from the jail on 13.2.1991 and
 Anjanabai was released with the child by name
 Santosh on 8.3.1991. That 2 months after such
 release, all the 3 ladies had again been arrested
 and brought to Yerawada jail but the child by name
 Santosh was not with Anjanabai. When this witness
 asked Anjanabai about the absence of Santosh, she
 told her that the child belonged to her neighbour
 and had been handed over to the said neighbour.
 This witness was shown several photographs and she
 identified a photograph relating to the dead body of
 Santosh (Exh.235) in the court. She had also

¶295

 : 78 :

¶296

 identified a photograph of the dead body in an
 identification parade held by (Pw 127) Aniruddha
 Sasne held on 7.1.1997. There is absolutely nothing
 in the cross-examination of this witness which would
 throw any doubt on the veracity of her testimony.
 Yet another witness (PW 125) Sulochana Gaikwad was a
 lady guard serving in Yeravada Jail Pune. She
 corroborates the version given by (PW 124) Sunanda
 Nigot. She deposed that on 10.10.1990 Anjanabai
 alongwith the child by name Santosh was brought to
 Yeravada jail. The child was aged about 1 to 1 &
 1/2 years. Ratan had also come with Anjanabai.
 Ratan was the daughter of Anjanabai and she had come
 alongwith the child by name Ashish aged about 1 to 1
 & 1/2 years. She proved the entry in respect of
 these boys in the children’s register maintained at
 the jail and proved the relevant entry Exh.468 which
 contained the names of Santosh and Ashish. She
 further identified the photograph of Santosh from
 amongst the bundle of photographs shown to her in
 the court. She deposed that she had also identified
 the said photograph in an identification parade held
 by (PW 127) Anirudh Sasane on 7.1.1997. It appears
 that the evidence of (PW 124) Sunanda Nigot and (PW
 125) Sulochana Gaikwad was recorded when the accused
 were not present in the court and hence, there is no
 identification of the accused in the court made by
 these witnesses. The prosecution had further
 examined (PW 127) Anirudh Sasane who held the

¶297

 : 79 :

¶298

 identification parade on 7.1.1997 in which (PW 67)
 Vishwas Saste, (PW 68) Anirudha Kshirsagar, (PW 124)
 Sunanda Nigot and (PW 125) Sulochana Gaikwad amongst
 others identified the photos of the dead body of
 Santosh as the child which they had seen earlier.
 The memorandum panchanama in respect of the test
 identification parade (Exh.434) was proved by this
 witness. All the aforesaid evidence, which is
 corroborated by the evidence of Kiran (PW 1), in our
 view proves the circumstance of the accused being
 last seen together at Pune after the kidnapping of
 Santosh and prior to his killing.

¶299

 ii. Last seen together at Kolhapur with Santosh on
the date of the killing of Santosh i.e.

¶300

14.4.1991:-

¶301

 . The dead body of Santosh was discovered on
 15.4.1991. It was the prosecution case that on the

¶302

 earlier day, Kiran, Ashish, Kishor, Santosh,
 Anjanabai and the accused had come to Kolhapur for
 committing thefts. They halted at Mahalaxmi
 Dharmashala where they reached at about 8.00 P.M.
 and took a room in the name of Seema. That after
 keeping their articles in the room they proceeded
 towards Mahalaxmi Temple for committing thefts.
 Later, in the evening at the instigation of the
 accused, Anjanabai pressed the mouth of Santosh and

¶303

 : 80 :

¶304

 dashed his head repeatedly on an iron bar at the
 S.T.stand at Kolhapur. Later on, Kiran searched out
 a lonely place for disposing the dead body of
 Santosh and accordingly, the dead body of Santosh
 was disposed of by Kiran, Anjanabai and Renuka after
 which they returned back to Mahalaxmi Dharmashala
 where they continued to stay for 4 more days. In
 order to prove this circumstance, the prosecution
 has examined (PW 63) Yeshwant Mandlik, who was the
 manager at Mahalaxmi Dharmashala. This witness
 deposed that he was sitting at the counter of the
 Dharmashala when he was approached by Seema. He was
 told that she alongwith her family had come for
 darshan of the Devi and were in need of one room.
 Seema was identified by this witness in the court.
 He deposed that Seema was accompanied by 2 other

¶305

 ladies, one gent and 3 children. He identified
 Renuka as one of the ladies who had accompanied
 Seema. He also identified Kiran as the male person
 who had accompanied them. He had allotted room
 no.20 to these persons. There was a dis-agreement
 regarding the size of the room and a quarrel took
 place between this witness and family of the
 accused. A small child was with the family.
 Another incident took place between the family of
 the accused and the staff of the Dharmashala. Kiran
 had a quarrel with one of the Peons by name Uttam
 Patil and slapped the said Peon. The manager
 Yashwant Mandlik had to go and threaten Kiran that

¶306

 : 81 :

¶307

 if he did not behave properly, the police would have

¶308

 to be called. Anjanabai then dropped the small
 child which she was carrying at his feet. The small
 child then started to raise a hue & cry. The
 witness felt sorry. The Peon picked up the child
 and the matter was settled. He stated that the
 child which was thrown down was about 1 & 1 & 1/2
 years of age. He identified the photographs of the
 dead body of Santosh (Exh.235) as the photo of the
 child that Anjanabai had then been carrying. Apart
 from identifying the accused in the court, this
 witness had also identified the accused in a test
 identification parade which was held on 14.12.1996
 by an Executive Magistrate (PW 137) Bhimrao Patil.
 This witness proved the entry made in his hand
 writing in the Pravasi register of Mahalaxmi
 Dharmashala which was seized in the investigation
 under a panchanama duly proved by (PW 64) Baliram
 Phepade. He also proved the signature of Seema at
 the end of such entry. The said entry was exhibited
 at ( Exh.244). The fact that the said register was
 signed by Seema was independently got proved by the
 prosecution through the evidence of a hand-writing
 expert (PW 65) Dilip Amaral. Under a panchanama
 dated 12.12.1996, 36 signatures of Seema were taken
 by the police on a blank sheet. These specimen
 signatures were then sent alongwith entry (Exh.244)
 to the hand writing expert (PW 155) Dipak Wagale.
 He furnished his opinion on 19.3.1997 (Exh.609)

¶309

 : 82 :

¶310

 opining that the signature on the register of
 Mahalaxmi Dharmashala, Kolhapur matched the specimen
 signature of Seema. Nothing of any substance could
 be elicited in the cross-examination of this
 witness. The prosecution also examined (PW 56)
 Uttam Patil who was the Peon serving in Mahalaxmi
 Dharmashala. He had an encounter with the family of
 the accused in the Dharmashala while they were
 staying there. Infact, he had a fight with Kiran
 over the supply of 2 additional matresses and was
 slapped by Kiran. He identified Kiran and the
 accused in the court. He deposed about a child
 being carried by Anjanabai which was about 1 & 1 &
 1/2 years old and from the bunch of photographs
 shown to him, he identified the child in the
 photograph of the dead body of Santosh as being the
 child who was with the family on the evening of
 14.1.1991. He had also identified the accused in an
 identification parade held by the Executive
 Magistrate (PW 137) Bhimrao Patil on 14.12.1996. It
 may be stated here that the prosecution has also
 proved the identification of the accused at a test
 identification parade by (PW 63) Yashwant Mandlik
 and (PW 66) Uttam Patil by examining the Executive
 Magistrate (PW 137) Bhimrao Patil. He speaks about
 the identification parade which he had held on
 14.12.1996 and in which (Pw 63) Yashwant Mandlik and
 (PW 66) Uttam Patil alongwith some others identified
 the accused. The Advocate for the defence raised a

¶311

 : 83 :

¶312

 strong objection to the value that could be attached
 to such an identification parade by pointing out
 that the 2 accused were mixed alongwith 8 dummys.
 He pointed out that under the criminal manual if 2
 accused have to be identified in an identification
 parade, then the number of dummys ought to have been
 10 to 12. No doubt, it would have been desirable to
 have more number of dummys and the mixing of the
 accused in 8 dummys may reduce the weightage and
 strength of this evidence but it cannot be forgotten
 that the evidence of identification parade is in the
 nature of corroborative evidence to the substantive
 evidence which is the identification in the court.
 While dealing with the object and purpose of holding
 an identification parade, the Apex court in the case
 of State of Maharashtra V/s. Suresh reported in
 2000(1) SCC 471 had observed as under :-

¶313

 "Identification parades are not primarily
 meant for the court. They are meant for
 investigation purposes. The object of
 conducting a test identification parade is
 twofold. First is to enable the witness
 to satisfy themselves that the prisoner
 whom they suspect is really the one who
 was seen by them in connection with the
 commission of the crime. Second is to
 satisfy the investigating authorities that
 the suspect is the real person whom the

¶314

 : 84 :

¶315

 witnesses had seen in connection with the
 said occurrence. So the officer
 conducting the test identification parade
 should ensure that the said object of the
 parade is achieved. If he permits
 dilution of the modality to be followed in
 a parade, he should see to it that such
 relaxation would not impair the purpose
 for which the parade is held."

¶316

 . Again in the case of State of M.P. V/s. Lekh
 Raj, the Apex court held as under :-

¶317

 "Though the holding of identification
 proceedings are not substantive evidence,
 yet they are used for corroboration
 purposes for believing that the person
 brought before the court was the real
 person involved in the commission of the
 crime."

¶318

 . The witnesses (PW 63) Yashwant Mandlik and (PW
 66) Uttam Patil had in their substantial evidence in
 court identified both the accused. Their evidence
 further indicates that in view of the quarrel
 between the family of the accused and these
 witnesses, they had good reason to remember the
 faces of these accused. This circumstance also
 finds corroboration in the evidence of (PW 1) Kiran.

¶319

 : 85 :

¶320

 In our view, there is sufficient evidence to prove
 the circumstance of the accused last being seen
 together with Santosh on 14.4.1991, which was the
 date on which Santosh is said to have been killed.

¶321

 iii. The absence of Santosh in the rikshaw by which
Renuka, Anjanabai and Kiran returned to S.T.stand
Kolhapur to pick up Seema and the 2 children of
Renuka:-

¶322

 . This vital circumstance is proved by the
 prosecution through the evidence of (PW 69) Shivaji
 Jadhav. This witness is the owner of an
 autorikshaw. He stated that about 7 to 8 years ago,
 at about 11.45 to 12 mid night, he left one
 passenger by his rikshaw near the Pune-Banglore
 road. He was returning with an empty rikshaw
 towards the Kolhapur S.T.stand when 3 persons i.e.
 2 ladies and one strong and stout person stopped his
 rikshaw. These 3 persons told him to carry them
 towards the S.T.stand. One lady was aged about 45
 years and another was aged about 25 to 30 years. He
 brought them to Kolhapur S.T.stand. The strong
 person got down the rikshaw. One lady aged about 25
 years with two children came near the rikshaw. She
 also sat in the rikshaw with these 2 children. This
 witness protested saying that he could not carry
 more than 4 passengers and asked for an additional
 payment of Rs.60/-. The rikshaw was then taken at

¶323

 : 86 :

¶324

 the request of these persons towards Mahalaxmi
 Dharmashala. At the Dharmashala when the rikshaw
 driver asked for extra money for one additional
 seat, the strong person abused him and started a
 quarrel. The elder lady sitting in the rikshaw then
 paid him Rs.60/- and the witness left the spot with
 his rikshaw. He stated that the elder lady was not
 in the court. The strong person who had stopped the
 rikshaw was identified by him in the court as Kiran.
 He identified the lady who had boarded his rikshaw
 with Kiran as Renuka and lastly identified the lady
 who had boarded his rikshaw at Kolhapur S.T.stand as
 Seema. This witness had also identified both the
 accused in an identification parade held on
 14.12.1996 by (PW 137) Executive Magistrate Bhimrao
 Patil. As regards this identification parade, an
 objection was raised by the Advocate for the defence
 that the accused were mixed only with 8 dummys but
 this objection has been dealt with by us
 here-in-above. The identification parade being only
 corroborative evidence and there being reliable
 substantial evidence of identification in court
 alongwith good reason of this witness to recognise
 the accused due to a quarrel which took place in his

¶325

 autorikshaw, the identification evidence is

¶326

 acceptable. This circumstance also finds
 corroboration in the evidence of (PW 1) Kiran. We

¶327

 must hold that this circumstance is proved by the
 prosecution.

¶328

 : 87 :

¶329

 iv. Finding of the dead body of the child aged
about 1 & 1 & 1/2 years on 15.4.1991 near the

¶330

S.T.stand at Kolhapur:-

¶331

 . This circumstance was sought to be proved by the
 prosecution through the evidence of (PW 53) PSO
 Ashok Yenechavandikar. He stated in his evidence
 that on 15.4.1991 one Hemgiri Bankar came to the
 Shahupuri police station and lodged a report about
 the finding of the dead body of a child at 6.30 in
 the morning near the compound wall of his house on
 the side of a parked rikshaw. This witness
 registered A.D.No.26/91, made an entry in the
 station diary (Exh.213-A) and handed over the
 investigation to (PW 54) ASI Kamble. (PW 54) then
 proceeded to the spot alongwith 2 panchas and a
 photographer. He found a dead body of a child and
 prepared an inquest panchanama. He sent the dead
 body to the Medical officer for post mortem. The
 advance certificate mentioned fracture of the skull.
 He also took a photographer to take photographs of
 the dead body of the child lying on the spot and the
 further investigation was handed over by this
 witness to (PW 58) Piraji Kamble. The prosecution
 examined (PW 57) Jinnappa Bhosale who was a panch in
 respect of the inquest panchanama and who proved the
 inquest panchanama (Exh.226). The prosecution then
 examined (PW 58) PSI Piraji Kamble who was the next

¶332

 : 88 :

¶333

 Investigating officer attached to Shahupuri police
 station and who registered C.R.No.112/91 under
 Section 302 r/w. 201 of IPC. He prepared the
 panchanama relating to the spot of the offence and
 ultimately as the culprits could not be traced, he
 submitted an A-final report to the JMFC. Another
 witness (PW 60) Sadashiv Sutar who was a Police
 constable who had been to the spot alongwith ASI
 Kamble was also examined to prove the finding of the
 dead body of a child. The photographer (PW 61)
 Bhausaheb Patil who had accompanied (PW 54) Khirappa
 Kamble was examined to prove the photograph of the
 dead body of Santosh (Exh.235) and the negative
 being at Exh.235-A. This witness also proved his
 own photo call register (Exh.236). Finally, the
 prosecution examined (PW 64) Baliram Phepade who
 also proved another panchanama relating to the
 attachment of the photographs taken by (PW 61)
 Bhausaheb Patil and his photo register in the
 present crime. It may be stated here that there is
 hardly any challenge to all this voluminous evidence
 produced by the prosecution. The circumstance of
 finding of the dead body immediately on 14.4.1991
 must be held to be comprehensively proved by the
 prosecution.

¶334

 v. The finding of injuries on the dead body of the
child found on 15.4.1991:-

¶335

 : 89 :

¶336

 . The dead body of Santosh was sent for post mortem
 to (PW 132) Dr.Chandrashekhar Chandokar. The
 evidence of this witness indicates that he found 4
 external injuries, of which 3 were antemortem. They
 were in the nature of abrasions on the vertex, below
 left eye and left side of neck. On internal
 examination he found haematoma 2 cm X 2 cm in the
 muscle over frontal region, fracture of the base of
 the skull (right side) of length 2 cm. Intra
 cerebral haemorrhage on the right side. He drew the
 post mortem notes (Exh.495) and opined that the
 cause of death of the boy was shock due to fracture
 of the base of his skull with intra cerebral
 haemorrhage. He opined that if the skull is dashed
 forcibly against a hard object more than 2 to 3
 times, there was a possibility of sustaining the
 injuries as found by him. This circumstance is thus
 proved.

¶337

 vi. Lack of any explanation about the presence of
Santosh with them by the accused:-

¶338

 . In their 313 statements the accused have not
 given any explanation what-so-ever about the
 presence of Santosh with them as proved through the
 circumstantial evidence referred to here-in-above.
 This non giving of explanation by itself can now
 form a circumstance in favour of the prosecution.

¶339

 : 90 :

¶340

 vii. Evidence of Kiran in the light of above:-

¶341

 . Though we have chosen not to place reliance on
 the evidence of Kiran as regards the actual killing
 of Santosh, yet we feel that his evidence relating
 to kidnapping of Santosh can be believed in view of
 the corroborating circumstances which indicate the
 presence of Kiran alongwith accused and a complete
 lack of explanation by the accused about such
 presence of Santosh with them. The evidence of
 Kiran pertaining to kidnapping was that Santosh was
 kidnapped by the accused and Anjanabai from Kolhapur
 and that his name was kept by Renuka as Santosh.
 Renuka told him about the manner of kidnapping of
 this child from Kolhapur. She told him that she saw
 a female begger at the S.T.stand and brought this
 lady under a pretext of giving her a job, upto
 Karad. At Karad she gave a slip to this lady and
 alongwith Anjanabai & Seema returned to the house of
 Saste at Pune. Kiran (PW 1) has identified the
 photograph of the dead body of the child found as
 that of Santosh. This evidence of Kiran relating to
 the kidnapping has not been shaken in the
 cross-examination. It is fully corroborated by his
 confessional statement and can be therefore, be
 relied upon as acceptable evidence relating to
 the kidnapping of Santosh.

¶342

 viii In the net result, we finds that the

¶343

 : 91 :

¶344

 prosecution has proved that these accused were
 involved in the killing of Santosh. The act was
 done in pursuance of their common intention. The
 disposal of the dead body was also an act committed
 with common intention. The aforesaid circumstances
 are links which form a complete chain indicating the
 involvement of the accused both in the kidnapping of
 Santosh as well as in his killing and attempting to
 dispose off his dead body. The accused would
 therefore, be liable to be convicted under Section
 302 r/w. 34 of the IPC, under Section 363 & 365 r/w
 34 of IPC and under Section 201 r/w. 34 of the
 Indian Penal Code.

¶345

 10. As regards the incident relating to Naresh, the
 circumstantial and corroborative evidence against
 the accused is as under :-

¶346

 (i) Finding of an abandoned child in the area of
Ram-kund, Nasik on 28.8.1992.

¶347

 . The circumstance is brought on record through the
 evidence of (PW 107) Ratnamala Powar who was a lady
 police constable attached to Panchavati police
 station. This witness had been to the area of
 Ram-kund Nasik at about 7.00 A.M. on 28.8.1992.
 She found that a mob had gathered on the spot around
 a boy aged about 1 to 1 & 1/2 years. She made an
 enquiry about the parents of the child but nobody

¶348

 : 92 :

¶349

 could give any information. She took the child to
 Panchavati police station and the child was sent to
 Civil hospital, Nasik for examination. At the Civil
 hospital the child was examined by (PW 91)
 Dr.Kanchan Desale. She found 2 injuries on the
 child which were in the nature of abrasions on the
 left frontal region and an abrasion on the right
 side of abdomen (ilic fossa) 2 cm X 2 cm. After the
 medical examination the child was taken back to the
 police station and (PW 107) Sou.Ratnamala Powar then
 filed a report to the Police Inspector submitting
 that the child should be kept in a Adhar-ashram.
 Accordingly, after obtaining committal order from
 the court, the child found was admitted to the
 Adhar-ashram on 2.9.1992. During the trial, Naresh
 was present in the court and he was identified by
 (PW 107) Ratnamala Powar on 5.8.1995 as the child
 who was found by her at the temple in Ram-kund area
 of Nasik on 28.8.1992. On a question put by the
 defence, the witness stated that she used to go to
 Adhar-ashram repeatedly and therefore, she was in a
 position to identify the child in court. In view of
 the aforesaid evidence, the circumstance that the
 child was found at Ram-kund, Nasik by the police and
 was admitted to Adhar-ashram can be safely accepted.

¶350

 (ii) Filing of a false application by Renuka in the
Civil court to claim custody of Naresh:-

¶351

 : 93 :

¶352

 . It appears that one (PW 106) Vishnu Khalage made
 an application under Section 8(4) of the Guardian &
 Wards Act r/w. Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act,
 on 14.7.1993 in the court of the District Judge at
 Nasik in order to be appointed as a guardian of
 Naresh. Vishnu Khalage obtained interim custody of
 this child through orders of the court. Anjanabai,
 then made an application representing herself to be
 Shantabai for obtaining interim custody of the child
 through an Advocate Jayprakash Kasliwala (PW 96).
 This application came to be rejected by the court.
 The aforesaid facts are matters pertaining to the
 court record but we do not propose to deal with the
 application made by Shantabai because of her death
 during the pendency of this case. It is however,
 the further prosecution case that on 4.7.1996 Renuka
 again approached (PW 96) Advocate Jayprakash
 Kasliwala and informed him that Naresh was her twin
 son. Advocate Jayprakash Kasliwala told her that he
 had already accepted the Vakalatnama of her mother
 and therefore not in a position to accept her
 Vakalatnama. He suggested to her to contact
 Advocate Shetye. He called Advocate Shetye to his
 chamber and the two Advocates confirmed the facts.
 Accordingly, a 2nd intervenor’s application on
 behalf of Renuka was filed on 4.7.1996 by Advocate
 Shetye. In this application Renuka claimed to be
 the real mother of Naresh who she claimed to be her
 twin son. The prosecution proved the application

¶353

 : 94 :

¶354

 made by Renuka (Exh.321) through the evidence of (PW
 90) Vilas Lonari, who was the Advocate engaged by
 Vishnu Khalage and who had been served with the copy
 of the intervention application made by Renuka.
 That ultimately, vide his order dated 6.10.1997 the
 IInd Extra Joint District Judge, Nasik granted Civil
 Misc.Application 214/1993 filed by witness Vishnu
 Khalage (PW 106). In his Judgment and order, he has
 referred to the application made by Renuka and her
 case that she had given birth to twin children of
 whom one was Naresh and other was Kishor. He
 dis-believed this case and appointed Vishnu Khalage
 as the guardian and permitted to him to take Kalpesh
 @ Naresh in adoption. To prove the offence of
 forgery committed by Renuka, the prosecution further
 examined (PW 92) Dr.Sanjay Bidaye. This Doctor had
 delivered the 3 children of Renuka and he was
 examined to prove that Renuka did not give birth to
 twins at any point of time.

¶355

 . On the analysis of the evidence pertaining to an
 incident relating to Naresh, it is seen that there
 is no evidence to corroborate the fact of Naresh
 having been kidnapped. There is no missing
 complaint filed in respect of this child Naresh.
 Nobody has seen Naresh alongwith the accused persons
 or the family members. Regarding the abandoning of
 the child, Kiran in his examination-in-chief, gave a
 version that on 28.8.1992 they had gone to Nasik for

¶356

 : 95 :

¶357

 committing thefts. On reaching Nasik, Naresh became
 sick, therefore, Renuka suggested the release of
 Naresh and Naresh was thus abandoned near Ram-kund

¶358

 temple at Nasik. He has stated in his
 cross-examination that on 28.8.1992 they started
 from Pune S.T.stand at 11.00 A.M. They reached
 Nasik at 4.30 P.M. and took a rikshaw to go to
 Ganga ghat. Anjanabai had come with them. They
 were there at Ganga-ghat till 8.00 P.M. and Naresh
 was released on the steps of Ram-kund mandir. That
 in the evening itself, they returned back to Pune by
 catching a S.T.bus from the main S.T.stand at Nasik.
 This version is at variance with the evidence of (PW

¶359

 107) Ratnamala Powar who states that she saw the
 abandoned child early in the morning on 28.8.1992.
 This fact does not corroborate the evidence of (PW

¶360

 1) Kiran even on the question of abandonment. There
 is one more circumstance which makes us wary of the
 version relating to abandonment of the child given
 by (PW 1) Kiran. Alongwith the written statement
 filed by the accused, certain jail registers were

¶361

 produced. One of the entry in this jail register
 indicates that Anjanabai Mohan Dhale which is the
 alias of Anjanabai was infact in Yeravada Jail on
 28.8.1992. In the circumstances, we will have to

¶362

 give the benefit of doubt to the accused and acquit
 them of charges relating to kidnapping, punishable
 under Sections 363, 364 and 365 read with Section 34
 of the Indian Penal Code. Regarding the charge

¶363

 : 96 :

¶364

 relating to forgery, it is clear that the forged
 document was prepared prior to its filing in the
 court and the forgery would therefore, not attract
 the bar contained in Section 195 (1)(b) (2) of the
 Cr.P.C. The contents of the application signed by
 Renuka and filed through her Advocate to the effect
 that Naresh was her twin child alongwith Kishor has
 been proved to be a false statement by the
 prosecution. This falsity is proved through the
 evidence of Dr.Sanjay Bidaye (PW 92) who was the
 Doctor who delivered 3 children of Renuka and gave
 evidence to indicate that Renuka had never been the
 mother of twins. In the circumstances, in our view,
 the conviction of Renuka by the trial court under
 Sections 468 & 469 of the Panal Code cannot be
 faulted with and will have to be confirmed. The
 other accused Seema however, cannot be convicted of
 these offences as she was not a party to the
 application made before the Court. As regards the
 charge under Section 323 read with 120-B and 34 of
 IPC, in the absence of any clear evidence relating

¶365

 to who had actually caused injuries to Naresh, the
 benefit of doubt will also be given to the accused
 and the accused will have to be acquitted of the
 charges under Section 323 r/w Section 120-B of the
 Indian Penal Code.

¶366

 10. As regards the incidents relating to Bunty,
Swati, Guddu and Mina, the circumstantial and

¶367

 : 97 :

¶368

corroborative evidence against the accused is as
under:-

¶369

 (i) Children seen together with the accused at
Labade chawl:-

¶370

 . It is the case of the prosecution that in the
 last week of March-1993 the family of the accused
 left the house of Indubai and came to reside at
 Labade chawl situated in Shastri Nagar, Kothrud
 Pune. Just before moving to the said chawl, they
 purchased a fiat car on 15.1.1993. They started
 using the said Fiat Car for committing thefts. In
 April-1993 they had gone to Kalyan in their Fiat car
 with the aim of kidnapping children and committing
 theft. They parked their car near the railway
 station at Kalyan. While Kiran was sitting in the
 car parked near the Kalyan station, Anjanabai &
 accused had kidnapped a boy aged 1 & 1/2 years and a
 girl aged about 2 & 1/2 years . These children were
 kidnapped at Kalyan railway plat-form. Renuka had
 named these children as Bunty & Swati. Within 15 to
 20 days of kidnapping these children, the family had
 visited V.T.station at Bombay. Again the accused
 and Anjanabai had been to the plat-form to kidnap
 children. They had taken Bunty with them. Kiran
 remained seated in the car. The accused and
 Anjanabai had returned after about half an hour
 alongwith 3 children. One child was aged about 2 to

¶371

 : 98 :

¶372

 2 & 1/2 years, another was aged about 9 to 10 years
 and one girl child was aged about 2 to 3 years. The
 boy who was aged 9 to 10 years old was able to talk
 properly and was hence released by the family at
 S.T.stand Panvel. The remaining 2 children were
 named by Renuka as Guddu & Meena. These 4 children
 Bunty, Swati, Guddu & Meena were residing at Labade
 chawl together. After about 2 & 1/2 months, the
 child Swati was abandoned by the family in the bazar
 at Solapur road at Pune. This child was abandoned
 because Renuka did not like the child. The children
 Bunty & Guddu were killed in May-1993 by the accused
 in a vehicle on the way from Pune to Khopoli. The
 body of Bunty was thrown at Khandala ghat by
 Anjanabai and the body of Guddu was thrown by her at
 Shil-phata on the same day. The accused and other
 family members then returned back to Labade chawl at
 Pune and immediately shifted their house-hold
 articles from Labade chawl to the new house at
 Mathwad chawl. In the aforesaid background, the
 circumstance of these children being seen together
 with the accused and other family members at Labade
 chawl was sought to be proved by the prosecution
 through the evidence of (PW 101) Hanumant Labade,
 who was the owner of Labade chawl. He stated in his
 evidence that he was the owner of 6 rooms in the
 chawl. That Renuka, Seema, Kiran and Anjanabai were
 known to him as they had resided in room no.3 in his
 chawl. They resided in his room as tenants for a

¶373

 : 99 :

¶374

 period of 7 to 8 months. He stated that in the
 beginning, Renuka, Seema, Kiran & Anjanabai came to
 reside in his room with 2 children whose names were
 Ashish & Kishor. Anjanabai had told him that these
 children were the sons of Renuka. After about 2 to
 3 months, 2 more children were brought to reside in
 the room. The names of these children were Bunty &
 Swati. Bunty was a boy child aged 1 to 1 & 1/2
 years and Swati was a girl child aged about 2 to 2 &
 1/2 years. After about 15 to 20 days, 2 more
 children were brought to reside in this room. Their
 names were Meena & Guddu. Meena was aged about 4 to
 4 & 1/2 years. That the child Swati was not seen
 with the family after about 15 to 20 days. This
 witness identified the photograph of the dead body
 of Guddu (Exh.343) from a bunch of photographs in
 the court. From his evidence it is clear that he
 had also identified the same photograph (Exh.343) in
 a test identification parade held by (PW 113)
 Special Judicial Magistrate Shivaji Powar. Lastly,
 this witness also identified the 2 accused and Kiran
 in the court. Nothing of any substance could be
 elicited by the defence in the cross-examination of
 this witness. The police also examined (PW 100)
 Hirabai Kadam who was the neighbour of the family of
 the accused at Labade chawl. She stated in her
 evidence that she knew Renuka, Seema, Kiran &
 Anjanabai. That initially all these 4 persons had
 come alongwith 2 children. These 2 children were

¶375

 : 100 :

¶376

 the sons of Renuka by name Ashish & Kishor. After
 about 2 to 3 months, 2 more children came to reside
 with the family, of whom one was a boy and the other
 was a girl. She enquired with Anjanabai as to who
 these children were and was told that these children
 were the son & daughter of her sister. She stated
 that the names of these 2 children were Bunty &
 Swati. Bunty was aged about 2 & 1/2 years and Swati
 was aged about 3 to 4 years. That after about 8 to
 15 days the girl by name Swati was not seen with
 them. She had asked Renuka as to where Swati had
 gone and had been told that the child had become ill
 and had been sent back to her mother. That after
 about 15 to 20 days, 2 more children were brought,
 of whom one was a girl and one was a boy. She had
 asked Anjanabai about these children also and was
 told that they were the sons and daughters of her
 brother. She was further told that as the wife of
 her brother was sick, the children were brought by
 Anjanabai. The name of the boy was Guddu and name
 of the girl was Meena. Guddu was aged about 1 and
 1/2 years. This witness identified the photograph
 of the dead body of Guddu, (Exh.343) in the court.
 The witness stated that the said photograph of Guddu
 Exh.343 had also been identified by her in the test
 identification parade held by (PW 130) Shivaji Powar
 on 9.1.1997. Lastly, Hirabai identified the 2
 accused and Kiran in the court. There is absolutely
 nothing in the cross-examination of this witness

¶377

 : 101 :

¶378

 which affects the veracity of the aforesaid
 evidence. In order to prove the identification of
 the photo of Guddu (Exh.343) at the test
 identification parade held on 9.1.1997, the
 prosecution further examined (PW 130) Shivaji Powar.
 This witness testified about the holding of the test
 identification parade on 9.1.1997. There is nothing
 of substance in the cross-examination of this
 witness. The panch (PW 84) Vasant Sahani who had
 signed the memorandum panchanama of the test
 identification parade held on 9.1.1997 was also
 examined to prove the manner in which the test
 identification parade was held. His evidence is
 also not shaken in his cross-examination. The
 photograph (Exh.343) was attached in the
 investigation under a panchanama (Exh.356) which has
 been got proved by the prosecution through (PW 99)
 Gotiram Patil. This circumstance is also proved by
 the evidence of the approver (PW 1) Kiran as
 corroborated by his confessional statement. In our
 view, the aforesaid evidence establishes the
 circumstance that the children were seen alongwith
 the accused, Kiran and Anjanabai at Labade chawl
 where the family of the accused were residing.

¶379

 (ii) Finding of the dead body of Guddu on 30.6.1993

¶380

 . This circumstance has been proved by the
 prosecution through the evidence of (PW 93) Prakash

¶381

 : 102 :

¶382

 Choudhari. This witness states that on 30.6.1993 he
 had gone to village Mil for doing some plumbing work
 in a temple. When he was returning, he saw 10 to 12

¶383

 persons gathered at a spot. The dead body of a
 child aged about 1 & 1/2 years was found lying
 there. The enquiries made in the area did not yield
 any further information and therefore, this witness
 had gone to the Khopoli police station to report
 about the finding of the dead body. The information
 given by him was recorded in the police station
 (Exh.337). This witness identified the photograph
 of the dead body (Article-M) seen by him on that
 day. There is virtually no cross-examination of
 this witness. This evidence was not seriously
 challenged by the defence and is corroborated by (PW
 94) Maruti Tamane, who was the PSI attached to the
 Khopoli police station and who went to the spot on
 receiving the complaint and prepared an inquest
 panchanama. (PW 95) Yasin Shaikh was the
 photographer who had been called by PSI Tamane to
 come and take a photograph of the dead body. He
 proved the photograph of the dead child found at
 village Mil and the said article-M was exhibited as
 Exh.343 while its negative was exhibited as
 Exhibit-343/A. Finally this circumstance is also
 proved through the corroborative evidence of (PW 98)
 i.e. Sr.P.I.Laxman Patil attached to the Khopoli
 police station who recorded C.R.No.101/93 but since
 he could not trace any accused in this incident, he

¶384

 : 103 :

¶385

 filed a A-summary report to JMFC, Khalapur on
 27.11.1993. In our view, the aforesaid circumstance
 is proved beyond doubt through the aforesaid
 evidence adduced by the prosecution.

¶386

 (iii) The finding of injuries on the dead body of
child Guddu:-

¶387

 . At the very out-set, it may be stated here that
 the prosecution did not examine any Doctor to prove
 the injuries suffered by the child Guddu. The post
 mortem notes were also not produced by the
 prosecution in this case. However, (PW 94) PSI
 Tamane who was the PSI attached to Khopoli police
 station had gone to the spot and prepared an inquest
 panchanama. He states in his evidence that as
 injuries were found on the dead body, he had sent
 the dead body for post mortem. The advance death
 certificate was issued by the Doctor with a mention
 that the death of the child was caused due to
 strangulation and axphyxia. After receiving this
 advance death certificate, this witness had lodged a
 complaint under Section 302 of IPC, which was
 registered under C.R.No.101/93. In the
 cross-examination of this witness, there is no

¶388

 challenge what-so-ever to his version that injuries
 were found on the dead body. In the inquest
 panchanama (Exh.340) which is proved through this
 witness, it is mentioned that on the right chin near

¶389

 : 104 :

¶390

 the ear there was an abrasion that the forehead of
 the child was swollen, there was abrasion on the
 lips, that the finger on the left hand had been
 turned inwards and that the right hand was straight.
 (PW 144) Vithoba Gavali was Dy.S.P. attached to CID
 Crime, Nasik branch. He also investigated
 C.R.No.101/93 of Khopoli police station. This
 witness makes a reference to the FIR, inquest
 panchanama, spot panchanama and post mortem notes.
 In our view, not-with-standing the fact that the
 post mortem notes are not on record, the fact that
 the child was found dead, coupled with the fact that
 there is no challenge by the defence to the injuries
 found, the circumstance as to finding of injuries on
 the dead body of the child Guddu can be held to be
 proved.

¶391

 (iv) The children Bunty, Swati & Guddu not being
seen at Mathwad chawl and the finding of Meena at
the residence of the accused in this chawl:-

¶392

 . It was the prosecution case that immediately
 after the killing of Bunty & Guddu, the accused and
 family returned back to Labade chawl and on the same
 day shifted to Mathwad chawl. The absence of these
 children at the Mathwad chawl has been brought on
 record by the prosecution through the evidence of
 (Pw 102) Dattatraya Mathwad who was the owner of the
 said chawl. This witness has stated that he knew

¶393

 : 105 :

¶394

 Renu, Devki, Kiran and Anjanabai. Renuka and
 Anjanabai had come to him and had hired his room on
 payment of a deposit on 29.6.1993. The room was
 taken by them under a written agreement (Exh.364)
 and on the same day cash amount of Rs.28,000/- was
 paid to him. That on 6.7.1993 when he came to the
 room which he had given on hire, he found the door
 shut and one girl was found crying in the room.
 This girl was Meena. This witness identified Meena
 in the court. He also identified the accused and
 Kiran in the court. (PW 82) Shamrao Shinde also
 talks about the incident dated 6.7.1993 where one
 child Meena was found crying in the locked room.
 (PW 103) Sou.Shakuntala Mathwad is the wife of the
 owner of the room. In her evidence, she has
 described the 3 children who were residing with the
 family of the accused. She has stated that amongst
 these 3 children, there were 2 boys and one girl.
 The 2 boys were sons of accused Renuka. She has
 identified the girl as Meena who was sitting in the
 court room. She also identified Renuka, Seema and
 Kiran in the court. Similarly, the evidence of (PW
 115) Suresh Bhagwat who was the ASI who rescued
 Meena also indicates that Meena was the only child
 found in the house occupied by the family of the
 accused on 6.7.1993. (PW 104) Nirmala Nimsarkar is
 the witness who admitted Meena in an institution
 after her rescue. (PW 136) Dr.Kishor Chabukswar had
 examined Meena and found 6 injuries on her body

¶395

 : 106 :

¶396

 including abrasions and contusions. (PW 153)
 Pradipkumar Ghode was the Dy.S.P. CID Latur, who
 investigated the case of Meena, registered at the
 Kothrud police station and according to him it
 transpired during the investigation that the girl
 Meena, had been kidnapped by Anjanabai and her 2
 daughters Seema and Renuka at V.T. Railway station.
 He lodged the complaint on behalf of the State at
 Kothrud police station on 27.11.1996 and an offence
 was registered against Anjanabai, Renuka and Seema
 vide C.R.No.380/96 under Sections 363, 364, 367 &
 368 of the Penal Code. All this evidence adduced by
 the prosecution indicates that Meena was the only
 child found at Mathwad chawl and this child was
 rescued by the police and put in an institution.
 This evidence indicates that the children Bunty,
 Swati & Guddu were not seen alongwith the accused in
 Mathwad chawl by anybody. In our view, this
 evidence establishes the aforesaid circumstance.
 This circumstance is also proved by the evidence of
 (PW 1) Kiran as corroborated by his confessional
 statement.

¶397

 (iii) Lackof any explanation on the part ofthe

¶398

accusedtoexplainthe presence ofthechildren
Bunty, Swati, Guddu & Meena:-

¶399

 . In the 313 statement of the accused there is

¶400

 : 107 :

¶401

 absolutely no explanation given by the accused as to
 how and why the children Bunty, Swati, Guddu & Meena
 were with them. This lack of explanation also
 militates as a circumstance and forms a link in the
 circumstantial evidence against the accused.

¶402

 . In our view, the aforesaid circumstances clearly
 indicate that the accused would be liable to be
 convicted of an offence punishable under Section 363
 & 365 r/w section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for
 the kidnapping of Bunty & Swati. They would also be
 liable to be convicted for the offences under
 Sections 363 & 365 r/w section 34 in respect of the
 kidnapping of Guddu & Meena. In respect of the
 offences concerning the murder of the children Bunty
 & Guddu and the concealing of the dead body, the
 trial court has acquitted the accused of these
 charges on account of material contradictions made
 by (PW 1) Kiran. It is unfortunate that there is no
 appeal against the acquittal. In the absence of
 there being any appeal against acquittal in respect
 of the charges under Section 302 r/w. 120-B and 34
 of IPC and under Section 201 r/w 120-B and 34 of IPC
 filed by the State, we would have no jurisdiction in
 an appeal against their conviction or even in
 confirmation proceedings to convert the acquittal
 into a conviction in respect of these charges. This
 is so, on the plain reading of Section 386 (b) of
 the Code of Criminal Procedure which deals with the

¶403

 : 108 :

¶404

 powers of the appellate court in an appeal against
 conviction as also the reading of Sections 366 and
 368 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which deal
 with the powers of the High Court in a confirmation
 case. In this regard, in so far as Section 386 is
 concerned, useful reference may be made to two
 Judgments of the Apex court which hold that an order
 of acquittal cannot be reversed into an order of
 conviction in an appeal against conviction in the
 absence of any appeal against the order of

¶405

 acquittal. ( See : Thadi Narayana V/s. State of

¶406

Andhra Pradesh AIR 1962 SC 240 as also the case of
Lakhan Mahto V/s. State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC
1742). In so far as the powers of this court in
 confirmation proceedings are concerned, the Apex
 court has held that when a reference is made to the
 High court under Section 366 of Cr.P.C., for passing
 a sentence of death, the High court has to satisfy
 itself as to whether a case beyond reasonable doubt
 has been made out against the accused for infliction
 of the extreme penalty. The proceedings in the High
 court requires reappraisal and reassessment of the
 entire evidence. In our view, on the plain reading
 as to what the High court can do under section 368

¶407

 of the Cr.P.C. even after, reappraisal and
 reassessment, is to confirm the sentence or pass any
 other conviction warranted by the court or annul the
 conviction and convict the accused of any offence,
 which the Sessions court might have convicted or

¶408

 : 109 :

¶409

 order a new trial on the amended charge or acquit
 the accused persons. There is no power under
 Section 368 to convert an acquittal by the trial
 court in respect of any charge into a conviction.
 Such a reversal of an acquittal can only be done in
 exercise of powers under Section 378 r/w 386(a) of
 Cr.P.C. This being the position, we refrain from
 dealing with the question as to whether the accused
 could have been convicted for the murder of Bunty &
 Guddu or for the concealment of the evidence
 relating to their dead bodies.

¶410

 11. As regards the incidents relating to Pinky @

¶411

Anjali, the circumstantial and corroborative
 evidence against the accused is as under :-

¶412

 (i) The lodging of a missing complaint regarding
this child on 19.10.1994 and the subsequent filing
of the FIR relating to the offence of kidnapping :-

¶413

 . This circumstance is sought to be proved by the
 prosecution through the evidence of (Pw 10) Sujata
 Diwan who is the mother of Anjali. This witness
 stated that on 18.10.1994 she had been to Kalika
 mandir situated on Agra road at Nasik. She was
 accompanied by daughters Shweta and Anjali as well
 as her husband. They reached at temple at about
 9.30 P.M. The daughter Shweta was with her and
 Anjali was with her husband. She went ahead for

¶414

 : 110 :

¶415

 conducting pooja and the filling of the Oti of the
 deity. The articles of pooja were with her husband
 and to bring them to her, he kept Anjali on the
 floor. Her husband took pradakshina around the
 deity and on his return, found that Anjali was not
 there. Immediately he informed her about the
 missing of Anjali. They searched for Anjali till
 about 8.00 a.m. in the morning on the next day.
 Anjali could not be found. Thereafter witness
 Sujata became unconscious. On her regaining
 consciousness, they went to the police station and
 lodged a missing report (Exh.83). Apart from the
 production and exhibition of the missing report,
 this fact has also been corroborated by the
 prosecution through the evidence of (PW 9) PSI
 Mahadu Saundane. The father of the child Anjali (PW
 62) Hemant Diwan was also examined by the
 prosecution. He spoke about the manner in which
 Anjali was lost. On 1.11.1996 he lodged a FIR with
 Sarkarwada police station mentioning that his
 daughter has been kidnapped. The same FIR is
 produced and proved by the prosecution (Exh.239).
 He identified the photographs of the dead body of
 Anjali ( Exhs.87/1, 87/2, 87/3 & Exhs.90 & 91) as
 that of his daughter. The lodging of a FIR by this
 witness has also been proved by (PW 140) Sanjay
 Sangale attached to the Sarkarwada police station.
 In our view, the aforesaid evidence clearly proved
 the aforesaid circumstance of lodging of the missing

¶416

 : 111 :

¶417

 report and later on FIR in respect of the kidnapping
 of Anjali @ Pinky.

¶418

 (ii) The accused being seen at Parimal lodge Nasik
on 18.1.1994 before the kidnapping without Anjali
and on the same day after the kidnapping of Anjali
with the said child:-

¶419

 . This circumstance is sought to be proved by the
 prosecution through the evidence of (Pw 12) Ajit
 Pahade. This witness is the owner of Parimal lodge
 at Nasik. He stated that on 11.10.1994 at about 6
 p.m., he himself and his mother were at the counter
 of the lodge. At that time, 3 ladies with 2 to 3
 children came there and told him that they had come
 for Deo-darshan and wanted to stay in the lodge for
 8 to 10 days. On the instruction of his mother,
 this witness allotted room no.6 in the lodge to
 these ladies. The youngest amongst the ladies wrote
 her name and address and put her signature on the
 register of the lodge. The 2nd lady was a little
 older, aged about 28 to 29 years and the 3rd lady
 was an elderly aged about 50 years. Three children
 were with them, one male child aged about 8 to 9

¶420

 months. 2nd male child aged about 2 to 2 & 1/2
 years and the 3rd male child aged about 5 years.
 The ladies stayed in the lodge for a period of 8
 days and left at about 11.00 P.M. on a day which
 happened to be Kojagiri Poornima. On the day of

¶421

 : 112 :

¶422

 Kojagiri Poornima at about 9.00 P.M. this witness
 and his mother Lilavati were on the ground floor and
 they heard the noise of a hue & cry coming from room

¶423

 no.6 from the 1st floor. When they entered the
 room, they found a child crying. Lilavati made an
 enquiry as to who was the mother of the child and
 was told by Seema that the child was of her maternal
 aunt. Seema further stated that her maternal aunt
 had a stall at the fair at Kalika temple and that
 the child had been brought by them as she was crying
 on the stall. That after about 20 to 25 minutes,
 the child again raised a hue & cry. This witness
 told his mother to see what had happened on the
 first floor. His mother Lilavati accordingly went
 to the room occupied by the accused and later came
 down and told her son Ajit that she had instructed
 the persons of room no.6 to vacate the room.
 Accordingly, the 3 ladies and the children left the
 room after settling their dues. This witness also
 proved the entries in the register of his lodge
 which indicated that Seema had signed the register
 of lodge and had left the lodge on 18.10.1994. He
 identified Seema and Renuka in the court. This
 witness was also shown the group of photos and he
 identified 4 photographs of the dead body of Anjali
 i.e. (Exhs.87/1, 87/2, 90 & 91) as being the girl
 who was with the accused and Anjanabai in his lodge
 on 18.10.1994. (Pw 12) Ajit Pahade also identified
 the photographs of the dead body of Anjali in an

¶424

 : 113 :

¶425

 identification parade held by the Special Judicial
 Magistrate (PW 128) Ulhas Korane. The holding of
 such identification parade on 28.11.1996 in respect
 of one photograph (Exh.87) out of bunch of
 photographs of deceased Anjali is further proved by
 the prosecution by examining (PW 128) Special
 Judicial Magistrate Ulhas Korane. The prosecution
 has also examined (PW 19) Maruti Sonar who was the
 panch in respect of the memorandum prepared of the
 identification parade relating to identification of
 the photographs of Anjali on 28.11.1996. This

¶426

 witness has also identified the accused in her
 identification parade held by (PW 130) Shivaji
 Powar. The holding of this identification parade
 has been proved by examining (PW 130) Shivaji Powar.
 The evidence of (PW 12) Ajit Pahade is corroborated
 by the register in which can be found an entry
 (Exh.96) and which has been duly proved and
 exhibited by the prosecution. This entry is in the
 hand-writing of Seema and indicates that she was
 alloted room no.6. The number of persons staying in
 the room has been indicated as 5. The purpose of
 visit has been shown as Dev-darshan. Her age is
 shown as 19. The arrival date is shown as
 11.10.1994 and the departure as 18.10.1994. All
 these entries corroborate the version given by (PW
 12) Ajit Pahade. The prosecution has also examined
 (PW 14) Lilavati who was the mother of the
 lodge-owner Ajit Pahade. She states that on

¶427

 : 114 :

¶428

 11.10.1994 she and her son Ajit were sitting in the
 office of the lodge on the ground floor. At about

¶429

 6.00 P.M., 2 to 3 ladies alongwith 2 to 3 small
 children came there and requested for a room in the
 lodge. Lilavati enquired as to where from they had
 come, to which they replied that they had come from
 Pune for the purpose of Dev-darshan. However, there
 were no male members with these ladies. Lilavati
 told them that no room was available. However, the
 ladies pressed her to give a room as there were
 small children with them and accordingly, after some
 persuation, room no.6 was given to this group after
 an entry was effected in the register by Seema.
 This witness identified Seema in the court. She
 further stated that this group stayed in the lodge
 for 8 days and left on the day of Kojagiri Poornima.
 On the day when they left, she and her son were
 sitting in the office of the lodge at 9.30 P.M.
 They heard a noise of crying of a child. She and
 her son went to the first floor. Door was closed.
 On knocking the door, they found a child aged about
 2 to 2 & 1/2 years with Seema and the child was
 crying for her mother. She enquired with Seema as
 to who this child was and as to why she was crying
 and she was told by Seema that child belonged to her
 maternal aunt who had a stall at the fair of Kalika
 mandir. She was further told that as the child was
 troubling her aunt it has been brought by Seema.
 This witness has also identified a photograph

¶430

 : 115 :

¶431

 (article-87/1) which is of dead body of Anjali from
 among several photographs. She had also similarly
 identified photographs (Exh.90 & 95). Alongwith her
 son Ajit, she had identified the accused in an
 identification parade held on 8.11.1996 by (PW 130)
 Shivaji Powar. She had also identified photographs
 of the dead body of Anjali from the 7 to 8
 photographs in an identification parade held by (PW
 128) Ulhas Korane, Special Judicial Magistrate on
 28.11.1996. As stated above, the holding of the
 said identification parade on 28.11.1996 and the
 identifications made therein are proved by the
 prosecution by examining (PW 128) Ulhas Korane,
 Special Judicial Magistrate as well as (PW 19)
 Maruti Sonar, the panch in respect of the memorandum
 prepared. It appears that there is some minor
 discrepency in respect of the dates on which the
 witnesses (PW 12) Ajit and (PW 14) Lilavati claimed
 to have identified the photographs in an
 identification parade. While they have stated that
 identification parade was held on 30.11.1996. It
 appears that identification parade was actually held
 on 28.11.1996. The discrepency is minor and
 understandable after a long lapse of time. From the
 reading of the aforesaid evidence, we find that
 there is no serious challenge to this evidence and
 nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination
 of these independent witnesses to falsify the
 prosecution case. The prosecution has also examined

¶432

 : 116 :

¶433

 (PW 16) Milind Gangurde who is the Panch in respect
 of the identification parade held by Shivaji Powar
 (PW 130) in which the accused were identified by (PW
 12) Ajit and (PW 14) Lilavati on 8.11.1996. In
 connection with the aforesaid evidence, the
 prosecution further examined (PW 20) Ram Murlidhar
 Muthe who was the panch in respect of the seizure of
 the register. The evidence of the approver which is
 in the nature of an extra judicial confession made
 to him by the accused regarding the kidnapping of
 Anjali as corroborated by his own confessional
 statement also helps the prosecution in proving the
 aforesaid circumstance. In our view, the aforesaid
 evidence conclusively proves the aforesaid
 circumstance.

¶434

 (iii) Anjali not being seen with the accused at Pune
prior to the date of the kidnapping i.e. 18.4.1994
and later being seen with the accused at Khopade
Bungalow, Gondhali nagar, Pune after the kidnapping,
 giving of false explanation to witnesses regarding
this child and Anjali not being seen by witnesses
after Diwali that year :-

¶435

 . The aforesaid circumstances were sought to be
 proved by the prosecution through the evidence of
 (PW 48) Tryambak Khopade. This witness stated that
 house no.970 of Gondhali-nagar was owned by his
 brother-in-law i.e. Shamrao Bhosale. His

¶436

 : 117 :

¶437

 brother-in-law gave him a direction to look after
 this house. This witness had rented house no.970 to
 the accused, Anjanabai and Kiran. The family had
 come to reside in this house at the end of
 August-1994 and continued to reside in this house
 for almost a year till 28.8.1995. The house was
 taken on rent for Rs.900/- alongwith a deposit of
 Rs.10,000/-. This witness identified the accused,
 Renuka, Seema and Kiran in the court as the persons
 who were given house no.970 situated at
 Gondhali-nagar area of Pune on rent. The
 prosecution then examined (PW 46) Kantabai Borkar
 who was the neighbour of the accused and who resided
 near house no.970 situated at Gondhalinagar. This
 witness Kantabai stated that she knew Anjanabai,
 Renuka, Seema and Kiran for a period of more than 1
 to 1 & 1/2 years. They used to meet at a public tap
 in order to take water. This public tap was
 situated near the house of (PW 47) Shakuntala
 Jadhav. She stated that after Kojagiri poornima,
 once Renuka & Seema had come to the water tap
 alongwith a small girl who was aged about 2 & 1/2 to
 3 years. Her appearance was of fair complexion.
 The girl was repeatedly crying. This witness asked
 Seema why the girl was crying. Seema told her that
 the girl was belonging to a relative from their
 village. The girl was crying because her mother was
 sick. This witness had once seen Kiran carrying
 this girl on a bicycle to a dispensary. She saw

¶438

 : 118 :

¶439

 this girl with the accused for a period about 1
 month to 1 & 1/4 month and after about 15 days from
 Diwali, this girl was not seen by her. She stated
 that the name of this girl was Pinky which was the
 name given to her by Renuka, Seema & Anjanabai.
 Later, on not noticing presence of Pinky, she had
 asked Seema as to where this girl had gone. Seema
 told her that the mother of the girl was discharged
 from the hospital and Kiran had sent the girl back
 to her house. This witness identified several
 photographs of the dead body of Pinky (Exh.87/1,
 87/2, 87/3 and 90) as being the girl whom she had
 seen with the accused in Gondhalinagar area. This
 witness also identified the photographs of the dead
 body of Pinky from amongst other photographs at the
 identification parade held by (PW 128) Ulhas Korane
 on 28.11.1996. As stated earlier, in respect of the
 identification parade, both the (PW 128) Ulhas
 Korane, who is the Special Judicial Magistrate who
 held this identification parade and (PW 19) Maruti
 Sonar, the panch in respect of this identificatin
 parade were examined by the prosecution. The proved
 holding of such a parade and the identificatios of
 the photographs of Anjali made therein. The
 prosecution then examined another neighbour by name
 (PW 47) Shakuntala Jadhav. This witness stated that
 she was residing at Gondhalinagar in front of the
 house of Khopade. She knew the accused, Anjanabai
 and Kiran as they were staying at their

¶440

 : 119 :

¶441

 neighbourhood for 1 to 1 & 1/2 years. After
 Kojagiri Poornima she saw one girl in the house of
 the accused aged about 1 to 1 & 1/2 years. Name of
 this girl was Pinky. Both the accused and Anjanabai
 used to call that girl by that name. She had asked
 Renuka about the girl Pinky and as to whom she
 belonged to. Renuka told her that the girl was of
 their relative who resided out of Poona. Renuka
 also told her that the mother of that girl was sick
 and therefore, they brought the girl with them as
 nobody was there to look after the girl. Pinky was
 with the accused for a period of about one month.
 That after Diwali, this girl Pinky was not found
 with the accused. This witness identified the
 photos of the dead body of Pinky (Exhs.90, 91, 87/1,
 87/2 and 87/3) as the photos of the girl seen by her
 alongwith the accused. She also identified
 photographs of the dead body in the test
 identification parade held on 28.11.1996 by (PW 128)
 Ulhas Korane. She identified the accused in the
 court. Her evidence relating to identification was
 corroborated by the evidence of (PW 128) Ulhas
 Korane, Special Judicial Magistrate and the panch
 (PW 19) Maruti Sonar in respect of the holding and
 identification at the test identification parade
 relating to the photographs. There is absolutely
 nothing in the cross-examination of any of these
 witnesses to cast a doubt on the version as stated
 by them. These witnesses had no reason to depose

¶442

 : 120 :

¶443

 against the accused persons. They are independant

¶444

 witnesses. The evidence of Kiran (PW 1)
 corroborates the evidence given by these witnesses
 and we have no hesitation to hold that the
 circumstances as aforesaid have been proved through
 this evidence led by the prosecution.

¶445

 (iv) Finding of the dead body of Anjali on
23.11.1994:-

¶446

 . This circumstance has been sought to be proved by
 the prosecution, firstly by examining (PW 22)
 Rajendra Sankpal. This witness was doing the
 business of running a nursery in the Hadapsar area
 of Pune. He stated that on 23.11.1994 when he was
 coming towards his nursery, he saw some persons
 gathered outside his nursery. He then saw that the
 dead body of a child aged about 2 to 2 & 1/2 years
 was lying there. He noticed that there were
 ligature marks on the neck of that body. He then
 went to the Hadapsar police station and lodged a
 report. (PW 25) Narsinh Kendgale who was a Police
 head constable then accompanied Rajendra to the spot
 where the dead body of the child was lying. He
 prepared a panchanama of the scene of the spot
 (Exh.143) and carried the dead body to Sasoon
 hospital where he prepared the inquest panchanama.
 (PW 24) Sudhir Karane had accompanied this Police
 constable and had taken 3 photographs of this dead

¶447

 : 121 :

¶448

 body. These 3 photographs are exhibited at Exhs.
 89, 90 & 91. He proved these photographs and their
 negatives which were handed over by him to the
 police. (PW 23) Nitin Korade was examined by the
 prosecution as the panch to the inquest panchanama
 (Exh.145). He stated that there were injuries on
 the chest, thigh and back of the dead body and
 ligature mark around the neck of the length of about
 7 inches. There is absolutely no challenge to this
 evidence by the defence and since these photographs
 have been identified by various other witnesses who
 have seen the child while she was living, in our
 view the circumstance of finding of the dead body of
 Anjali has been established.

¶449

 (v) Finding of injuries on the dead body of Anjali

¶450

 . This circumstance was sought to be proved by the
 prosecution by examining (PW 131) Dr.Laxmikant Bade.
 This witness had conducted the post mortem on the
 dead body of Anjali. He drew the post mortem and
 the post mortem indicates that there were in all 10
 antemortem wounds found on the dead body of Anjali.
 These wounds include contusions, fracture of the
 teeth, abrasions, contused abrasion, linear imprint
 abrasion and faint ligature mark on the back of the
 neck. He opined that the death of the child was due
 to asphyxia as a result of smothering. There is
 absolutely no challenge to this evidence of the

¶451

 : 122 :

¶452

 Doctor and hence, this circumstance can be said to
 have been proved.

¶453

 (vi) The lack of explanation about presence of
-
Anjali with them by the accused :

¶454

 . The accused in their 313 statements have given no
 explanation what-so-ever as to how Anjali came to be
 with them. This by itself is a circumstance which
 can be used against the accused.

¶455

 . In our view, in the aforesaid circumstances, the
 fact that Anjali was kidnapped and murdered as
 claimed by the prosecution can be said to have been
 proved beyond reasonable doubt. Upon the aforesaid
 evidence, in our view, the accused would be liable
 to be convicted under Sections 363 & 365 read with
 34 of IPC, and under Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC and
 Section 201 r/w 34 of Penal code, for the
 kidnapping, murder and attempt to dispose of the
 evidence relating to the dead body of Anjali.

¶456

 12. As regards the incident relating to the child
Raja @ Swapnil, the circumstantial and corroborative
 evidence against the accused is as under :-

¶457

 (i) A lodging of the kidnapping report on 7.3.1995
by the child’s mother Sharmila Ghodgire (PW 112).

¶458

 It was the prosecution case that the child Raja @

¶459

 : 123 :

¶460

 Swapnil was kidnapped in the first week of
 March-1995 from the S.T.stand at Kolhapur and killed
 in the 2nd week of March-1995 in the house of
 Khopade. His body was then thrown in the Khandala
 ghat immediately after the killing. The aforesaid
 circumstance is proved by the prosecution through
 the evidence of (PW 112) Sharmila Ghodgire. This
 witness is the mother of the child Raja @ Swapnil.
 She stated that on 6.3.1995 she had gone to village
 Nagaon and was returning from Nagaon to Kolhapur by
 S.T. Bus. She reached Kolhapur at 3.00 P.M. She
 wanted to go at her village Talandage. Her son was
 with her. At the Kolhapur S.T. stand one lady came
 near her and enquired as to where she wanted to go.
 Sharmila told this witness that she wanted to go to
 Talandage. The lady who had made the enquiry then
 sat with her and was chatting with her for about 1
 to 1 & 1/2 hours. She took her son with her by
 saying that she was going to buy a banana. She gave
 a basket containing a towel to this witness.
 However, when the lady did not return, Sharmila
 started to search for her. However, she could not
 trace either the lady or her son. She continued to
 search till 8.00 P.M. When her son Swapnil was
 taken, he was wearing silver rings in his wrist and
 gold muddis in his ears. She then went to the
 police station and lodged a complaint of kidnapping.
 She identified the FIR lodged by her and her
 signature thereon. She stated that the discription

¶461

 : 124 :

¶462

 of the lady was that she was slim by appearance,
 wheatish in complexion and aged about 28 years. In
 the court she identified Seema as being the woman
 who had approached her and taken away her child.
 She stated that on 14.12.1996, a test identification
 parade was held by a Magistrate and that she had
 identified accused Seema in the test identification
 parade. There is virtually no cross-examination of
 this witness. On behalf of the defence, it was
 pointed out that the discription given by this
 witness could not have been that of Seema since
 Seema was fair and at the relevant time must have
 been about 20 years of age. In our view, the
 discrepencies in the age mentioned cannot be given
 much importance. It cannot be forgotton that this
 witness was testifing in the court more than 4 years
 after the incident. Besides, to her identification
 in the court, there is corroboration in the form of
 identification at the test identification parade
 which was held on 14.12.1996 i.e. much earlier in
 point of time. There is absolutely no
 cross-examination in relation to the test

¶463

 identification parade, save and except to suggest
 that it was never held. Identification relating to
 the test identification parade has been further
 proved by the prosecution by examining (PW 137)
 Bhimrao Patil, Special Judicial Magistrate. He
 speaks about the holding of such an identification
 parade on 14.12.1996. From his evidence it can be

¶464

 : 125 :

¶465

 seen that (PW 112) Sharmila identified Seema. The
 version of this witness that Sharmila also
 identified Renuka & Anjanabai appears to be a
 bonafide mistake. It can be seen from the

¶466

 memorandum of identification parade (Exh.310) that
 Sharmila identified Seema alone and did not identify
 Renuka or any other person. The prosecution further
 examined (Pw 85) Ramrao Magdum who was the panch
 witness to the test memorandum panchanama (Exh.310).
 The lodging of the FIR by (PW 112) Sharmila has also
 been corroborated by the evidence of (PW 110) Head
 Constable Baburao Hukkeri who stated that Sharmila
 came to the police station on 7.3.1995 at about 7.30
 to 7.45 P.M. and lodged an FIR pertaining to the
 kidnapping of the child which was registered under
 C.R.No.54/95 under Section 363 of the IPC. He has
 proved the said FIR (Exh.423). In our view, all
 these facts prove the aforesaid circumstance.

¶467

 (ii) Identification of a basket and towel by the
approver Kiran:-

¶468

 . The basket containing a towel which was left by
 Seema with Sharmila was seized by (PW 111) PSI Ajit
 Khadake who was then attached to the Shapur police
 station and who had taken over the investigation
 from (PW 110) Head Constable Hukkeri. This witness
 had prepared a panchanama of the scene of the
 offence on 8.3.1995. He attached the basket and a

¶469

 : 126 :

¶470

 towel on the same day. He recorded the statement of
 5 witnesses and made an attempt to search the child

¶471

 as well as the accused but since they were not
 detected, he sent a A-summary report to the
 concerned Magistrate which was granted by the court.
 In so far as the seizure of the basket and a towel
 are concerned, the prosecution further examined (PW
 113) Ashok Jadhav. (PW 1) Kiran identified a
 plastic bag which according to him was purchased by
 him for Seema about 2 days before the kidnapping and
 which remained with the lady whose child was
 kidnapped at the Kolhapur S.T.stand. He described
 the plastic bag as being black & red in colour with
 a portion in yellow colour. The towel was not put
 up for identification before him.

¶472

 (iii) Version given by Kiran regarding kidnapping
and murder :-

¶473

 . Kiran has given a version regarding the
 kidnapping of Raja @ Swapnil which is at variance to
 that given by (PW 112) Sharmila. He claims that in
 March-1995 he alongwith the accused, Anjanabai and
 their children had been to Kolhapur. One day at
 about 2.30 to 3.00 P.M. at the S.T.stand, Kolhapur,
 Renuka, Seema and Anjanabai introduced themselves to
 one lady. The lady with whom the talk was going on
 told them that she was going to bring a banana and
 in the meanwhile, the child which was with Seema was

¶474

 : 127 :

¶475

 kidnapped by her. Seema told Kiran that the basket
 remained with the lady and one towel had been left
 in the plastic bag. Kiran told Seema it was better
 to leave the place instead of pursuing the plastic
 bag and therefore, they left the S.T.stand and went
 into Kolhapur city. Thereafter they left Kolhapur
 and returned to the house of Khopade at Pune.
 Renuka kept the name of the child as Raja. One day
 when the child Raja started crying, Seema dropped
 Raja on the flooring of the house itself and Raja
 died on the spot. We find that there is material
 variance in the version given by Kiran (PW 1) and
 that of given by (PW 112) Sharmila regarding the
 kidnapping of Raja. Firstly, Sharmila does not
 speak a word about being approached by Renuka or
 Anjanabai and has not identified them in the test
 identification parade held by (PW 137) Bhimrao

¶476

 Patil. The version of Sharmila is that Seema took
 the child and went away to buy a banana. The
 evidence of (PW 1) Kiran however is that the lady
 herself gone away to buy bananas.

¶477

 . From the aforesaid, on an overall assessment, we
 find that there is evidence to indicate that Seema
 kidnapped the child Swapnil from (PW 112) Sharmila
 on 7.3.1995. From this evidence and from the lack
 of any explanation coming forth from the accused, it
 can be said that the charge of kidnapping of the
 child of Swapnil @ Raja can be said to have been

¶478

 : 128 :

¶479

 proved. However, it is difficult to accept the
 evidence relating to the killing of Raja which only
 consists of the uncorroborated testimony of (PW 1)
 Kiran. As stated here-in-above, Kiran has
 attributed the killing of the child Raja to Seema
 and stated that when Seema was carrying the child,
 the child started crying, therefore, Seema dropped
 Raja on the floor. This version given in the
 substantive evidence is a complete omission in his
 confessional statement. This omission has also been
 proved by the defence through the evidence of (PW
 143) Vasant Sapre who recorded the confessional
 statement. In so far as disposal of the dead body
 of Raja, once again, the only evidence is that given
 by (PW 1) Kiran who claimed that the dead body was
 thrown in the Khandala ghat. The dead body of Raja
 was never recovered and in the circumstances, there
 is no evidence relating to any injuries suffered by
 Raja. Nobody has seen Raja together with these
 accused after the kidnapping, and there is no
 identification of the photograph of Raja by any
 witness. In our view, due to the absence of
 corroborative evidence, the benefit of doubt as
 regards the charges under Section 302 r/w 34 and
 Section 120-B, 201 r/w 34 and Section 120-B of IPC

¶480

 in so far as child Raja is concerned, will have to
 be given to the accused. However, the accused would
 be liable to be convicted for the offences
 punishable under Sections 363 & 365 r/w 34 of the

¶481

 : 129 :

¶482

 Penal Code.

¶483

 13. As regards the incidents pertaining to the

¶484

child Shraddha @ Bhagayshree @ Rani, the

¶485

 circumstantial and corroborative evidence is as

¶486

 under :-

¶487

 (i) Filing of the missing report by the grand-mother
of the child on 22.4.1995 and FIR relating to the

¶488

offence of kidnapping on 6.5.1995 :-

¶489

 . This circumstance is sought to be proved by the
 prosecution by examining (PW 33) Vijaya Mali who is
 the grand-mother of the child Bhagayshree. She
 stated in her evidence that in the year 1995, her
 daughter Joti alongwith her 2 children Yogesh aged
 about 5 years and Bhagayshree aged about 1 year & 9
 months were residing with her. Her daughter used to
 go to college as she was doing her M.A. That on

¶490

 22.4.1995, She had gone to the Mahalaxmi temple at
 Kolhapur at 11.00 A.M. Yogesh and Bhagayshree went

¶491

 with her when she gone in the temple. Bhagayshree

¶492

 was lost in the area of Mahalaxmi temple. She
 searched for the child for 2 hours. As the child

¶493

 could not be traced, she filed a missing complaint

¶494

 at Juna Rajwada police station. She identified the
 missing report which she had filed on 22.4.1995 and
 her signature thereon (Exh.166). She identified the
 photograph (article-C) being the photograph of

¶495

 : 130 :

¶496

 Bhagayshree from her family album. She stated that
 when Bhagayshree was kidnapped, she was wearing a
 yellow frock. She was wearing a gold earrings on
 her person and silver chains in her legs. She
 stated that she would not be able to identify these
 ornaments because of a long lapse of time. The fact
 that she had lodged the missing report was further
 proved by the prosecution through the evidence of
 (PW 35) Najir Makandar, who was the PSO incharge of
 Juna Rajwada police station on 22.4.1995. He proved
 his signature on the complaint (Exh.166). He stated
 that a search was made in the area but the child
 could not be found. The prosecution has further
 examined (PW 34) Savalaram Mali, who is the
 grand-father of Bhagayshree. He stated that as
 Bhagayshree could not be traced inspite of giving of
 the missing report, on 6.5.1995 he lodged a
 complaint with the Juna Rajwada Police station
 regarding kidnapping of Bhagayshree. He proved the
 contents of the complaint dated 6.5.1995 and his
 signature thereon. He stated that on 7.5.1995 he
 had also furnished a photograph of Bhagayshree to
 the police which was (article-C) attached under a
 panchanama. As regards the photograph, the
 prosecution examined (PW 38) Annasaheb Salgar, who
 was the panch regarding the production of photograph
 by (PW 34) Savalaram Mali. This photograph
 (article-C) was proved by this witness and the same
 has been exhibited as Exh.175). He also proved the

¶497

 : 131 :

¶498

 contents of the panchanama (Exh.176) and his
 signature thereof. The prosecution further examined
 (PW 36) Anandrao Bhakare, who was the Police head
 constable at Juna Rajwada police station, who
 registered C.R.No.65/95 and was the investigating
 officer when the panchanama (Exh.176) in respect of
 photograph of Bhagayshree was made. The prosecution
 further lastly examined (PW 40) Ramchandra Chougale,
 who was the API attached to Juna Rajwada Police
 station and who took over the investigation of
 C.R.No.65/95 from PSI Kadam and was incharge of the
 investigation till the same was transferred to CID
 branch. In our view, the aforesaid evidence clearly
 proves the aforesaid circumstance.

¶499

 (ii) Accused arriving in Kolhapur on the date of
kidnapping and sighted with Bhagayshree later in the
same day at Mahalaxmi Dharmashala :-

¶500

 . As seen from the evidence, Bhagayshree was
 kidnapped on 22.4.1995. In order to show that the
 accused were present at Kolhapur on the same day, it
 must be remembered that the prosecution was relying
 upon the evidence of (PW 1) Kiran who stated in his
 evidence that in the last week of April-1995 both
 the accused and Anjanabai had gone to Kolhapur while
 he remained at Pune. When they returned to Pune,
 there was a new girl with them aged about 1 & 1/2 to
 2 years. When he asked Renuka as to from where this

¶501

 : 132 :

¶502

 child was brought, She told Kiran that the child had
 been kidnapped from Mahalaxmi temple at Kolhapur.
 The child was named as Shraddha and was with the
 family for about 1 to 1 & 1/2 months, after which
 period the child was killed. Kiran had stated that
 while accused and Anjanabai had been to Kolhapur in
 the last week of April-1995, they had stayed at
 Mahalaxmi Dharmashala. He identified entry no.2736
 in the register of Mahalaxmi Dharmashala and the
 signature of Seema (Exh.26) on the said register.
 To prove this circumstance, the prosecution also led

¶503

 independent evidence. Firstly the prosecution
 examined (PW 45) Ganesh Une who was the manager of
 Mahalaxmi Dharmashala. This witness stated that he
 was the counter manager at Mahalaxmi Dharmashala on
 22.4.1995. That on 22.4.1995 Seema alongwith 2
 ladies and 2 children had come to Mahalaxmi
 Dharmashala. Seema signed the visitors’ register of
 the Dharmashala and made an entry being entry
 no.2736 on page-66 of the register. She signed at
 the end of the entry in the presence of this witness
 and gave all the information as contained in the
 register (Exh.190). Seema told this witness that
 the 2 ladies who were accompaning her were her
 sister and mother respectively. Seema was aged
 about 18 to 20 years. Her mother was aged about 50
 to 52 years and her sister was aged about 20 to 25
 years. He identified Seema and Renuka as the 2
 ladies who had come to the Dharmashala on 22.4.1995,

¶504

 : 133 :

¶505

 in the court. He stated that Seema had demanded the
 room for 3 days. She was charged Rs.10 towards
 deposit and Rs.21 towards rent and room no.4 was
 allotted to this group. He issued the receipt
 (Exh.191) to evidence payment of charges by Seema.
 The entry made by Seema indicated her address at
 Pune and the name of the other 2 ladies as mentioned
 in the register was Vaishali Kiran Shinde and Kamala
 Raju Bhor. He stated that he had charged Rs.10.50
 towards seva charges and Rs.10.50 towards
 electricity charges, Rs.21 towards rent and had
 issued the receipt which contained his signature.
 He proved the copy of the receipt at (Exh.192). He
 also proved (Exh.193) which was the office copy of
 the receipt in respect of the deposit given by
 Seema. He then instructed Shivaji Gavade who was
 one of the Peons in the Dharmashala to take the 3

¶506

 ladies and the children to the room. The ladies
 returned back within 10 minutes because the room
 alloted to them was not clean. Since this witness
 told them that no other room was available, the 3
 ladies started to quarrel with him. In view of the
 quarrel, the Chief Manager of the Dharmashala
 Mr.Savant came there. Savant tried to convince

¶507

 them, but they were not ready to hear. Then a
 sweeper by name Deshpande was called and this
 witness alongwith Deshpande went to clean the room
 and the room was cleaned. Again after 10 to 15
 minutes the 2 accused returned back to him and

¶508

 : 134 :

¶509

 demanded bedding, utensils and a stove. These
 articles were given by this witness to the accused
 after receiving Rs.78 towards the charges for 3
 days, He has issued the receipt, the copy of which
 (Exh.194) was proved by him. At 10.00 A.M. on that
 day, all the 3 ladies alongwith the 2 children left
 the room after telling this witness that they will
 return back at 2.00 P.M. On the witness asking
 Seema as to who these children were, Seema told this
 witness that they were children of her sister and
 their names were Ashish and Kishor. The family then
 left the Dharmashala. They all returned at 11.00
 A.M. to take the key. One more girl was there with
 Seema and this girl was crying and calling out for
 her grand-mother. The age of this girl was about 1
 to 1 & 1/2 years. This witness asked Seema as to
 whose girl she was and was told that she was
 daughter of her relative. They stated that they
 would like to leave the room, therefore, this
 witness handed over the key of the room. Thereafter
 the family returned all the articles taken from the
 Dharmashala and after deducting the charges, he
 returned the balance amount due to the lady. At
 this stage the original receipt of deposit was
 returned by Seema. The same was proved by this
 witness and exhibited as (Exh.95). All the ladies
 alongwith the 2 children and one girl left the lodge
 on the same day i.e. on 22.4.1995. This witness
 stated that the girl whom he had seen was wearing a

¶510

 : 135 :

¶511

 yellow frock. She had gold ear rings (dul) and
 silver strips (chain) on her legs. He identified
 these articles as (Articles-26 & 27). He identified
 the photograph of Anjali furnished by her
 grand-father to the police (Exh.179) as being that
 of the girl whom he has seen at Mahalaxmi
 Dharmashala. He also stated that he had identified
 the accused and Anjanabai in the test identification
 parade which had been held on 22.11.1996. He lastly
 identified the accused in the court. The evidence
 of this witness is corroborated by several documents
 produced by the prosecution. (Exh.191) is an
 application dated 22.4.1995 signed by Seema. This
 application appears to be a proforma application
 required to be signed for admission in the
 Dharmashala. It contains a column relating to the
 persons who would like to reside and the names of
 the 2 persons are given as Vaishali Kiran Shinde and
 Kamla Raju Bhor. The room alloted is shown as room
 no.4. Exhibits 192 & 193 are the Office Copy’s of
 the receipts issued to Seema, in respect of amounts,

¶512

 received from her. Similarly, Exh.194 is the
 receipt for an amount of Rs.78/- in respect of
 articles furnished to Seema and Exh.195 is the
 original receipt for the deposit amount received by
 the Dharmashala, which original was returned by
 Seema to the aforesaid witness at the time of
 departure. The evidence of this witness was further
 supported by the evidence of (PW 37) Sudhir Randive.

¶513

 : 136 :

¶514

 (PW 37) Sudhir Randive was the panch in respect of
 the seizure of the various registers (Articles-17 to
 25) of the Mahalaxmi Dharmashala and was the
 signatory to the panchanama dated 21.11.1997
 (Exh.173). One more register which was not found
 during the earlier seizure (Article-5) was seized
 under a separate panchanama dated 11.12.1996 which
 was proved by the prosecution through the evidence
 of (PW 72) Mangesh Borgaonkar. In our view, the
 above referred evidence proves the aforesaid
 circumstance beyond reasonable doubt.

¶515

 (iii) Seen with the child Shradha at Baroad between
21.5.1995 to 24.5.1995:-

¶516

 . According to the evidence given by (PW 1) Kiran,
 the entire family consisting of himself, accused,
 Anjanabai, Ashish, Tushar, Gaurav and other children
 had gone by bus initially to Surat, the ladies and
 the children later proceeded to Ahmedabad and Baroda
 to commit thefts. The party included Bhagayshree @
 Shradha. Initially, at Surat, they had halted at
 Sahil Lodge in front of the railway station of
 Surat. The room was taken in the name of Seema
 after effecting necessary entries in the register.
 They stayed for 4 days at Sahil Lodge. During this
 period, Anjanabai and the accused alongwith
 Bhagayshree @ Shradha committed thefts. While the
 ladies were at work, Kiran used to reside in the

¶517

 : 137 :

¶518

 lodge and look after the children. After 4 days,
 Kiran told the ladies that he had to go to Pune to
 attend the marriage of his friend. Therefore, he
 left the room and went to Pune. The ladies and
 children stayed at Ahmedabad for 5 days after which
 they returned to Baroda where they stayed for 3
 days, ultimately returning to Pune. The prosecution
 has led independent evidence to indicate that the
 accused were seen with Bhagayshree @ Shradha when
 they were residing at Pravasi Gruha at Baroda from
 21.5.1995 to 24.5.1995. The first witness that has
 been examined to prove this circumstance, is (PW 55)
 Jamubhai Vasava. This witness, at the relevant time
 was serving as a Manager at the Pravasi Guest House
 which was under the management of Baroda Municipal
 Council. He stated that on 21.5.1995 at about 4.00
 P.M., 3 ladies with 4 children came to their Guest
 house and demanded a room. The witness gave them an
 application form as per procedure, the same was
 filled-in by the lady named Seema. He stated that
 they wanted to stay for a day only and gave Rs.140/-
 towards rent. Seema then signed the register and
 room no.4 was alloted to this family. They stayed
 for a period of 3 days and on the next day, they
 filled an extension form which was also signed by
 Seema. In the court, this witness identified Seema.
 He stated that the girl who was with this party was
 named Shradha and she was crying repeatedly. The
 family left the Guest house on 24.5.1995. This

¶519

 : 138 :

¶520

 witness was shown a photograph (Exh.175) of Shradha.
 He identified the said photograph as being that of
 the girl whom he had seen in his Guest house. Since
 Seema had signed in his presence, he proved her
 signature on the admission and extension form
 (Exh.221 & 222) respectively. He stated that on the
 first day, he had accepted Rs.140/- and at the time
 of giving an extension, he accepted Rs.280/- and on
 their leaving, he made a refund after making
 adjustment. The evidence of this witness is
 corroborated by the documentary evidence which was
 seized by the police from Pravasi Gruha. The
 application form indicates that the same is signed
 by Seema and bears a date 21.5.1995. The extension
 form is also signed as Seema Raju Bhor and is dated
 23.5.1995. (PW 56) Ramchandra Shedage is yet
 another witness examined by the prosecution to prove
 this circumstance. This witness was a Peon attached
 to the said Guest house. He stated that on
 21.5.1995 at about 4.00 P.M., one old lady, 2 young
 ladies and 4 children came to the guest house. The
 girl child with this group was aged about 2 to 2 &
 1/2 years and was repeatedly crying. Since the girl
 used to cry, the old lady used to move around with
 her in the Varandha and this witness had asked the
 elder lady as to why this girl was crying. The
 elder lady replied that since the girl was missing
 her mother, who was her maternal aunt, she was
 crying. He stated that the 2 ladies who accompanied

¶521

 : 139 :

¶522

 the elder lady were Seema & Renuka. He identified
 the photograph of Bhagayshree @ Shradha (Exh.175) in
 the court. He also identified Seema in the court.
 The evidence of the aforesaid 2 witnesses, in our
 view, is sufficient to establish the aforesaid
 circumstance. The criticism that was directed
 against these witnesses was that, it would be
 difficult for these witnesses to identify the
 photograph of the child after long lapse of time.
 It cannot however, be forgotton that the accused and
 children were staying in the Guest house for 4 days
 according to these witnesses, the girl child used to
 cry and they had occasion to see her frequently. It
 cannot be forgotton that these witnesses are
 completely independent witnesses. We thus hold that
 this circumstance is proved.

¶523

 (iv) The accused being seen with Bhagayshree @
Shradha in the house of Khopade in Gondhalinagar
area of Pune after the kidnapping from Kolhapur :-

¶524

 . This circumstance is proved by the prosecution by
 examining (PW 46) Kantabai Borkar. She has stated
 that the family of the accused were residing next to
 her for 1 to 1 & 1/2 years. In the last week of
 April-1995, she saw one more girl aged about 1 to 1
 & 1/2 years with Anjanabai and accused. This girl
 was wearing a yellow frock and had earrings with a
 red stone in her ears. She was also having silver

¶525

 : 140 :

¶526

 strips on her legs. This girl used to sit on the
 plat-form near the house and cry for her mother.
 When the witness asked Renuka as to who this girl
 was and why she was crying, she was told by Renuka
 that the girl belonged to her maternal aunt who was
 ill. She told this witness as there was nobody to
 look after this child, she had brought this girl
 with them. Shradha was also being brought by the
 accused at the public water tap. This witness saw
 Shradha with the accused for a period of 15 to 20
 days. In the month of May-1995, at about 10.00 to
 10.30 A.M. all the ladies alongwith the children
 and Kiran were seen by her, going out of the house.
 This witness asked Renuka as to where they were
 going in the morning itself. Renuka told her that
 they were going out of Pune. This witness
 identified a photograph of Shradha (Exh.175) as the
 photograph of the girl alongwith the accused. She
 also identified a photograph of Shradha similar to
 the photograph (Exh.175) in an identification parade
 held by a Special Judicial Magistrate (PW 143)
 Vasant Sapre on 30.11.1996 from amongst 7
 photographs kept on the table. She identified both
 Seema & Renuka in the court. To the same effect, is
 the evidence of (PW 47) Shakuntala Jadhav who was
 another neighbour of the family of the accused and
 who had seen the family of the accused for 1 to 1 &
 1/2 years. She stated that in April-1995 she saw
 one more girl residing with the family of the

¶527

 : 141 :

¶528

 accused. The accused used to call this girl as
 Shradha. Renuka had told this witness that Shradha
 was the daughter of her maternal aunt residing in
 the village. Urmila was the daughter of this
 witness. Urmila used to bring Shradha to her house
 to play with her. Shradha was with the accused for
 a period of 15 to 20 days. This witness stated that
 when she saw Shradha, she was wearing a yellow
 frock. She identified the photograph of Shradha
 (Exh.175) as the girl whom she saw with the accused.
 She had identified the said photograph (Exh.175) in
 an identification parade held on 30.11.1996 by (PW
 143) Vasant Sapre. This photograph was identified
 from 7 photographs kept by the Magistrate on the
 table. The identification of the photograph of
 Shradha by the aforesaid witnesses (PW 46) Kantabai
 Borkar & (PW 47) Shakuntala Jadhav in a test
 identification parade held by (PW 143) Special
 Judicial Magistrate Vasant Sapre was also proved by
 the prosecution by examining the said Special
 Judicial Magistrate. He has proved the panchanama
 (Exh.209) in respect of the said test identification
 parade and has identified his signature on the memo.
 He stated that (Exh.175) is the same photograph
 identified by these witnesses on that day. He
 testified that his signature and signature of the
 panchas had been put behind the back of the
 photographs and on his identification the same were
 exhibited as Exhibit No. 201/1 & 201/2. He

¶529

 : 142 :

¶530

 testified the manner in which the identification
 parade was held and stated that the single
 photograph was mixed with 6 dummy photographs.
 There is nothing of any substance elicited in the
 cross-examination of this witness. In our view, the
 aforesaid evidence clearly proves the circumstance
 mentioned here-in-above.

¶531

 (v) Non sighting of the child Shradha in Pune by (PW
46) Kantabai Borkar & (PW 47) Shakuntala Jadhav

¶532

 after May-1995 :-

¶533

 . In their evidence, both these witnesses, stated
 that they saw Bhagayshree @ Shradha with the accused
 for a period of 15 to 20 days. (PW 46) Kantabai
 stated that she saw the accused Anjanabai, Kiran and
 the children including Shradha going out of the
 premises in May-1995. She had asked Renuka as to
 where they were going, upon which Renuka told her
 that they were going out of Pune and were returning
 after 10 to 12 days. The girl Shradha was not with
 them when they returned. Then this witness asked
 Renuka where Shradha was and was told that Shradha
 was left with her maternal aunt who was now feeling

¶534

 well. (PW 47) Shakuntala Jadhav also stated that
 after a period of 20 to 25 days, she asked Renuka
 about Shradha and Renuka told her that Shradha was

¶535

 sent back to her mother as her mother was alright
 and feeling well. This evidence proves the

¶536

 : 143 :

¶537

 aforesaid circumstance.

¶538

 (vi) The complete absence of any explanation from
the accused about the presence of Shradha with them
and the absence of Shradha after the end of May-1995
 :-

¶539

 . In the 313 statements, the accused have not given
 any explanation what-so-ever about the manner in
 which Shradha came to live with them in or about the
 last week of April-1995 or about Shradha not being
 seen with the family after they returned to Pune.
 This lack of explanation in the 313 statement
 coupled with the false explanation given by Renuka
 to (PW 46) Kantabai and (PW 47) Shakuntala which we
 have already referred to here-in-above is an
 additional circumstance against them :-

¶540

 (vii) The selling of the ornaments worn by
Bhagayshree @ Shradha to a Goldsmith by Renuka:-

¶541

 . This circumstance is proved by the prosecution
 through the evidence of (PW 49) Bharat Maid. This
 witness was a Goldsmith by profession and the owner
 of a jewellery shop by name Pravin Jewellers. He
 knew Renuka Shinde personally as she had earlier
 sold gold and silver ornaments to him. He stated
 that in June-1995, Renuka came to his shop which was
 situated at Karve road in Pune. She told him that

¶542

 : 144 :

¶543

 her son was sick and she was in need of money for
 his treatment. She said that she wanted to sell
 and/or mortgage the gold rings & silver painjans.
 On the witness asking her, she told the witness that
 the receipt for these ornaments were lost.
 Goldsmith then retained the ornaments and gave an
 amount of Rs.800/- to Renuka. These ornaments were
 subsequently seized from the shop of this witness in
 their original form under a panchanama dated
 23.11.1996. He identified articles-26 & 27 as the
 gold earrings and silver painjans which were seized
 from his shop. The seizure of these ornaments was
 further proved by the prosecution through the
 evidence of (PW 51) Pradeep Bakare who was the panch
 in respect of the memorandum statement given by
 Renuka and the subsequent discovery and seizure of
 the aforesaid gold and silver ornaments from the
 shop of (PW 49) Bharat Maid. This witness stated
 that on 23.11.1996 he was called to act as a panch
 and in his presence, Renuka stated that on 22.5.1995
 a girl had been kidnapped from the area of Mahalaxmi
 temple and the earrings and the painjans worn by
 this girl were sold by her at one shop at Pune. She
 offered to show the shop. Accordingly, Renuka led

¶544

 the police and panch party to the shop belonging to

¶545

 (PW 49) Bharat Maid and the ornaments were
 recovered. There is nothing in the

¶546

 cross-examination or other evidence which would lead

¶547

 us to dis-believe this discovery said to have been

¶548

 : 145 :

¶549

 made at the behest of accused Renuka. It must be
 remembered here that these ornaments have been
 identified by (PW 46) Kantabai, (PW 47) Shakuntala
 Jadhav and (PW 1) Kiran. In our view, all the
 witnesses concerned, (except Kiran) are independent
 witnesses. There is nothing to shake their version
 in their cross-examination and therefore, this
 circumstance can be said to have been proved by the
 prosecution.

¶550

 . In conclusion, in our view, the various
 circumstances which according to us have been proved
 here-in-above, form independent links, which
 together form a complete chain of circumstances on
 the basis of which it can be held that the
 prosecution has proved the kidnapping and murder of
 the child Bhagayshree @ Shradha. According to the
 evidence of (Pw 1) Kiran, Shradha was killed by
 Anjanabai by pressing her neck in a taxi on one of
 their visits to Surat and her dead body was disposed
 off on the side of the road by the ladies at about

¶551

 1.30 A.M. somewhere between Thane and Surat. We
 are aware of the fact that dead body of Shradha was
 not found in this case. It is not necessary in
 every case that the corpus delecti must be found in
 order to prove the case of murder. In the present
 case we have the evidence of (PW 1) Kiran relating
 to the disposal of the ornaments taken from the dead
 body of Shradha while the body was disposed off.

¶552

 : 146 :

¶553

 The recovery of these ornaments is a proved
 circumstance which would aid us in the conviction of
 murder. The accused would be liable to be convicted
 for the offence under Section 363 & 365 r/w 34 of
 IPC in respect of the kidnapping of Bhagayshree @
 Shradha, would be further liable for conviction
 under Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC in respect of the
 murder of Bhagayshree @ Shradha and would lastly be
 liable to be convicted for offences under Section
 201 r/w 34 of IPC for concealing the evidence
 pertaining to the murder of the child Bhagayshree @
 Shradha.

¶554

 15. Incident relating to kidnapping of Kranti :-

¶555

 . Kranti was a child aged about 9 years. She was a
 daughter of (PW 21) Pratibha Mohan Gavit, who was
 the step-mother of the accused. Pratibha Mohan
 Gavit was the 2nd wife of Mohan Gavit who was the
 earlier husband of Anjanabai. The prosecution has
 sought to prove the charge of kidnapping of Kranti
 firstly through the evidence of (PW 21) Pratibha
 Gavit. This witness stated that she married Mohan
 Gavit in 1986 and in 1995 they had gone to stay in
 Nasik. Kranti, Devali and Dipali were the 3
 daughters born to her from Mohan. Kranti used to go
 to a school situated at the Panchavati area of
 Nasik. At the time of the incident, she was in the
 3rd standard. Devali used to attend Rani Laxmibai

¶556

 : 147 :

¶557

 School situated at Sita Gumpha, Panchavati. She was
 studying in the first standard. Anjanabai was the
 first wife of Mohan and the accused were the
 children of Mohan from his first wife. That on
 29.8.1995 at about 9.30 P.M. both the accused had
 come to their house and stated that Anjanabai was
 repeatedly remembering Kranti. They wanted to take
 Kranti to meet Anjanabai. However, Mohan told the
 accused that he could not leave Kranti because she
 was under going her examination. It was only upon
 the persistent insistence of the accused that Mohan
 ultimately gave his consent to take Kranti with
 them. The accused gave them the address where they
 were staying and promised to send Kranti back on the
 next day morning. This promise was however, not
 fulfilled. Pratibha and husband Mohan then went to
 the address furnished by the accused but could not
 find the accused, Anjanabai or Kranti. They
 searched for 4 to 5 months and continued the search
 even thereafter. During all this period, Mohan used
 to tell her that there was no problem as the accused
 were close relatives and would ultimately sent
 Kranti back. That on 20.10.1996, Pratibha had been
 to the market to bring vegetables. She accidently

¶558

 saw both the accused. She enquired from them as to
 where Kranti was and were told that Kranti was with
 their mother Anjanabai. They also told Pratibha
 that as she had spoiled the marital life of their
 mother Anjanabai, she would not get back her

¶559

 : 148 :

¶560

 daughter Kranti. Thereafter, Pratibha came back to
 their house and informed her husband about the

¶561

 incident. She and her husband returned to the
 market place where the accused has been seen but
 could not trace the accused. They then went to the
 Katya Maruti police chowky and a constable by name
 Pardeshi accompanied them to search for the accused.
 During the search both the accused were found in the
 same area by the police. They were immediately
 taken into custody and taken to the police station.
 A formal complaint was lodged by Pratibha at the
 Panchavati police station on 22.10.1996 and through
 the evidence of Pratibha, the prosecution proved her
 signature on the complaint. The said complaint
 corroborates the evidence of this witness. On
 19.11.1996 this witness was called in the office of
 CID Nasik alongwith photographs of Kranti. She
 carried 2 photographs of Kranti and the same were
 attached under a panchanama. She identified the
 photograph (exh.139) as being the photograph of her
 daughter. In the court also she identified 2
 articles being articles EE/1, EE/2 to be the
 photographs of her daughter Kranti. The fact that
 Kranti was taken by the accused is further sought to
 be corroborated by the evidence of (PW 32) Kishor
 Makwana, who was the owner of flat no.A/5 situated
 in Nakool Apartment on N.D.Patel Road at Nashik.
 One broker by name of Chandrakant had brought Renuka
 to meet him and he had given this flat on monthly

¶562

 : 149 :

¶563

 rent of Rs.1500/- subject to payment of a deposit of
 Rs.10,000/-. Rinku Shinde was his tenant and an
 agreement was made with her giving the flat on lease
 for the period of 11 months. The agreement was
 signed by this witness, Rinku @ Renuka and
 Chandrakant Jadhav. The agreement was dated
 25.8.1995 (Exh.159). This witness stated that
 alongwith Rinku one young lady who was her sister
 and an older lady was their mother were also
 residing. He identified Rinku as Renuka and her
 sister as Seema. He stated that the family had paid
 an amount of Rs.10,000/- in cash and they had stayed
 there for a period of 8 months. That he used to
 visit this flat alongwith intending purchasers. He
 had seen that the family of the accused consisted of
 3 ladies and 3 children. On one occasion when he
 went there about 2 to 2 & 1/2 months after the
 arrival of the accused, he saw one more female child
 aged about 1 to 1 & 1/2 years. He identified the
 photograph Gauri to be that of the child whom he had
 so seen. It appears from the evidence of this
 witness that the owner had no occasion to see the
 kidnapped girl Kranti. However, the prosecution led
 further evidence of another lady (PW 41) Vidya
 Kulkarni who was residing in the same apartment
 since 1991. It appears that Nakool apartments
 consists of 2 buildings and while the family of the
 accused were staying in building no.1, this witness
 was staying in flat no.3 of building no.2. The

¶564

 : 150 :

¶565

 galleries of these 2 flats were however, facing each
 other and the distance between these gallaries was
 only 5 to 6 feet. The witness stated that from her
 flat she could look into the flat of the accused.
 She stated that when the family of the accused came
 to reside there during the period 29-30/8/1995,
 their family comprised of Anjanabai, accused, 4 male
 children and a girl aged about 10 years. The height
 of this girl was about 4 to 5 feet and the girl was
 not very fair. She was told by Anjanabai that the
 name of this girl was Kranti and she was a daughter
 of the 2nd wife of her ex-husband. Anjanabai used
 to beat Kranti. This witness had questioned
 Anjanabai about the beating of Kranti but Anjanabai
 told her that it was none of her business. This
 incident of the beating of Kranti was told by this
 witness to her husband, but the husband told her not
 to pay attention to the affairs of others.
 According to her, Kranti was with this family up to
 4.12.1995. On that day she had seen both the
 accused alongwith Anjanabai going out of the house
 with the 4 children and Kranti and had asked
 Anjanabai as to where they were going. Anjanabai
 replied that they were going to Pune. The family
 returned after 5 to 6 days but Kranti was not found
 with them. This witness identified both the accused
 in the court. She also identified the photograph at
 (Exh.139) and the photographs (articles EE/1 & EE/2)
 as the photographs of the girl Kranti who used to

¶566

 : 151 :

¶567

 reside alongwith the family of the accused. These
 photographs were identified by her in the court from
 amongst a bunch of photograph handed over to her.
 For the purpose of completion of the picture it must
 be stated here that the photographs of Kranti
 produced on 19.11.1996 had been seized under a
 panchanama (Exh.163) which was proved through the
 evidence of (PW 31) Pandurang Karwar. There are
 other witnesses who have seen the accused alongwith
 Kranti. (PW 122) Ganpatrao Chavan was a taxi
 driver. According to him one day while his taxi was
 parked near the S.T.stand Kolhapur, one male, 3
 ladies, 3 small boys and one girl came near his
 taxi. One of these ladies was an elderly person
 aged 50 to 55 years. The 2nd lady was aged about 24
 to 25 years. The 3rd was aged about 24 to 25 years
 and was a married lady. The male was aged about 30
 to 35 years and was strong and stout. The married
 lady told him that they wanted to go to Narasoba
 Wadi. They hired his vehicle. The male and the
 girl aged about 7 to 8 years were sitting with him

¶568

 whereas the 3 ladies and children were sitting
 behind. After receiving an advance, he proceeded
 towards Narsoba wadi. After covering a distance of
 7 to 8 K.M., the girl who was sitting on the front
 side started crying and was slapped by the elderly
 lady sitting behind. When they reached Narsoba
 wadi, after about 1 to 1 & 1/2 hours, the elderly
 lady asked him to stop the vehicle near a Sugar cane

¶569

 : 152 :

¶570

 field. All the persons got down. The old lady sat
 outside the vehicle and asked him to proceed ahead
 and wait near the taxi stand. After some time, the
 3 ladies, 3 boys and the male came to the taxi
 stand. He enquired as to what had happened to the
 girl and was told that the mother of the girl had
 met the family at the fair at Wadi and the girl had
 gone away with the mother. This witness identified
 Kiran as the male. He also identified in the court
 both the accused as the two females who had engaged
 his taxi. He further identified in the court the
 photograph of Kranti (Exh.139) from amongst a bunch
 of photographs. This witness had also identified
 the accused and Anjanabai in an test identification
 parade held by the Special Judicial magistrate (PW
 143) Vasant Sapre on 14.12.1996. The prosecution
 also examined (PW 123) Janabai Sawant who was the
 manager of Maharaja lodge at Kolhapur. He stated
 that on 6.12.1995 at about 6.20 A.M. 3 ladies, 1
 gents, 3 small boys and one girl aged about 9 years
 came to his hotel for hiring a room and he had
 alloted room no.3 to them. The lady who had signed
 the lodge register in his presence was Seema and she
 had signed as Seema Raju Bhor. He identified the
 signature of Seema. He stated that the old lady was
 not present in the court but he identified Renuka &
 Kiran as the other female and male who had come to
 reside at Maharaja lodge. That they left Maharaja
 lodge at about 10.15 A.M. on the same day. At that

¶571

 : 153 :

¶572

 time this witness passed a receipt for the amount of
 Rs.120/-. He produced the office copy of the
 receipt at (Exh.464). This witness then identified
 the photograph of Kranti (Exh.139) in the court from
 amongst a bunch of photographs. He had identified
 both the accused in an identification parade held by
 Vasant Sapre (PW 143) on 14.12.1996. In the said
 identification parade, he had also identified Kiran
 Shinde. This witness had also identified the
 photograph of Kranti (Exh.139) in the test
 identification parade held by Vasant Sapre. The
 prosecution examined (PW 143) Vasant Sapre to prove
 the holding of the test identification parade in
 respect of the identification of the accused by (PW
 123) Savant and (PW 122) Chavan. The panch in
 respect of the test identification parade (PW 133)
 Gajanan was also examined. In our view, all this
 evidence was led to indicate that the child Kranti
 was found to be living with the accused from end of
 August-1995. It was however, contended on behalf of
 the defence that the evidence of (PW 21) Pratibha
 itself indicated that Kranti was taken after
 obtaining the consent of her father. In our view,
 that cannot help the defence. Section 90 of the
 Indian Penal Code deals with consent known to be
 given under fear or under mis-conception of fact.
 The relevant portion of Section 90 is as follows :-

¶573

 . Section-90 Consent known to be given under fear
 or misconception.- A consent is not such a consent

¶574

 : 154 :

¶575

 as it intended by any section of this Code, if the
 consent is given by a person under fear of injury,
 or under a misconception of fact, and if the person
 doing the act knows, or has reason to believe, that
 the consent was given in consequence of such fear or
 misconception; or ............"

¶576

 . The Apex court in the case of Uday V/s. State of
Karnataka reported in 2003 (4) SCC 46 has held that
 2 conditions must be fulfilled for the application
 of Section 90. Firstly it must be shown that the
 consent was given under a misconception of fact and
 secondly it must be proved that the person who
 obtained the consent knew, or had reason to believe
 that the consent was given in consequence of such
 misconception.

¶577

 . In the present case the accused managed to obtain
 the consent of the father of Kranti by telling him
 that Kranti would be returned on the next day. The
 father of Kranti was clearly under a misconception
 of fact that Kranti was to be returned home on the
 next day. It was then contended by the defence that
 the father and mother of Kranti had been negligent
 and had not taken any steps to lodge any complaint
 for more than 1 year. In fact the evidence of
 Pratibha indicated that the father of Kranti was
 telling her that Kranti was taken by her relations
 and would be returned. In our view, once the lack
 of consent at the time of the taking of the minor
 child was established, subsequent events will have

¶578

 : 155 :

¶579

 no bearing on the question as to whether an offence
 of kidnapping was committed. The trial court has
 further disbelieved the story of the killing of
 Kranti and has acquitted the accused of all charges
 related to Section 302 & 201, r/w 34 and 120-B of
 IPC. This acquittal was principally because of the
 fact that the dead body of the girl Kranti was not
 found. The State has chosen not to file any appeal
 against this acquittal and in the circumstances, for
 the reasons already discussed in detail
 here-in-above, we would not be in a position to
 convert the acquittal in respect of these charges
 into a conviction and therefore, we do not propose
 to deal with the evidence in this regard. In our
 view, the conviction of the accused for the
 kidnapping of Kranti is well founded and the accused
 would be liable to be convicted for the offence
 under Sections 363 and 365 r/w 34 and 120-B of the
 IPC. Section 364 may not be attracted in this case
 because there is no evidence to indicate that the
 purpose of taking Kranti from her parents was with
 the intention to kill her as it appears that Kranti
 was kept by the accused for more than a year. The
 intention of kidnapping appears to be to teach the
 mother of Kranti a lesson for spoiling her marital
 life.

¶580

 16. Incidents relating to the attempt to kidnap the
child Devali :-

¶581

 : 156 :

¶582

 (i) Devali was the younger sister of Kranti.
 According to the prosecution, she was studying in
 the 1st Std. at Rani Laxmi Bai Primary School,
 Nasik. The said school was situated in the area of
 Seeta Gunfa at Nasik. According to the prosecution
 an attempt to kidnap Devali was made by the accused

¶583

 on 10.10.1996. On that day, (PW 26) Sumanbai who
 was the peon in the school was standing near the
 class of Balwadi. The 2 accused came to her. She
 has described one as a lady aged 25 to 26 years and
 the other lady aged about 20 years. She identified
 the 2 ladies in the court as Renuka and Seema
 respectively. Renuka told her that sister of Devali
 was sick and that her mother had sent them to get
 Devali. The witness told her that she was not ready
 to send the child with them and they should come
 alongwith the mother of the child. They then
 attempted to bribe her by offering to pay her
 Rs.1000/- but the witness refused to agree to this
 request and hence, they went away. This witness has
 identified these accused in an identification parade
 held by (PW 130) Shivaji Powar on 8.11.1996. She
 had then informed this incident to the teacher of
 the School (PW 26) Mangala Parnerkar. This teacher
 Mangala stated in her evidence that on 10.10.1996 at
 about 2 to 2.30 P.M. she was in the class room and
 at that time (PW 26) Suman came to her and told her
 that 2 ladies had been to the school at about 2.00

¶584

 : 157 :

¶585

 P.M. and had asked her to allow them to take Devali
 with them. That this request was made on the
 footing that they were step sisters of Devali. They
 had also tried to bribe her with an amount of
 Rs.1000/-. The prosecution examined (PW 130)
 Shivaji Powar to prove the identification of the
 accused by (PW 26) Mangala in an identification
 parade held on 8.11.1996. The panchanama in respect
 of the memorandum of parade was proved by the
 prosecution through the evidence of (PW 16) Milind
 Gangurde. In our view, all this evidence is
 sufficient to indicate that these accused with their
 common intention of kidnapping Devali made an
 attempt to kidnap her. They would therefore, both
 be guilty of an offence punishable under Sections
 511 r/w 363 r/w 34 of the IPC. There is no precise
 evidence to indicate that the attempt of kidnapping
 this child was for the purpose of murder or to put
 her in danger of murder. In fact Devali was a step
 sister and it appears that unlike the case of other
 children the intention was not to use Devali for
 commission of theft but was to teach her mother a
 lesson for spoiling the mariatal life of Anjanabai.

¶586

 17. As regards the incident pertaining to the

¶587

child Gouri @ Bhawana the circumstances and
 corroborative evidence is as under:

¶588

 i) Filing of the missing report by the mother

¶589

 : 158 :

¶590

of the child on 4.1.1996.

¶591

 . This circumstance is sought to be proved
 by the prosecution by examining P.W.No.17 Chhaya
 i.e. the mother of the child Gouri @ Bhawana.
 Chhaya states that on 3.1.12996, her mother Genabai
 had been to the area of Mhasoba Maidan to purchase
 vegetables. This area is at a five minutes walking
 distance from her house. When her mother was
 purchasing vegetables, her daughter Bhawana was
 missed from the spot. Her mother came home weeping
 as Bhawana could not be found. Chhaya and her
 mother made all attempts to search for Bhawana and
 ultimately on the next date i.e. 4.1.1996 Chhaya
 filed a missing report with the police. The
 contents of this missing report and the signature
 thereof of Chhaya were proved by this witness
 (Exh.273). This witness gave a detailed description
 of her daughter to the police and also handed over a
 photograph of Bhawana to the police which was taken
 on record by P.W.No.7-Police Head Constable Sahibrao
 Wagh. She identified the photograph Article GG as
 being the photograph of her daughter Bhawana. This
 photograph was exhibited as Exh.37/C. She also
 identified in the court three more photographs of
 her daughter bearing Article No.M-I, MM-II and
 MM-III, out of which, photographs as Articles MM-II
 and MM-III were of Bhawana when living and the
 photograph Article MM-I which was subsequently

¶592

 : 159 :

¶593

 exhibited as Exh.288(2) was of the dead body of
 Bhawana. She had also identified a photograph of
 child Bhawana in a test identification parade held
 on 8.1.1997 by Special Judicial Magistrate
 P.W.No.130 Shivaji Pawar. The filing of the missing
 complaint is further proved by the prosecution
 through the evidence of P.W.No.87 Chatursingh Rajput
 who at the relevant time was the Police Head
 Constable attached to the Panchavati Police Station.
 This witness had also recorded the station diary
 entry No.34 on 4.1.1996 and this entry was proved by
 him (Exh.313). He also identified that entry in the
 missing register as it was recorded in his
 handwriting. He then handed over the investigation
 to P.W.No.71 Police Head Constable Sahibrao Wagh.
 P.W.No.71 Police Head Constable Sahibrao Wagh was
 then attached to Panchavati Police Station as a Head
 Constable. On taking over the investigation he made
 a search for the missing girl and gave information
 as regards this girl in the newspaper alongwith her
 description. He continued with the investigation
 for a year and then handed over the same to P.I.
 Gamane of C.I.D. Crime Branch. The photograph of
 the child was attached by P.I. Gamane. He also
 handed over all the documents concerning the case to
 P.I. Gamane. In our view there is no reason for
 disbelieving the evidence and therefore, this
 circumstance is held to be proved.

¶594

 : 160 :

¶595

 ii) Child bhawana seen together with the accused
after kidnapping in January-1996 and not being seen
at the residence of the accused from May-1996.

¶596

 . It was the prosecution case that Gouri had
 been kidnapped from the custody of her grand mother
 near the vegetable market. She was a child aged
 about 2.1/2 years. She had been kidnapped by the
 accused in January,1996 and thereafter she was
 brought in a rickshaw to the flat of P.W.No.32
 Kishore Makwana. Kiran was then with the accused.
 The family including Kiran stayed in a flat of
 Makwana for about 3 to 4 days with Bhawana. Renuka
 named this child as Gouri. Kiran then returned to
 his room at Pune while accused-Anjanabai, Gouri and
 other children continued to reside in the flat of
 Makwana. The circumstance of the accused being seen
 together with the child Bhawana @ Gouri has been
 sought to be proved by the prosecution through the
 evidence of P.W.No.32 Kishore Makwana who was the
 owner of Nakool Apartments where the accused were
 residing with Bhawana @ Gouri, Anjanabai and other
 children. This witness has stated that Flat No.A/5
 in Nakool Apartments had been taken on rent for a

¶597

 period of 11-months by Rinku @ Renukabai Shinde.

¶598

 The flat was given on rent through a broker by name
 Chandrakant Jadhav. He identified Renukabai as
 Rinku in the court. He further identified her
 younger sister as Seema in the court. He

¶599

 : 161 :

¶600

 thereafter, stated that after about 2 to 2.1/2
 months he had taken an intending purchaser to the
 flat to show him the same. He had seen the family
 of the accused in the flat which comprised of three
 ladies and three children when he went to show the
 flat. After about 2.1/2 months he saw one female
 child aged about 1 to 1.1/2 years. The child was
 fair looking with curly hairs. He identified the
 photograph of Bhawana @ Gouri (Exh.237) to be the
 photograph of the girl whom he had seen alongwith
 the accused in his flat. He stated that even
 thereafter, he had seen the said girl 2 to 3 times
 and the said girl was with the accused when the
 accused left the said flat. It further appears from
 his evidence that this witness had identified the
 photograph of Bhawana @ Gouri on 8.1.1997. This
 test identification parade was held by P.W.No.130
 Sahibrao Wagh and the photograph identified was
 Article-GG.

¶601

 (iii) The prosecution then examined a neighbour
 P.W.No.129 Archana Dilip Bhambare. Witness Archana
 stated that Anjanabai and the accused with some
 children were residing in Flat No.5 of her building
 She was residing in flat No.4 which was in front of
 flat No.5. The family of the accused had come to
 reside in flat NO.5 in or about August,1995. Four
 small children were residing with the accused. She
 also saw one girl aged about 10 years residing with

¶602

 : 162 :

¶603

 the accused. The name of this girl was Kranti. She

¶604

 further stated that during the period of
 January,1996 she saw one girl aged about 1.1/2 years
 with the family of the accused. Accused used to
 call this girl as "Gouri". Gouri was with the
 accused for about five months. During May,1996, the
 accused had gone out and had returned back after 4
 to 5 days. On their return, the girl Gouri was not
 found with them and was never seen by this witness
 thereafter. This witness identified the photograph
 of Bhawana @ Gouri from amongst the bunch of six
 photographs in the test identification parade held
 by P.W.No.130 Special Judicial Magistrate Shivaji
 Powar on 8.1.1997. She also identified the
 photograph of Gauri being Exh.37/C. She identified
 both the accused in the court. Her testimony
 regarding identifying the photograph of Bhawana @
 Gouri before the Special Judicial Magistrate
 (P.W.No.130) Shivaji Powar was corroborated through
 the evidence of P.W.No.130 Shivaji Powar as well as
 the evidence of P.W.No.84 Vasant Sahane who was the
 panch in respect of the said identification parade.
 Another neighbour examined by the prosecution was
 P.W.No.41 Vidya Kulkarni. This witness was residing
 in flat No.3 of Building No.2 in Nakool Apartments.
 She stated that while the family of the accused were
 residing in flat No.5 of building No.2 of Nakool
 Apartments, on or about the 3rd or 4th of
 January,1996, she saw one new girl in the house of

¶605

 : 163 :

¶606

 Anjanabai. The said girl was called by name Gouri.
 That, in the month of May 1996, she had seen the
 accused Anjanabai alongwith four children while
 going out of the house. They returned after about 3
 to 4 days. She noticed that girl by name Gouri was
 not there. She identified the photograph Exh.37/C
 from amongst a group of photographs as being a
 photograph of Gouri. One other photograph Article
 GG was identified by her as being the photograph of
 Gouri. According to her the children in the
 photograph Exh.37/C and Article GG were seen by her
 alongwith accused. She had further identified the
 photograph of Gouri from amongst other photographs
 in the test identification parade held by P.W.No.130
 Shivaji Powar. Her evidence in this regard has been
 corroborated by (PW 130) Shivaji Pawar as well as
 P.W.No.84 Vasant Shahane who was the panch in
 respect of the preparation of the memorandum of the
 parade. In our view the aforesaid evidence which is
 not seriously disputed by the defence proves the
 aforesaid circumstances.

¶607

 (iii) The circumstance of the child Bhawana @
Gouri being last seen together with the accused
during their first day of stay at the Pallvai lodge
in Kolhapur and child not being seen on the last 4
days of their stay at the lodge.

¶608

 (iv) It was the prosecution case that in the

¶609

 : 164 :

¶610

 2nd week of May,1996 the accused and their family
 including Kiran came to Kolhapur by S.T. bus. They

¶611

 reached Kolhapur at 5.30 a.m. and from the S.T.
 Bus stand they went to Pallavi lodge. A cinema
 theatre by name Usha Theatre is situated near
 Pallavi lodge. The room was taken in the name of
 Seema. On the day when they arrived at the said
 lodge, Gouri raised a hue and cry. Anjanabai then
 raised a query as to what was to be done of this
 child. Seema said to her mother "mother kill her".
 Then, Anjanabai pressed the neck of Gouri and killed
 her. Anjanabai then asked the accused as to what
 was to be done with the dead body of Gouri. Seema
 suggested that they should go to see a picture at
 Usha theatre and over there they should think of
 making some arrangement for the disposal of the
 body. Everybody agreed to this proposal and Renuka
 then removed the clothes of the dead body of Gouri
 as they could be used for other children. Renuka
 then brought one bag and put the dead body of Gouri
 in the bag and they carried the bag to Usha theatre.
 After the interval the accused carried the bag
 containing the dead body of Gouri into the womens
 latrine and dropped the dead body in the latrine and
 thereafter the accused Kiran and all of them
 returned to Pallavi lodge. The family stayed at
 Pallavi lodge for a period of four days and
 thereafter they returned to Pune. There Kiran
 stayed back, while the three ladies and the children

¶612

 : 165 :

¶613

 proceeded on to Nasik. This version and the
 circumstances mentioned herein above are also sought
 to be proved by the prosecution by examining other
 independent witnesses who have seen the child Gouri
 @ Bhawana with the accused Anjanabai and Kiran at
 Pallavi lodge at the relevant time.

¶614

 (v) The prosecution has examined (PW 80) Dayanand
 Godhade. This witness was then the manager of
 Pallavi lodge at Kolhapur. He stated that on
 12.5.1996, in the morning one family consisting of
 one male, 3 females, 4 small children and one small
 girl arrived at his lodge at about 6.00 A.M. He
 identified (PW 1) Kiran as the male and the accused
 as the 2 females who were in the group. This
 witness told the family that it would not be
 possible to accomodate all the persons in one room
 and he therefore, asked them to take 2 rooms. Kiran
 (PW 1) agreed to take one room and an extra bed.
 Seema then made an entry in the register in her name
 and put her signature thereon. He identified entry
 no.2441 from the register of the lodge dated
 12.5.1996 and the signature of Seema (Exh.38)
 thereon. He handed over the key of room no.203 and
 issued instructions to put up one more bed in the
 room. At about 8.00 P.M. the senior manager of the
 hotel (PW 83) Ashok Bongarde came to the lodge.
 When he came to know that so many persons had been
 accommodated in one room, he asked this witness as

¶615

 : 166 :

¶616

 to why two rooms were not provided. Kiran then came
 to see this witness complaining about the service
 and therefore, this witness and manager went to room
 no.203, there they met waiter Arjun who complained
 that the family was demanding extra hot water.
 There was also some dis-agreement between Bongarde
 and the family members about the re-arrangement of
 the furniture. A quarrel ensued and ultimately
 after resolving this dispute, this witness and the
 manager returned to the ground floor. At about 4.00
 p.m. the bell attached to room no.203 rang. Waiter
 Arjun went towards the room. The family ordered
 tea. Once again the bell attached to room no.203
 rang after the supply of tea. The witness had
 personally gone to that room. The family members
 were taking tea. The old lady was having a small
 girl on her lap and was giving tea to the girl. The
 girl was crying. The witness told Arjun to bring
 biscuits. Accordingly biscuits were brought and 2
 biscuits were given to the girl. Then the girl
 stopped crying. At about 8.00 p.m. on that day,
 Kiran with the 2 accused had gone out of the lodge.
 They returned after an hour. Thereafter again Kiran
 and the 2 ladies went out of the lodge at about 9.30

¶617

 p.m. While they were passing by, this witness
 enquired as to why they were going out of the lodge
 at such an odd hour. They told him that they were
 going to see a cinema. Seema was having one big bag
 with her. The witness enquired as to why they going

¶618

 : 167 :

¶619

 with such a big bag to see a cinema, upon which
 Seema replied that the bag contained the clothes to
 be delivered to the laundry and therefore, she was
 carrying the same. They then left the lodge. That
 thereafter, once again the bell of room no.203 rang.
 This witness had personally gone to this room. He
 found that the old lady and 4 children were in the
 room. The old lady enquired with him whether it was
 possible to get food. The small girl to whom he had
 given biscuits was not found in the room. The
 witness told that old lady that it was not possible
 to get a full meal but he could give some snacks.
 The old lady ordered for snacks and the same were
 brought by this witness. He stated that this family
 resided in the lodge for 5 days. On the first day,
 the family consisted of 1 male, 3 females, 4
 children and one small girl. On the remaining 4
 days the small girl was not found with them. This
 witness identified the photographs and articles MM2,
 MM3, Exh.288, Art.GG, Exh.37 as being the
 photographs of the girl seen by him in the lodge.
 He stated that he had identified the accused in an
 identification parade held on 14.12.1996. He had
 also identified Anjanabai and Kiran in the said
 identification parade. There is virtually nothing
 to discard the evidence of this witness in the
 cross-examination. The fact that he identified the
 photograph of Gauri in the identification parade
 held on 14.12.1996 is corroborated by the evidence

¶620

 : 168 :

¶621

 of (PW 137) Special Executive Magistrate Bhimrao
 Patil and further corroborated by the evidence of
 (Pw 85) Ramrao Magdum, who was a panch who had
 signed on the memorandum of the parade (Exh.310).
 The prosecution then examined (Pw 83) Ashok
 Bongarde. This witness was at the relevant time the
 main manager of the lodge. He stated that on
 12.5.1996 he reported for work at about 8.15 A.M.
 He checked the register and observed that 4
 passengers were accomodated in one room. He
 enquired from manager Dayanand as to why he
 accomodated 4 passengers in one room. In the
 meanwhile, one young male person to whom he
 identified as Kiran approached him. He raised a
 grievance regarding the service. This witness
 enquired from the Waiter as to what was the problem.
 The problem was pertaining to non supply of extra
 hot water. This witness instructed that extra hot
 water should be provided to the family of the
 accused on payment of extra charges. He and
 Dayanand came to room no.203. They found that the
 bed and furniture had been re-arranged. He found 3
 ladies in the room. He raised a dispute regarding
 rearrangement of the furniture. After settling this
 dispute, he and Dayanand came down on the ground
 floor. That in the evening at about 7.30 p.m. he
 again came to the lodge and visited room no.203 with
 his assistant. They found one old lady alongwith 3
 to 4 children. A small girl aged about 1 to 1 & 1/2

¶622

 : 169 :

¶623

 years was also there. The girl was crying.
 Dayanand took the girl to the balcony of the room
 and thereafter the girl stopped crying. He
 identified the 2 accused in the court. He
 identified the photographs of Gauri at MM/2, MM/3,
 Exh.288, Article GG, Exh.37 in the court. He stated
 that on 14.12.1996 he had identified the accused
 Anjanabai and Kiran in a test identification parade
 amongst several dummies. There is nothing of any
 substance in the cross-examination of this witness.
 The evidence of this witness is also corroborated by
 the evidence of the Special Judicial Magistrate (Pw
 137) Bhimrao Patil and by Ramrao (PW 85) who is the
 panch who has signed the identification parade memo
 (Exh.312) at which parade this witness had
 identified the accused and 2 others. In our view,
 the aforesaid evidence is independent and unshaken
 and we have no hesitation in accepting this evidence
 to prove the circumstance as stated aforesaid.

¶624

 IV). Seen at Usha theatre while carrying the dead
body of the child in a rexine bag :-

¶625

 (i) In order to prove this circumstance, the
 prosecution firstly examined (PW 86) Appasaheb
 Avati. On 12.5.1996 this witness was serving as a
 watchman in Usha theatre. At about 10.00 P.M. he
 was sitting near the main gate of the theatre. The
 cinema had already started. It was a practice to

¶626

 : 170 :

¶627

 close the gate after about 30 minutes from the
 starting of the cinema. At about 10.00 P.M. one
 person alongwith 2 ladies came near the gate. That
 person told him that they were in need of tickets.
 He told them that the picture had already started
 and they will not get the tickets. The male person
 told him that they will give more amount than the
 regular charges for tickets. This witness told them
 that it was not possible to arrange the tickets.
 The male person then told him to lead him to the
 booking clerk and that he would sort out the matter
 with the booking clerk. After some arguments with
 the booking clerk, he issued 3 tickets to this
 group. He stated that one of the ladies was
 carrying a rexine bag. Since no articles were
 allowed to be carried into the theatre, this witness
 objected to the taking of the bag. The lady who was
 carrying the bag told this witness that there was
 some cash and clothes in the bag and on hearing this
 witness allowed them to enter in the theatre with
 that bag. At about 11 to 11.30 P.M. the male
 member accompanied by the ladies came near the gate.
 The witness was standing on the main gate. They
 requested him to open the main gate. The witness
 asked them as to why they had came back when they
 had gone into the theatre late after raising such a
 hue and cry. The male person stated that his wife
 was suffering a pain in the abdomen and therefore,
 they wanted to leave the theatre. This witness

¶628

 : 171 :

¶629

 opened the door and all of them left the theatre.
 In his evidence in the court this witness identified
 the male member who had come to see the picture as
 Kiran. He identified the 2 accused as the 2 ladies
 who had accompanied Kiran. That on 14.12.1996 he
 had identified the accused and Kiran in an
 identification parade. The evidence of this witness
 relating to his identification of the accused at an
 identification parade was corroborated by the
 evidence of (PW 137) Bhimrao Patil, Special Judicial
 Magistrate, who was the magistrate who held the
 identification parade and (PW 85) Ramrao Magdum who
 was the panch in respect of the identification
 parade and who had signed the memorandum (Exh.110).
 The prosecution then examined (PW 81) Madhukar Gore,
 who at the relevant time was serving as a booking
 clerk in the theatre. He stated that on 12.5.1996
 the main picture had started at 9.30 p.m. At about
 9.40 p.m. he stopped the issue of tickets. When he
 was completing the making of the accounts, one
 person appearing like a wrestler came near him. He
 was 6 feet in height. 2 ladies were with him. One
 lady was with a bob-cut aged about 20 years and the
 other was 25 to 30 years old. The watchman of the
 theatre, Avati, was with them. The male person
 asked for tickets, the 2 ladies also stated that
 they wanted to see the picture. To avoid a dispute,
 he gave them 3 tickets of the balcony. He then
 completed the accounts and went home. He identified

¶630

 : 172 :

¶631

 the 2 accused and Kiran in the court as the persons
 who were the members of the group who had came to
 the theatre. This witness stated that on 14.12.1996
 he had identified the accused and Kiran from amongst
 several dummies. The evidence of this witness
 relating to the identification of the accused and
 Kiran in a test identification parade held on
 14.12.1996 is corroborated by the evidence of (PW
 137) Special Judicial Magistrate Bhimrao Patil who
 confirms that such identification was made and the
 evidence of (PW 85) Ramrao Magdum who was the panch
 in respect of the holding of the said identification
 parade on 14.12.1996 and the identification of the
 accused by this witness therein. It is further
 corroborated by (Exh.310) which is the test
 identification parade memo. On considering this
 evidence, we have no hesitation in holding that the
 same is independent testimony which is not shaken in
 any way in the cross-examination and that the same
 proves the aforesaid circumstance.

¶632

 V) Finding of a dead body of Gauri @ Bhavana on
13.5.1996 in the ladies toilet of the theatre :-

¶633

 . This circumstance is proved by the prosecution by
 examining (PW 78) Rohit Shaha, who was at the
 relevant time, a partner of Usha theatre. This
 witness stated that on 13.5.1996 he was standing
 near the cycle stand. One Mukesh from the first

¶634

 : 173 :

¶635

 floor gave a call saying that the dead body of a
 child was found lying on the steps of the female
 latrine at the level of balcony. This witness
 proceeded to the spot and found a dead body of a
 small girl lying there. He immediately phoned up
 the Shahupuri police station. He was directed by
 the police officer to come to the police station for
 recording his statement. This witness then went to
 the police station and lodged a complaint. He
 verified the contents of the complaint (Exh.281).
 He identified (Exh.288) being a photograph of the
 dead body of Gauri to be the photograph of the dead
 body seen by him. The prosecution then examined (PW
 73) Raghunath Chougule, who was the head constable
 attached to the Shahupuri police station. He proved
 the entry at Serial no.19 at the station diary dated
 13.5.96 which he had effected in the diary. He had
 effected this entry on receiving the telephonic call
 at about 11.15 A.M. on 13.5.1996 regarding the
 finding of the dead body. The entry was exhibited
 as (Exh.280). He then sent head constable Vibhute
 to proceed to the spot where the dead body of the
 child was found. Then at 11.35 A.M. Rohit Shah
 personally came to the police station and lodged a
 complaint (Exh.281). Thereafter he handed over the
 matter to head constable Vibhute for further
 investigation. The prosecution further examined (PW
 74) Umesh Satpute who was the inquest panch relating
 to finding of the deady body of Gauri. He has

¶636

 : 174 :

¶637

 proved the inquest panchanama (Exh.283). He had
 stated that apart from the dead body of the child
 one piece of saree was attached from the spot near
 the dead body. He proved the panchanama relating to
 the attachment of the saree piece (Exh.284) and the
 said piece of saree was produced at the trial.

¶638

 (iv) It must be stated here that (PW 1) Kiran in his
 evidence identified this piece of saree as a piece
 from a saree which he had purchased for Renuka. The
 prosecution then examined (PW 75) Subhash Vibhute
 who was a police head constable who had prepared and
 signed the inquest and the spot panchanamas and he
 confirmed the contents of the panchanamas. The
 prosecution further examined (PW 76) Bhausaheb Patil
 who was the photographer who had taken the
 photograph of the dead body after A.D.No.46/96 was
 registered by the Shahupuri police station. He
 produced his photograph register and the entry
 therein. He identified article MM1 as the
 photograph of the dead body of the child. The said
 photograph was exhibited at Exh.288/1, its negative
 being at Exh.288/2. The prosecution lastly examined
 (PW 97) Navnath Kamble who was a panch witness
 regarding the attachment of one photograph produced
 by PSI Waghmare, and he procured the said panchanama
 (Exh.253). We have no hesitation in accepting the
 aforesaid evidence which is of independent witnesses
 and is unshaken in the cross-examination. The

¶639

 : 175 :

¶640

 criticism of the defence was that the bag in which
 the child had been carried was not found. The
 further criticism that was it was unnatural for the
 accused to leave behind the piece of saree for
 convenient identification. We find no substance in
 these submissions. It is quite possible that the
 piece of saree must have been used to hide the
 contents of the bag. It also possible that the bag
 would have been folded and carried out. There is
 absolutely nothing in the cross-examination of these
 independent witnesses to cast any doubt as regards
 their version. We hold that the aforesaid
 circumstance must therefore, be held to be proved.

¶641

 VI) The finding of injuries on the dead body of
Bhavana @ Gauri:-

¶642

 (i) This circumstance was proved by the prosecution
 through the evidence of (PW 135) Dr.Ashwini
 Sadolikar. This witness was the doctor attached to
 CPR hospital. She stated that on 13.5.1996 a dead
 body of a female child was referred to the hospital
 by Shahupuri police station for conducting a post
 mortem. She concluded that there was swelling over
 the lung (pulmonary odema). She found that both the
 lungs were congested. She opined that this
 condition can be caused by obstruction to the
 respiratory tract. In her cross-examination, she
 admitted that pulmonary odema was possible in the

¶643

 : 176 :

¶644

 cases of drowning or poisoning. She denied that in
 every case there should exist external marks
 relating to the pressing of the neck. She opined
 that the age of the child was about 1 & 1/2 to 2
 years. In our view, the prosecution has proved that
 the child died an unnatural and homicidal death.

¶645

 . As an over all conclusion, we have no hesitation
 in holding that the prosecution has proved the
 kidnapping, murder and attempt of concealing
 evidence of the crime, being the dead body of the
 child Bhavana @ Gauri. In our view, the accused
 would be liable to be convicted under Sections 363 &
 365 r/w section 34 of the IPC for the kidnapping of
 Bhavana @ Gauri, under Section 302 r/w 34 regarding
 murder of Bhavana @ Gauri and under Section 201 r/w
 34 of IPC relating to concealing the dead body of
 the child Bhavana @ Gauri.

¶646

 18. As regards the incident relating to Pankaj,the
circumstantial and other evidence relating to the
incident is as follows :-

¶647

 (i) Lodging of a missing complaint by (PW 4) Suhas
Mahamulkar, the father of the child :-

¶648

 . It was the prosecution case that Pankaj was
 kidnapped by the accused from near Vithal mandir in

¶649

 : 177 :

¶650

 the area of Wadala in the last week of July-1996.
 Two young ladies were standing in the shop near the
 said mandir purchasing a purse. One boy aged about
 3 to 3 & 1/2 years was standing behind their legs.
 The ladies were not attentive towards the child. On
 seeing this situation, Seema picked up that child.
 While she was running away with this child, the
 child raised an alarm by saying "Mammi Mammi".
 Kiran & Renuka then rushed towards Seema. Seema put
 her palm on the mouth of the child. Then by bus,
 they came to the spot where Anjanabai was waiting.
 The boy was stating his name as Pankaj. When the
 boy started crying for his mother, Anjanabai gave 2
 slaps to him and Seema also gave a fist blow on his
 back. The boy was frightened and after some time
 went to sleep. Pankaj was then brought by the
 accused to the house of Indirabai Mahimkar at
 Shiv-shahi apartment, Kothrud, Pune, where they were
 residing. The aforesaid circumstance is proved by
 the prosecution through the evidence of (PW 2)
 Sharmila who is the mother of the child. She stated
 in her evidence that on 27.7.1996 it was a day of
 Ashadi Ekadashi. She alongwith her friend
 Pushpanjali and Pankaj had gone to the temple of
 Vithal at Wadala. They took darshan of Vithal.
 They came near the shop selling purses situated in
 the area of fair of that temple. Pankaj was left on
 the ground. While they were purchasing a purse and
 during the span of 5 minutes that it took the

¶651

 : 178 :

¶652

 transaction to be completed, Pankaj was lost. She
 and her friend searched Pankaj till 9.30 P.M. but
 could not trace him. Her husband, persons in the
 chawl and her mother-in-law came to the spot to
 search for Pankaj. Till the next morning the search
 yielded no fruit and ultimately her husband informed
 this incident to the Matunga police station. This
 witness gave the description of the clothes which
 were on Pankaj’s body. She identified articles 40 &
 41 as the clothes of her son. These were the
 articles seized by the police from the dead body of
 the child Pankaj which was subsequently found.
 These clothes were also identified by her in a test
 identification parade in respect of the 2 accused
 which was conducted on 31.10.1996 by (PW 130)
 Shivaji Powar. She identified the photographs of
 her son at Exh.74/1 to 74/8 (Articles Q-1 to Q-8).
 She identified the photograph of Pankaj (Exh.56)
 which has been given by her husband to the police.
 The prosecution then examined (PW 4) Suhas
 Mahamulkar, the father of Pankaj. He stated that on
 27.6.1996 at about 10.30 p.m. he came to know from
 the persons of the chawl about the missing of his
 child. He found the house locked as all the members
 had gone for the search of his child. He met his
 wife and her friend Pushpanjali early in the morning
 at 2.30 to 3.00 A.M. He gave a missing report in
 Matunga police station. He identified his signature
 on the missing report. He stated that at the time

¶653

 : 179 :

¶654

 of incident, the child was wearing a "T" shirt of
 white colour. He identified clothes, articles-40 &
 41, as being the clothes of his child. He had
 identified these clothes in the test identificatin
 parade held by (PW 130) Shivaji Powar, the Special
 Judicial Magistrate at the Govt.Rest house at Nashik
 on 31.10.1996. He identified the photograph at
 Exh.68-A (Article-H) which was given by him to the
 police on 28.11.1996 as being the photograph of his
 child. He produced the negative of this photograph.
 The photograph was exhibited as Exh.68-A, the
 negative being Exh.68-C. The evidence relating to
 identification of clothes found from the body of the
 deceased Pankaj after his body was recovered in the
 identification parade dated 31.10.1996 was also
 corroborated by the evidence of (PW 130) Shivaji
 Powar. This witness is testified to the holding of
 identification parade at Tapovan Guest House. He
 has testified to the witnesses (PW 2) Sharmila
 Mahamulkar and (PW 4) Suhas Mahamulkar identifying
 the clothes of this child from among 4 other half
 pant and T-shirts arranged on the table. As regards
 this identification parade pertaining to the
 clothes, the panch witness who has signed the
 panchanama relating to the memorandum of the parade
 conducted by (PW 130) Shivaji Powar has also been
 examined by the prosecution. This witness is (PW
 15) Shivdas Deshmukh. He also talks about the
 identification of the clothes found on the body of

¶655

 : 180 :

¶656

 Pankaj by Sharmila (PW 2) and Suhas (PW 4). He
 states that after the identification the clothes
 were sealed with a slip bearing the signature of the
 panchas. He proved the panchanama (Exh.105) of the
 parade to be true and correct. From the aforesaid
 evidence which is independent and unshaken in the
 cross-examination, we have no hesitation in holding
 that the aforesaid circumstance has been proved.

¶657

 (ii) The circumstance of the accused being seen
together with Pankaj at Shiv-shahi apartment and
later Pankaj not being seen at this place after
September-1995 :-

¶658

 . The prosecution has sought to prove this
 circumstance through the evidence of (PW 5) Nita
 Shaha. This witness was a resident of block no.4 on
 the first floor of Shiv-shahi apartment at Kothrud,
 Pune. She was staying on the same floor where
 Anjanabai was residing alongwith the accused. She
 identified the accused in the court as being her
 neighbours. She stated that the 4 children of
 Renuka by name Ashish, Kishor, Gauri and Tushar were
 known to her. She also knew Kiran as the husband of
 Renuka. The family of the accused had come to
 reside in the block in July-1996. Kiran had come 2
 days later. That after about 15 to 20 days, she saw
 a new child with the family. This child was aged
 about 2 & 1/2 to 3 years, fair looking and was a

¶659

 : 181 :

¶660

 slim boy. Anjanabai told her that he was the
 grand-son of her sister residing at Bombay. The
 name of this new child was Pankaj. This witness
 herself had a daughter Ashwini aged about 3 years
 and son Nikhil who was then aged about 8 years. The
 children from the house of Anjanabai used to come to
 her house. She had once given a chocolate and
 bubblegum to Pankaj. He therefore, started coming
 every day to play with her children. Pankaj started
 telling her that there was a telephone in his house
 at Bombay and they also had a car. Pankaj used to
 speak marathi and she saw this child with them for a
 period of 2 to 2 & 1/2 months. Thereafter Pankaj
 was not seen by her. This witness therefore, asked
 Anjanabai as to where Pankaj had gone and was told
 that he had been sent back to his mother in Bombay.
 In the court this witness identified the photograph
 of Pankaj ( Exh.68-A ) from amongst 8 to 9 other
 photographs. She stated that on 16.1.1997 she had
 identified the photograph of Pankaj in an
 identification parade alongwith certain other
 witnesses. She identified the photographs (articles
 Q/1 to Q/8) as being the photographs of Pankaj. The
 prosecution then examined (PW 6) Sangita Thakkar who
 was another neighbour of the family of the accused
 at Shiv-shahi apartment Kothrud, Pune. This witness
 stated that she was residing on the first floor at
 Shiv-shahi apartment. Her immediate neighbour was
 Mahimkar and the flat next to Mahimkar belonged to

¶661

 : 182 :

¶662

 Anjanabai. Her family consisted of herself, her
 husband and her 2 children. Her son Omkar was aged
 about 9 years and her daughter Manjiri was aged
 about 7 years. She stated that Anjanabai, Seema and
 Renuka were known to her. She identified Seema and
 Renuka in the court. She further identified Kiran
 as being the person known to her as the husband of
 Renuka. That in or about July-1996 the family of
 Anjanabai came to reside in the flat. The family
 consisted of Anjanabai, Renuka, Seema, 4 children
 and Kiran. After about 20 to 25 days, she saw a new
 boy with them named Pankaj. She enquired Anjanabai
 about this boy and was told that he was a grand-son
 of her daughter who was from Bombay. She also told
 this witness that the father of this child was
 serving in Bombay. She disclosed that the name of
 the child was Pankaj. That this child was aged
 about 3 to 3 & 1/2 years and used to come to the
 house of this witness. He used to tell her that his
 father used to give him cadbury choclate. She saw
 the child for 1 to 1 & 1/2 months and thereafter did
 not see the child. She asked Renuka as to where
 Pankaj had gone, and was told that he had been sent
 to his mother at Bombay. This witness identified
 the photograph of this child in the court
 (Exh.68-A). She also identified Pankaj from the
 photograph (Exh.56). She further identified
 photographs of Pankaj ( Exh.74/1 to 74/8) i.e
 articles Q-1 to Q-8. She stated that she had

¶663

 : 183 :

¶664

 identified the photograph of the child (Exh.68-A) in
 the identification parade held by a Magistrate on
 16.1.1997. She had identified this photograph from
 amongst 8 to 10 photographs of various children
 which were kept on the table. The evidence of this
 witness has been corroborated by the prosecution
 through the evidence of (PW 128) Ulhas Korne who
 talks about the identification of the photographs by
 these witnesses at the test identification parade
 held by him. He has stated that the photograph
 which was identified by the witnesses was the one at
 (Exh.68/A). He and the panchas had put their
 signature on the back of these photographs. There
 is nothing in the cross-examination of the Special
 Judicial Magistrate which can cast any doubt on his
 version relating to the identification of
 photographs. This evidence relating to

¶665

 identification is also corroborated to the evidence
 of the panch who has signed the identification memo.
 The said panch is (PW 18) Shailesh Chavan. He also
 speaks about the identification of the photograph of
 Pankaj (Exh.68/B) by several witnesses including (PW
 5) Nita Shaha and (PW 6) Sangita Thakkar. In our
 view, the aforesaid evidence proves the aforesaid
 circumstance.

¶666

 (iii) Finding of the dead body of Pankaj on

¶667

11.9.1996 near the compound of Maharshi Karve

¶668

Shikshan Sanstha :-

¶669

 : 184 :

¶670

 . This circumstance is proved by the prosecution
 through the evidence of (PW 8) Fransis Johan Aadhav.
 This witness was serving as an API at the Alankar
 Police chowky attached to Kothrud police station on
 11.9.1996. On the said date at about 11.30 A.M.
 one Shivanand Sontakke informed him on the telephone
 that something was lying near the telephone pole in
 the area of Home colony in a cement bag. This
 witness sent Police head constable Koli and Police
 head constable Zinzurde to make an enquiry. They
 went to the spot and after making enquiry they
 informed this witness that there was a dead body of
 a child aged about 3 to 4 years in a cement bag.
 This witness then went to the area and in the
 presence of 2 panchas opened the bag and ascertained
 that it was indeed a dead body of the male child
 aged about 3 to 4 years. He noticed injuries on the
 person of the body near the face, nose, cheek and
 private part. In fact, he noticed injuries on the
 entire body of the child. He prepared a panchanama
 of the spot of the offence. He attached one ladies
 handkerchief from the spot. He further attached the
 clothes of the dead body and a string on the body

¶671

 under the said panchanama (articles 37, 38 & 39
 respectively). He proved the contents of the said
 panchanama (Exh.77). The body of this child was
 carried by this witness to Sasoon hospital and there
 this witness prepared an inquest panchanama

¶672

 : 185 :

¶673

 (Exh.78). The dead body was handed over for post
 mortem and an advance death certificate was obtained
 which indicated that the death was due to shock and
 injuries. This witness then lodged a FIR at the
 Kothrud police station (Exh.79) and in pursuance of
 this FIR, Kothrud police station registered
 C.R.No.306/96 for the offence under Section 302 of
 IPC. This witness then called a police photographer
 and the photographs (Exhs.74-1 to 74-8 (articles Q-1
 to Q-8) were taken by the said photographer at the
 spot where the dead body was lying. In the court
 this witness identified the clothes articles-37 and
 38 seized from the dead body of the child as well as
 the string article-39 found on the body of the
 child. There is nothing in the cross-examination of
 this witness which can cast a doubt about the
 testimony of this witness relating to finding of the
 dead body of the child. The prosecution further
 examined (PW 7) Kailas Udaji Tirmane who was a
 police photographer. This witness stated that on
 11.9.1996 at about 1.30 P.M. he received a call
 from (PW 8) API Aadhav attached to Alankar police
 chowky and was told that the photographs of the dead
 body were to be taken in the area of Home colony at
 Karve Nagar. This witness reached the spot at 2.30
 p.m. and saw the dead body of a child aged about 3
 to 4 years. He took 8 photographs of the dead body
 from different angles. The positives were prepared
 by him in the lab. He later handed over these

¶674

 : 186 :

¶675

 photographs and negatives to PI Chougale of Kothrud
 Police station. He identified these photographs as
 articles-Q-1 to Q-8 and the same were exhibited as
 Exhs.74-1 to 74-8 and the negatives were exhibited
 as (Exh.75). Lastly the prosecution examined (PW
 134) PI Vishwas Chougule. PI Chougule was attached
 to the Kothrud police station on 11.9.1996. He
 stated that on the said day, he took over the
 investigation of C.R.No.309/96 from API Aadhav. For
 2 months thereafter the case was with him for
 investigation but he could not trace any accused and
 therefore, he transferred the matter to CID crime
 for further investigation. The above evidence
 clearly proves the aforesaid circumstance.

¶676

 (iv) The finding of injuries on the dead body
of Pankaj :-

¶677

 . This circumstance was sought to be proved by the
 prosecution by examining (PW 138) Dr.Milind Kamble,
 who had performed the post mortem on the dead body
 of Pankaj. The prosecution also proved through this
 Doctor the post mortem notes (Exh.33) which
 corroborated his evidence. The doctor stated that
 at the time of conducting the post mortem
 examination, he found the following external and
 internal injuries on the child :-

¶678

 . External injuries :-

¶679

 : 187 :

¶680

 1) Incised wound on left ear, at upper end measuring
 1/2 x 1/4" margins cleancut.

¶681

 2) Two linear abrasions 1" above middle of left
 eyebrow parallel to each other, Measuring 1/2" long
 each, separated by distance of 1/2" from each other.

¶682

 3) Abrasion 1/4" above lateral angle of left
 eyebrow, measuring 1/2" x 1/3".

¶683

 4) Linear abrasion on middle of left eye 1/4" above
 eyebrow, measuring 1" x 1/3".

¶684

 5) Incised wound, 1/4" below medial angle of left
 eye 1/2" long bone deep, Margins cleancut.

¶685

 6) Two abrasions, 1/2" below lateral angle of left
 eye" measuring 1/2" x 1/4" each, parallel to each
 other and separated by a distance of 1/4".

¶686

 7) Abrasion 1/2" below injury No.6 measuring 1/2 x
 1/3".

¶687

 8) Verticle linear abrasion, 1" below injury No.7,
 1" long.

¶688

 9) Right black eye.

¶689

 10) Three crescentric abrasion on right cheek 1"
 away from angle of mouth, one below another 1/4"
 long, surrounding area of 2’ x 1" contused.

¶690

 11) Linear abrasions on right cheek, 1 1/2" long.

¶691

 12) Contused abrasions upper lip, against incisors.
 Abrasion measuring 1 1/2" x 1/2", Surrounding area
 of 1/2" diameter contused.

¶692

 13) Contused abrasion on lower lip against incisors
 Abrasion measuring 1 1/4" x 1/2" Surrounding area of
 1/2" diameter contused.

¶693

 14) Contused abrasion on inner aspect of upper lip,
 against left incisors extending over inner aspect of
 left cheek, abrasion measuring 1 1/2 x 1/2"
 surrounding area of 1" diameter contused.

¶694

 15) Crescentric abrasion 1" away from left angle of
 mouth, 1/3" long. Surrounding area of 1/2" diameter
 contused.

¶695

 16) Contused abrasion on tip of nose. Abrasion
 measuring 1/2" x 1/4" Surrounding area of 1 1/2"
 contused.

¶696

 17) Linear abrasion on front of neck, in the middle,

¶697

 : 188 :

¶698

 1" below level of thyroid cartilace, measuring 2"
 long.

¶699

 18) Two crescentric abrasions 1/2" above the thyroid
 cartilace, 1/4" long each separated by a distance of
 1/3" from each other. Surrounding area of 3/4"
 contused.

¶700

 19) Contusion of left shoulder extending upto elbow
 joint, anteriourly, measuring 7" x 2 1/2", with
 fracture of lower third of humerous.

¶701

 20) Multiple abrasions on middle of left area, size
 varying from 1/4 x 1/4" to 1/2" x 1/4" distributed
 in area of 2" x 1 1/2" on anteromedial aspect.

¶702

 21) Abrasions on left forearm, anteromedically,
 measuring 3 1/2" x 1 1/2".

¶703

 22) Contusion on lateral aspect of right arm, in the
 middle measuring 3 1/2" x 1 1/2".

¶704

 23) Multiple abrasions on whole of right forearm
 size varying from 1/4" x 1/4" to 3/4 x 1/4".

¶705

 24) Linear abrasion on left side of chest 1" lateral
 to nipple 1/2" long.

¶706

 25) Abrasion on right side of chest, 1" away from
 midline, in 6th intercostal space, measuring 1/2" x
 1/4".

¶707

 26) Abrasion over xiphisternum, measuring 1/2" x
 1/4".

¶708

 27) Multiple abrasion on whole of the abdomen, size
 varying from 1/4" x 1/4" to 1" x 1/4".

¶709

 28) Incised wound on base of penis, on anterior
 aspect measuring 1" x 1/4" muscle deep Margins
 cleancut.

¶710

 29) Linear verticle abrasion on anterior aspect of
 scrotum in the middle measuring 2 1/2" long.

¶711

 30) Linear abrasion on posterior aspect of right
 thigh 1 1/2" away from natal cleft, 1" long.

¶712

 31) Two linear abrasions, parallel to each other
 medical aspect of right thigh measuring 3" x 1 1/2"
 long separated by a distance of 1/2" from each
 other.

¶713

 32) Multiple abrasions on right leg, size, varying
 from 1/4 x 1/4" to 1 x 1/2" distributed all over
 leg, alongwith contusion.

¶714

 : 189 :

¶715

 33) Laceration of anal sphinctor, at 12 ‘O’ clock
 position, 1 x 1/4" muscle deep.

¶716

 34) Contusion of both buttocks, measuring 4 x 3" on
 right and 3 1/2 x 3" on left buttock.

¶717

 35) Multiple linear abrasions on whole of back, at
 various sites, size varying from 1" to 3" in length.

¶718

 36) Linear abrasion on medical aspect of left thigh
 2" long.

¶719

 37) Linear abrasion 1" long, 1 1/2" late 1 to injury
 No.36.

¶720

 38) Abrasion on left knee, measuring 1 x 1/2".

¶721

 39) Multiple abrasion on left leg, size varying from
 1/4 x 1/4" to 3/4 x 1/4".

¶722

 40) Contusion of both thighs, upto knee, involving
 whole circumference.

¶723

 41) Contusion of left ankle joint, measuring 2 x 1",
 on anteromedical aspect.

¶724

 42) Contusion of right ankle joint, measuring 1 1/2
 x 1" on anteromedical aspect.

¶725

 . INTERNAL INJURIES :-

¶726

 1) Hematoma under scalp, on frontal and both
 parietal and occipital region, measuring 5 x 2".

¶727

 2) Subarachnoid haemorrhage on right parietal lobe
 measuring 1 x 3/4" Injury No.1 and 2 correspond to
 external injuries 2 to 9.

¶728

 3) Peritreacheal hematoma, measuring 2 x 1"
 corrosponding to external injury No.17 and 18.

¶729

 . He opined that injury nos.10 to 16 were

¶730

 sufficient to cause death in an ordinary course. He
 opined that on observing the aforesaid injuries the
 death of the child was due to asphyxia as a result

¶731

 of smothering associated with the other injuries.

¶732

In

¶733

 : 190 :

¶734

 his cross-examination, he stated that he had
 mentioned the cause of death as due to smothering on
 the basis of injury nos.10 to 16. He categorically
 stated that this was not a case of throttling but a
 case of smothering. In our view, the medical
 evidence consisting of the evidence of said Doctor
 and the post mortem notes conclusively prove the
 aforesaid circumstance.

¶735

 (v) The identification of the clothes found on the
dead body on 11.9.1996 by the parents of Pankaj:-

¶736

 . In so far as this circumstance is concerned, we
 have already discussed the evidence of the parents
 of Pankaj. The prosecution has examined (PW 4)
 Suhas Mahamulkar, the father of the child and
 Sharmila Mahamulkar (PW 2) mother of the child. As
 stated earlier they had identified in court the
 clothes found on the dead body of the child
 (articles-38 & 39) as being the clothes of their son
 Pankaj. Apart from identifying these clothes as
 belonging to their son in court, these witnesses had
 also identified the clothes from amongst the other
 clothes in an identification parade held on
 31.10.1996 by Special Judicial Magistrate (PW 130)
 Shivaji Powar. This identification had been proved
 by examining (PW 130) Shivaji Powar and also by
 producing the test identification parade memo. The
 aforesaid evidence has also earlier been discussed

¶737

 : 191 :

¶738

 by us. In our view, the same is independent
 evidence which remains unchallenged by the defence.
 We accept this evidence to prove the aforesaid
 circumstance.

¶739

 . In conclusion, we must say that though we have
 not found the version given by (PW 1) Kiran
 regarding the manner in which Pankaj was actually
 killed to be the whole truth for the reason that
 there are some omissions in his statement as also
 because it does not explain the 3 incised wounds
 with clean margins found on the dead body. Even by
 dis-carding this evidence, we feel that there are
 sufficient proved circumstances which together
 complete the chain of circumstances and link the
 accused in the kidnapping, murder and the disposing
 off the dead body of Pankaj. We must say here that
 in so far as the version given by (PW 1) Kiran
 relating to kidnapping and disposing off the dead
 body, the same stands corroborated by the other
 evidence pertaining to lodging of the missing report
 and finding of actual dead body of Pankaj which has
 been referred to here-in-above. To that extent, the
 evidence of (PW 1) Kiran can be accepted. Taking on
 over all view in respect of the incident pertaining

¶740

 to the child Pankaj, the accused would be liable to
 be convicted under Sections 363 & 365 r/w section 34
 of IPC for the offence pertaining to kidnapping and
 under Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC in respect to the

¶741

 : 192 :

¶742

 murder of Pankaj and under Section 201 r/w 34 of IPC
 in respect of concealing the evidence of murder
 being the dead body of the child Pankaj.

¶743

 19. Before we proceed further to deal with the
 sentences to be imposed, we wish to make a few
 observations in the manner in which the
 investigation and prosecution has been conducted.
 In the present case we have observed that the
 investigation of the case spread across several
 towns in Maharashtra & Gujarat. Not-with-standing a
 long lapse of time between the incidents and the
 commencement of the investigation, the investigation
 was found by us to be quite meticulous. Great pains
 have been taken by the Investigating officers to
 bring on record various incriminating circumstances
 in respect of incidents pertaining to each of the

¶744

 children. It appears to us that the circumstantial
 evidence collected during the investigation were in
 themselves sufficient to secure a conviction of the
 offenders. That (PW 1) Kiran was also in the thick
 of action in each of these incidents of kidnapping,
 murder and disposal of the dead bodies. In such a
 case, it was eminently desirable that the grant of
 pardon was approved by the prosecution only after a
 very careful consideration as to whether the
 material gathered in the course of the investigation
 was sufficient to secure a conviction without

¶745

 : 193 :

¶746

 granting pardon to an accused. The principle on
 which the Legislature introduced provisions in the
 Cr.P.C. permitting a grant of pardon is that a
 culpable person should not be allowed to escape
 punishment for want of evidence sufficient to secure
 conviction. It is for securing such larger justice
 that the prosecution is empowered to consent to the
 grant of pardon to an accomplice and the Court is
 empowered to pass the order granting such pardon
 subject to conditions as laid down in Section 307 &
 308 of the Cr.P.C. In Jasbir Singh V/s. Vipin

¶747

Kumar Jaggi reported in (2001) 8 SCC 289 the Apex
 court had occasion to consider the object sought to
 be achieved by Section 307 of Cr.P.C. and the role
 of the Prosecutor. The Apex court also compared the
 role of the Prosecutor while acting under Section
 307 of Cr.P.C. and his role while acting under
 Section 321 of Cr.P.C. for withdrawing from a
 prosecution.

¶748

 19. As regards the object sought to be achieved by
 Section 307 of Cr.P.C., the Apex court observed as

¶749

 under :-

¶750

 . " Although the power to actually grant the pardon
 is vested in the court, obviously the court can have
 no interest whatsoever in the outcome nor can it
 decide for the prosecution whether particular
 evidence is required or not to ensure the conviction
 of the accused. That is the prosecution’s job."

¶751

 . While making the aforesaid observation, the Apex
 court relied upon the observations of an earlier

¶752

 : 194 :

¶753

 decision of the said court in the case of

¶754

Lt.Commander Pascal Fernandes V/s. State of

¶755

Maharashtra reported in AIR 1968 SC 594, in which

¶756

 case the Apex court had made the following

¶757

 observations :-

¶758

 . "Ordinarily it is for the prosecution to ask that
 a particular accused, out of several, may be
 tendered pardon. But even where the accused
 directly applies to the Special Judges he must first
 refer the request to the prosecuting agency... The
 proper course for the Special Judge is to ask for a
 statement from the prosecution on the request of the
 prisoner. If the prosecution thinks that the tender
 of pardon will be in the interests of a succesful
 prosecution of the other offenders whose conviction
 is not easy without the approver’s testimony, it
 will indubitably agree to the tendering of pardon.
 The Special Judge (or the Magistrate) must not take
 on himself the task of determining the propriety of
 tendering pardon in the circumstances of the case."

¶759

 . From the aforesaid observations of the Apex

¶760

 court, it is clear that the power to grant pardon,

¶761

 though vested in the court, is a power to be

¶762

 exercised on behalf of the prosecuting agency and it

¶763

 can only be exercised when either the prosecution

¶764

 makes such a request or joins such a request. The

¶765

 question of considering whether a pardon ought to be
 asked for is the prosecution job. It is also the
 principal job of the prosecution to secure justice

¶766

 and to ensure that a guilty offender whose testimony
 is not absolutely essential is not let off and he is
 brought to book. The burden of determining as to
 whether the testimony of an approver is absolutely
 necessary is also thus cast upon the prosecution.

¶767

 : 195 :

¶768

 We wish to make it absolutely clear that the
 prosecution cannot perform this duty lightly,
 without bearing in mind that while letting of an
 offender, whose evidence may not be necessary to
 secure a conviction, the cause of justice is
 defeated. If there is a good possibility of all the
 offenders being brought to justice without granting
 pardon then the prosecution should be slow in moving
 for grant of pardon or joining a request for grant
 of pardon. The application made by the prosecution
 for grant of pardon or its say while joining in an
 application by the accused for grant of pardon must
 indicate application of mind and in any case should
 not be for extraneous reason. For example if the
 material gathered by the investigating agency
 indicates a good possibility of securing a
 conviction of all accused without the grant of
 pardon, the prosecution cannot seek pardon merely to
 increase its chances of securing a conviction or for
 doubly making sure that the conviction is secured.
 20. That brings us to the question of sentence and
 as to whether death penalty imposed by the trial
 court should be confirmed.

¶769

 21. The question as to whether the circumstances in
 which death penalty should be imposed has been a
 subject matter of several decisions of the Apex
 court. Under Section 354(3) of the Code of Criminal
 Procedure 1973, special reasons are required to be

¶770

 : 196 :

¶771

 recorded in case the sentence of death is awarded to
 a convict. The Constitutional challenge to the

¶772

 death penalty and the procedure for award of the
 death penalty as provided for under Section 354(3)
 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was dealt
 with by the Apex court in a case of Bachan Singh
V/s. State of Punjab reported in (1980) 2 Supreme
 Court Cases 684. The death penalty imposable under
 Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and Section 354(3)
 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 were both
 held to be constitutional and not violative of
 articles-14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
 While doing so, the Apex court negated the argument
 that Section 354(3) of the Code of Criminal
 Procedure, 1973 invested the Court with unguided
 discretion in imposing a death penalty. Without
 being exhaustive, the Apex court indicated the
 standards and norms for restricting the area of
 imposition of a death penalty. In the said case, a
 Counsel appearing in the case suggested four
 aggravating circumstances in which the penalty of
 death could be imposed by a Court in its discretion.
 The aggravating circumstances suggested by the
 Counsel are reproduced in paragraph-202 of the
 Judgment. Counsel further suggested seven
 mitigating circumstances which were reproduced by
 the Court in paragraph-206 of the Judgment. The
 aggravating and mitigating circumstances suggested
 by Counsel were found by the Court to be relevant

¶773

 : 197 :

¶774

 and worthy of acceptance. In so far as the
 aggravating circumstances were concerned, the Court
 observed that it would prefer not to fetter judicial
 discretion in attempting to make an exhaustive
 enumeration one way or the other. Even while
 considering the mitigating circumstances, the Court
 observed that it would not feed into a judicial
 computer all such situations since they are
 astrological imponderables in an imperfect and
 undulating society. It was further observed that
 nonetheless, it could not be over-emphasised that
 the scope and concept of mitigating circumstances in
 the area of death penalty must receive a liberal and
 expansive construction by the courts in accord with
 the sentencing policy writ large in Section 354(3).
 The Judges should never be bloodthirsty. The
 hanging of murderers had never been too good for
 them. It went on to observe that a real and abiding
 concern for the dignity of human life postulates
 resistance to taking a life through law’s
 instrumentality. That ought not to be done save in
 the rarest of rare cases when the alternative option
 was unquestionably foreclosed.

¶775

 . Then again in the case of State of Rajasthan V.

¶776

Kheraj Ram reported in (2003) 8 SCC 224, the
 following observations in relation to the imposition
 of death penalty were made :-

¶777

 : 198 :

¶778

 . Section 302 IPC prescribes death or
 life imprisonment as the penalty for
 murder. While doing so, the Code
 instructs the court as to its application.
 The changes which the Code has undergone
 in the last three decades clearly indicate
 that Parliament is taking note of
 contemporary criminological thought and
 movement. It is not difficult to discern
 that in the Code, there is a definite
 swing towards life imprisonment. Death
 sentence is ordinarily ruled out and can
 only be imposed for "special reasons", as
 provided in Section 354(3). There is
 another provision in the Code which also
 uses the significant expression "special
 reason". It is Section 361. Section 360
 of the 1973 Code re-enacts, in substance,
 Section 562 of the Criminal Procedure
 Code, 1898 (in short "the old Code").
 Section 361 which is a new provision in
 the code makes it mandatory for the court
 to record "special reasons" for not
 applying the provisions of Section 360.
 Section 361 thus casts a duty upon the
 court to apply the provisions of Section
 360 wherever it is possible to do so and
 to state "special reasons" if it does not
 do so. In the context of Section 360, the
 "special reasons" contemplated by Section
 361 must be such as to compel the court to
 hold that it is impossible to reform and
 rehabilitate the offender after examining
 the matter with due regard to the age,
 character and antecedents of the offender
 and the circumstances in which the offence
 was committed. This is some indication by
 the legislature that reformation and
 rehabilitation of offenders and not mere
 deterrence, are now among the foremost
 objects of the administration of criminal
 justice in our country. Section 361 and
 Section 354(3) have both entered the
 statute-book at the same time and they are
 part of the emerging picture of acceptance
 by the legislature of the new trends in
 criminology. It would not, therefore, be
 wrong to assume that the personality of
 the offender as revealed by his age,
 character, antecedents and other
 circumstances and the tractability of the
 offender to reform must necessarily play
 the most prominent role in determining the
 sentence to be awarded. Special reasons
 must have some relation to these factors.
 Criminal justice deals with complex human
 problems and diverse human beings. A

¶779

 : 199 :

¶780

 Judge has to balance the personality of
 the offender with the circumstances,
 situations and the reactions and choose
 the appropriate sentence to be imposed." .

¶781

 22. Over the years, the list of aggravating and
 mitigating circumstances while deciding the question
 as to whether death penalty should be imposed has
 expanded and become more comprehensive. Though
 there are sometimes similarities in the expressions
 used in different Judgments, it may be worthwhile to
 list both the "aggravating circumstances" and
 "mitigating circumstances" as laid down by the Apex
 court in some of its Judgments dealing with the
 issue.

¶782

 (I) Aggravating circumstances :-

¶783

 a) If the murder has been committed after previous
 planning and involves extreme brutality. (See:

¶784

Bachan Singh V. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684).

¶785

 b) If the murder involves exceptional depravity. (
 See: Bachan Singh V. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC
 684).

¶786

 c) If the murder is of a member of any of the armed

¶787

 forces of the Union or of a member of any police
 force or of any public servant and was committed
 while such member or public servant was on duty or
 in consequence of anything done or attempted to be

¶788

 : 200 :

¶789

 done by such member or public servant in the lawful
 discharge of his duty as such member or public
 servant whether at the time of murder he was such
 member or public servant, as the case may be, or had
 ceased to be such member or public servant. ( See:
Bachan Singh V. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684).

¶790

 d) If the murder is of a person who had acted in the
 lawful discharge of his duty under Section 43 of the
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, or who had
 rendered assistance to a magistrate or a police
 officer demanding his aid or requiring his
 assistance under Section 37 or Section 129 of the
 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. ( See: Bachan Singh
V. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684).

¶791

 e) When the murder is committed in an extremely
 brutal, grotesque, diabolical, revolting, or
 dastardly manner so as to arouse intense and extreme
 indignation of the community. (See : Machhi Singh
 1983 (3) SCC 470 followed in Lehna V. State of
Haryana (2002) 3 SCC 76).

¶792

 f) When the victim is a public figure generally

¶793

 loved and respected by the community for the
 services rendered by him and the murder is committed
 for political or some similar reason other than a

¶794

 personal reason. ( See : Machhi Singh V. State of
Punjab (1983) 3 SCC 470 approved in State V. Nalini

¶795

 : 201 :

¶796

 (1999 (5) SCC 253).

¶797

 g) When the murder is committed for a motive which
 evinces total depravity and meanness; e.g. murder
 by hired assassin for money or reward; or
 cold-blooded murder for gains of a person vis-a-vis
 whom the murderer is in a dominating position or in
 a position of trust ; or murder is committed in the
 course of betrayal of the motherland. ( See:
Macchi singh 1983 (3) SCC 470 followed in Lehna V.
State of Haryana (2002) 3 SCC 76).

¶798

 h) When murder of the member of a Scheduled Caste or

¶799

 minority community etc., is committed not for
 personal reasons but in circumstances which arouse
 social wrath, or in cases of ‘bride burning’ or
 ‘dowry deaths’ or when murder is committed in order
 to remarry for the sake of extracting dowry once
 again or to marry another woman on account of
 infatuation. ( See : Macchi Singh 1983 (3) SCC 470
 followed in Lehna V. State of Haryana (2002) 3 SCC
 76 ).

¶800

 i) When the crime is enormous in proportion. For

¶801

 instance when multiple murders, say of all or almost

¶802

 all the members of a family or a large number of
 persons of a particular caste, community, or
 locality, are committed. ( See : Macchi Singh
 1983(3) SCC 470 followed in Lehna V. State of

¶803

 : 202 :

¶804

Haryana (2002) 3 SCC 76).

¶805

 j) When the victim of murder is an innocent child,

¶806

 or a helpless woman or old or infirm person or a
 person vis-a-vis whom the murderer is in a
 dominating position, or a public figure generally
 loved and respected by the community. ( See :
Macchi Singh 1983 (3) SCC 470 followed in Lehna V.
State of Haryana (2002) 3 SCC 76).

¶807

 k) If it is an organised crime involving mass murder

¶808

 of innocent people ( See: State of M.P. V/s.
Ghanshyam Singh (2003) 8 SCC 13).

¶809

 l) If while committing murder the accused acted in a
 most cruel manner and the murder was committed in an
 extremely brutal, grotesque, diabolical, revolting
 or dastardly manner ( See: State of Rajasthan V.

¶810

Kheraj Ram (2003) 8 SCC 224).

¶811

 m) That the incident related to the kidnapping and

¶812

 killing of young children for gain (See: Mohan &
others V/s. State of TN 1998(5) SCC 336 and

¶813

Sevaka Perumal V/s. State of TN AIR 1991 SC 1463).

¶814

 (II) Mitigating circumstances :-

¶815

 a) That the offence was committed under the
 influence of extreme mental or emotional

¶816

 : 203 :

¶817

 disturbance. (See : Bachan Singh V. State of
Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684).

¶818

 b) That the accused is very young or very old. (
 See: Bachan Singh V. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC
 684).

¶819

 c) The probability that the accused would not commit
 criminal acts of violence as would constitute a
 continuing threat to society. ( See: Bachan Singh

¶820

V. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684).

¶821

 d) The probability that the accused can be reformed

¶822

 and rehabilitated. ( See: Bachan Singh V. State
of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684).

¶823

 e) That in the facts and circumstances of the case
 the accused believed that he was morally justified
 in committing the offence. ( See: Bachan Singh V.
State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684).

¶824

 f) That the accused acted under the duress or
 domination of another person. ( See: Bachan Singh
V.State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684).

¶825

 g) That the condition of the accused showed that he
 was mentally defective and that the said defect
 impaired his capacity to appreciate the criminality
 of his conduct. ( See: Bachan Singh V. State of

¶826

 : 204 :

¶827

Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684).

¶828

 h) That the accused is a woman, that she is a mother
 of a small girl, that accused is very young, that
 the accused has regretted the act and that the
 participation was as a result of indoctrination or
 the accused did not play any major role. ( See:
State V. Nalini 1999(5) SCC 253).

¶829

 i) That the evidence does not disclose the immediate

¶830

 cause of the incident ( See: Ram Anup Singh V.
State of Bihar (2002) 6 SCC 686).

¶831

 j) That there is nothing to suggest that the accused
 will repeat such barbarism in the future so that
 they would constitute a continuing threat to the

¶832

 society. ( See: Ram Anup Singh V. State of Bihar
 (2002) 6 SCC 686).

¶833

 k) There was no reason to believe that the accused

¶834

 could not be reformed or rehabilitated and he was
 likely to continue his criminal acts of violence as
 would constitute a continuing threat to the society.

¶835

 ( See: Prakash Dhawal Khairnar (Patil) V. State of

¶836

Maharashtra (2002) 2 SCC 35 as follows in Ram Anup

¶837

Singh V. State of Bihar reported in (2002) 6 SCC
 686).

¶838

 : 205 :

¶839

 l) That the facts of the case indicated that the
 accused was not a leader of the gang but was to be
 considered to be one amongst the other accused who
 took part in the incident. ( See: Ram Pal V.
State of U.P. (2003) 7 SCC 141).

¶840

 m) That the accused has spent a very long time in
 custody after the incident in question has occurred.
 ( See: Ram Pal V. State of U.P. (2003) 7 SCC
 141).

¶841

 n) That the role played by the accused is similar to
 the role played by other accused who have been given
 lesser sentence. ( See: Ram Pal V. State of U.P.
 (2003) 7 SCC 141).

¶842

 o) That the murder was committed due to deep seated
 mutual and personal rivalry ( See: State of M.P.

¶843

V. Ghanshyam Singh (2003) 8 SCC 13).

¶844

 p) That the accused was a student ( See: Amit V.

¶845

State of Maharashtra (2003) 8 SCC 93.)

¶846

 q) That the accused had no record of any previous
 heinous crime and there was no evidence that he will
 be a danger for the society. ( See: Amit V. State
of Maharashtra (2003) 8 SCC 93.)

¶847

 r) When the prosecution evidence is silent about the

¶848

 : 206 :

¶849

 actual part that an accused has played in the
 murders and the manner in which he acted in the
 killings thus making it difficult to take a definite
 view that the part he played in the said killings
 was cruel and callous. ( See : S.C.Bahri V. State
of Bihar. AIR 1994 SC 2420).

¶850

 23. The complexity of the issue as to whether the
 death sentence should be awarded in a given case
 however, arises not from the mitigating and
 aggravating circumstances, but to the weightage that
 is required to be given to each of such
 circumstances, totalling the weightage to be given
 to all such "mitigating" and "aggravating"
 circumstances and the final balancing of the same in
 order to determine if the case falls within the
 category of a rarest of rare case which calls for
 the extreme penalty of death.

¶851

 . In Simon V. State of Karnataka reported in

¶852

 2004(2) SCC 694 the Apex court observed as under :-

¶853

 " The grant of life imprisonment is the
 rule and death penalty an exception in the
 rarest of rare cases by stating "special
 reasons" for awarding it, but at the same
 time the punishment awarded must be
 commensurate with the crime committed by
 the accused. Ordinarily the sentence is
 not enhanced by the appellate court unless
 it is such a gross case that nothing but
 maximum sentence stipulated in law
 deserves to be awarded. The power to
 enhance death sentence from life should be
 very rarely exercised and only for
 strongest-possible reasons and not only
 because the appellate court is of that

¶854

 : 207 :

¶855

 view. The question of enhancement of
 sentence to award death penalty can,
 however, be considered where the facts are
 such that to award any punishment less
 than the maximum would shock the
 conscience of the court.

¶856

 . The court has to consider the nature of
 the crime as well as the accused. What is
 the relative weight to be given to the
 aggravating and mitigating factors,
 depends on the facts and circumstances of
 the particular case. More often than not
 these two aspects are so interwined that
 it is difficult to give a separate
 treatment to each of them. In many cases
 the extremely cruel or beastly manner of
 the commission of murder is itself a
 demonstrated index of the depraved
 character of the perpetrator. That is why
 it is not desirable to consider the
 circumstances of the crime and the
 circumstances of the criminal in two
 separate watertight compartments. The
 circumstance of duress or domination of
 another person is required to be taken
 into consideration as a relevant
 circumstance but that has to be considered
 on the facts of a particular case while
 considering and balancing all other
 aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
 That alone is not the determining factor."

¶857

 (extracted from paras-21, 22, 23, 29 & 32)

¶858

 24. In the light of the aforesaid observations of

¶859

 the Apex court in various cases referred to
 here-in-above, we now revert to the facts of the
 present case for considering the question as to
 whether an extreme penalty of death is called for in
 this case. In this regard the submissions made on

¶860

 behalf of the defence, are reproduced in

¶861

 paragraph-3(c) here-in-above and the reply on behalf
 of the State is also enumerated in paragraph-4(c)

¶862

 here-in-above.

¶863

 : 208 :

¶864

 25. Amongst the mitigating circumstances, the first
 was the fact that the accused were women, they were
 quite young when the killings commenced, Seema being
 about 19 years of age and Renuka being about 25
 years of age and that Renuka was the mother of four
 children, who are presently said to be lodged in a
 remand home. As regards these factors, though they
 would be in the nature of mitigating circumstances,
 yet, it would be worthwhile to take note that though
 similar factors existed in the case before the Apex
 court in State V. Nalini reported in 1999(5) SCC
 253, the Apex court sentenced Nalini to death. In
 the present case, we further take note of the fact
 that the father of 3 of the children of Renuka,(PW
 1) Kiran is alive and free. The evidence indicates
 that the child of Renuka from her earlier marriage,
 Ashish was virtually brought up by Kiran and Renuka
 after their marriage. Ashish is the eldest child,
 who was born in early December-1989. He must be on
 the verge of attaining 16 years of age. He
 alongwith his father would also be in a position to
 take care of the other children who are also fast
 growing. Besides, it appears that all the children,
 since about 1997, are lodged in the remand home at
 Kolhapur and their up-bringing is being looked after
 by the State.

¶865

 26. It was contended that another mitigating
 circumstance is that the accused had a very

¶866

 : 209 :

¶867

 disturbed childhood. That the evidence of (PW 21)
 Pratibha Mohan Gavit indicated that the mother of
 the accused Anjanabai had been abandoned before 1986
 by her husband Mohan Gavit. Mohan Gavit had then
 married (PW 21) Pratibha Gavit in 1986 and Mohan
 Gavit had a separate family consisting of Pratibha
 and her children Kranti and Devli and Deepali and
 this family was residing in Nasik district. The
 evidence further indicated that the mother of the
 accused Anjanabai had a criminal record going back
 to 1967. The first case against her being
 C.R.No.214/67 was registered at the Khadki police
 station. That thereafter there were 39 cases
 registered against her till February-1999 at various
 police stations in and around Pune city including
 the Vishrambag police station, Deccan police
 station, Swargate police station, Chatursinghi
 police station and Kothrud police station. They
 alongwith their mother were thus abandoned by their
 father and their mother Anjanabai taught them no
 better values while they were growing up as
 children. In our view, what is more important than
 a mere background of a disturbed childhood is
 whether there is a likelihood of reformation and any
 possibility that the accused could be safely
 reintroduced into society as a responsible citizen.
 If there is a serious apprehension that there is no
 hope in achieving this in the future and a good
 chance that the accused may continue their extreme

¶868

 : 210 :

¶869

 behaviour of murder and mayhem causing a further
 risk to society, than the mere historical background
 as to why the accused were turned into serial
 killers would lose its significance. The record
 indicates that accused no.1 Seema is by all accounts
 a hardened criminal. The police had produced at
 Exhibit-521 a list of 18 cases registered by various
 police stations in or around Pune city against her.
 This accused has graduated from being a petty thief
 to a hardhearted kidnapper and a merciless serial
 killer, involved in the killing of several small,
 innocent and helpless children. Her career in crime
 commenced prior to 1984 and was fortuitously
 discontinued only when she was arrested in 1996 on a
 complaint given by the mother of Kranti. On cases
 being thereafter detected, crimes have been
 registered against her till the year 1999. Accused
 no.2 Renuka has a criminal record which is no less
 impressive than her sister. The cases against her
 are enumerated in the list and this list (Exh.522)
 indicates that she also started her career in crime
 prior to 1984. The first case listed against her is
 C.R.No.124/84 registered by Vishrambag police
 station. Her career also continued till she was
 arrested in 1996 in the crime concerning the
 kidnapping of Kranti. Instances are known where
 persons coming from a deprived background, have
 beaten the odds against them to rise to responsible
 positions. The antecedents and activities of the

¶870

 : 211 :

¶871

 accused however, indicate that the present accused
 had not only willingly followed the footsteps of
 their mother Anjanabai but were on the way of
 overshadowing their mother in diabolical planning
 and merciless execution of a series of most the
 heinous kidnappings and murders, specifically
 targeting young and helpless children. The evidence
 indicates that from 1990 to 1996, the accused did
 not show the slightest remorse for the kidnapping
 and killing of such innocent children but with
 planning zeal and energy travelled to different
 towns in two States, for kidnapping such children
 and putting an end to their life in a most brutal
 manner. The evidence indicates that the accused not
 only indulged in such heinous serial kidnapping and
 killing but were completely indifferent and callous
 to the suffering of the young children and their
 distrant parents. The record indicates that while
 the child Santosh aged about 1 to 1 & 1/2 years was
 being killed by Anjanabai by dashing his head
 against an iron bar at the S.T.stand, Kolhapur, the
 two accused alongwith approver (PW 1) Kiran were
 standing nearby and eating Wada-pav while witnessing
 the killing. Similarly, the evidence indicates that
 after the brutal killing of the child Gauri who was
 a girl aged about 2 to 2 & 1/2 years, these accused
 alongwith (PW 1) Kiran decided to watch a movie and
 had gone to see a movie picture at Usha theatre in
 Kolhapur, carrying the dead body of the murdered

¶872

 : 212 :

¶873

 child in the bag. The nature of the injuries
 sufferred by some of the children are so severe that
 only an extreme depraved mind could have
 perpectuated or acquicised in such brutal killing.
 We have reproduced in this Judgment, the 42 injuries
 sufferred by the child Pankaj who was aged about 3
 to 4 years. These injuries sufferred by Pankaj are
 not only in the nature of abrasions, contusions and
 lacerations but there were also incised wounds on
 his body. If a defenceless child like Pankaj was to
 be killed, a blow on a vital part of the unfortunate
 child would have sufficed. However, on noticing the
 number and nature of his injuries we were left to
 wonder as to what manner of person would caused such
 injuries to a small child or even acquise in their
 being causing. It may be worthwhile to mention that
 Pankaj according to the Doctor’s evidence died
 because of smothering. It appears that the child
 was smothered and then his body was repeatedly hit
 against the wall and the accused if not actually
 involved in the killing were present, witnessed and
 acquisiced in this killing. Almost every child who
 has been killed in this case was killed in a brutal
 manner. Even children who had a providential escape
 like Naresh and Meena were found to have injuries on
 their bodies. Some children or their dead bodies
 have even today not been found. Even after the
 killing the accused had shown not the slightest
 decency while disposing off the dead bodies. The

¶874

 : 213 :

¶875

 dead bodies of these children were stripped of their
 clothes and thrown into the ghat or left along the
 public roads and in one case in the womens public
 latrine. These incidents occurred over 6 years and
 during this period the accused turned into ruthless
 criminals. We find not a shread of material on
 record which could lead us to conclude that these
 accused could be reformed or be reintroduced into
 society as responsible citizens without causing any
 danger. We would like to place on record one more
 important circumstance which also leads us to
 believe that there was not an iota of repentance or
 remorse being felt by the accused. In the incidents
 relating to child Naresh, we have indicated that
 accused Renuka had committed an offence of forgery
 by filing a false application in the court at Nasik
 therein falsely claiming to be the mother of Naresh.
 While the present confirmation and appeal
 proceedings were in progress in the initial days of
 hearing, at their request both the accused were
 produced and kept present in court. During this
 period accused either singly or jointly preferred
 three applications, the contents of which are
 indicators of their continuing propensity to
 mis-lead the court by making false and mis-leading
 statements. The first such application was filed in
 this court by Renuka and the same is dated
 22.6.2004. In this application she stated that this
 case did not pertain to 13 children but in all 54

¶876

 : 214 :

¶877

 children were involved. She claimed that the

¶878

 hearing of the matter should be suspended and she
 should be given into police custody. She sought the
 help of the court in order to enable her to get the
 people involved in the kidnapping of these 54
 children arrested. She stated that the vehicles

¶879

 which had been used for kidnapping these 54 persons
 had not been produced by the police in the court.
 Instead the police had taken Rs.50/- lakhs from such
 persons and had let them off. She claimed that the
 accused had been falsely involved in this case. She
 claimed that the money which had been earned by the
 kidnappers through the sale of children had been
 kept with 2 Jewellers and all these persons were
 required to be arrested and brought before the
 court. She named these persons as Anna, Akkabai
 Kale, Bhai, Babu, Husein, Sultan and Anu. She
 claimed that (PW 1) Kiran Shinde and one Laxman Urit
 had both instigated Anna and Akkabai to kidnap
 children and had promised them Rs.20,000/- each.
 That the real culprits were Kiran Shinde, Laxman
 Urit, Akkabai and Anna, and these persons were
 selling the children. Similarly, Kiran was being
 paid Rs.1,00,000/- for every child. That her
 husband had kept these 54 children in August-1996 at
 a secured place. She claimed to have voluminous
 evidence including cassettes and photos which had
 been left with her by her husband. She claimed that
 all this evidence had been kept by her at a secured

¶880

 : 215 :

¶881

 place. She prayed for grant of police remand. On
 6.7.2004, 2 separate applications were filed jointly
 by the accused. In one of these, the accused
 contended that Naresh was not a kidnapped child but
 the child of their real cousin sister. When their
 cousin sister by name Rekha had died, she had told
 the accused that she had left her child at Nasik.
 She had asked Renuka to bring the child from Nasik
 and to bring up the child. This, she had expressed
 as her last wish and had been agreed to by Renuka.
 Consequently, the accused had come to Nasik and made
 enquiries at the Trambak road remand home. There,
 they had met a Superintendent Nathu Jadhav and the
 accused had showed them a photograph of Naresh which
 was with them. Nathu Jadhav informed the accused
 that this boy was in the Adhar ashram. The accused
 then went to Adhar-ashram but were not allow to come
 inside the gate of the Ashram. After some time one
 lady arrived there and asked them to come with an
 Advocate. The accused then engaged an Advocate and
 returned to Adhar-ashram where they were told that
 Naresh had been given in adoption. That thereafter
 their Advocate filed a case in the court and while
 this case was going on, they had filed a photograph
 of Naresh alongwith his mother Rekha in the court
 proceedings. Similarly, they had also filed a
 photograph of Naresh with the accused and Anjanabai
 in the said proceedings. It was contended that the
 application filed by Advocate Kasliwal regarding

¶882

 : 216 :

¶883

 Naresh being her twin child was false and was not
 based upon any instructions given by Renuka. It was
 stated that Advocate Kasliwal must have written the
 said application out of his own imagination. The
 application raised a query that if Kiran knew that
 Naresh was a kidnapped child then why had he not
 disclosed this fact to the Judge hearing the Civil
 proceedings in Nasik or to any other police officer.
 It was contended that when Chatursinghi police
 station had arrested Anjanabai, Renuka had been
 directed to attend the police station every day.
 This application contained no specific prayer except
 to state that the contents may be considered. A 3rd
 joint application dated 6.7.2004 was made by the
 accused contending therein that the child Meena was
 infact the real daughter of Kiran Shinde. That the
 mother of Meena by name Sarika had been married by
 Kiran in a temple in the year 1988. Meena was born
 out of this marriage in the year 1990. Kiran had
 brought Sarika alongwith him from Belgaum. After
 some time, Sarika learnt that Kiran was involved in
 the business of kidnapping women. On learning this,
 she quarreled with Kiran and in 1991 Sarika informed
 about the activities of Kiran to Renuka’s husband.
 On learning about this, her husband tried to advise
 Kiran but Kiran started thereatening her. In 1993
 Kiran murdered his wife Sarika. This fact was known
 to Meena. After killing Sarika, Kiran came to the
 house of Renuka alongwith Meena. Once the accused

¶884

 : 217 :

¶885

 had been to the dispensary of one Sanjay Bhide for a
 check up and only her mother Anjanabai and her 2
 children were at home. Her elder son was studying
 in the Balwadi and her younger son was only 1 & 1/2
 years old. That evening her mother had been to the
 market to buy vegetables and when she returned she
 was followed by a constable by name Bhagwat and the
 accused alongwith Anjanabai and Meena were taken to
 Shastri Nagar police chowky. On the day when they
 were arrested, Kiran Shinde had run away from the
 Shastrinagar police chowky. The accused and
 Anjanabai were taken to Kothrud police station. The
 application raised a query as to why Kiran had not
 informed the Kothrud police that Meena was a
 kidnapped child. Meena’s mother could not be traced
 by the police only because she had been murdered.
 That the name of Meena was not Meena Ganesh Deshmukh
 but was Meena Kiran Shinde. The application stated
 that this court may call Meena and ask her as to who
 had killed her mother and as to who was her father.
 It was stated that Meena had no brother and it was
 at the request of Kiran that Meena was kept in the
 boarding. It was lastly stated that Kiran had
 falsely informed the police that the name of the
 child was Meena Ganesh Deshmukh. Once again this
 application contained no particular prayer save and
 except that the same may be considered.

¶886

 27. On receipt of the application dated 22.6.2004

¶887

 : 218 :

¶888

 since the same contained a prayer, however,
 untenable, we had called and heard both the accused
 in chamber. The application suggested that (PW 1)
 Kiran was not the husband of accused Renuka. It
 also suggested that there was a larger dimension to
 the crime. Since the application mentioned that the
 identity of such children could be disclosed and
 that the evidence relating to the offence pertaining
 to this children was also in the custody of the
 accused, we asked the accused as to why such
 disclosure was not made in the trial court. Their
 answer was that they had made such disclosure but
 the Sessions Judge had refused to take the same on
 record. We have already mentioned that the accused
 have filed a written statement which does not
 contain any fact mentioned in the 3 applications
 referred to here-in-above. Since her application
 dated 22.6.2004 suggested that Kiran was not her
 husband, we asked Renuka as to who was the real
 husband and as to where he resides. To this, she
 replied that her real husband had been murdered by
 Kiran and therefore, there was no question of her
 husband being traced. When asked about the 54
 children, she replied that these children were
 outside the State of Maharashtra and were in the
 custody of her relative. So also, she claimed that
 the cassettes mentioned in her application were also
 in her safe custody. She declined the offer of
 disclosing the whereabouts of any such children or

¶889

 : 219 :

¶890

 evidence, even if she was sent with a Magistrate.
 We have no hesitation in holding that these
 applications seems to be another attempt by the
 accused to mis-lead the court. The contents of
 these applications to our mind also indicate that
 there is no improvement and no redeeming factor in
 so far as the present accused are concerned. We
 feel that for the aforesaid reasons, the mere
 disturbed background of the accused cannot be given
 undue weightage as a mitigating circumstance. These
 applications give an insight into the present mental
 disposition of the accused. We find nothing on the
 record to even remotely suggest that the accused
 have experienced any repentence or remorse for the
 acts committed by them.

¶891

 28. We then considered as to whether a lesser

¶892

 sentence ought to be imposed in view of the fact
 that the conviction was being made with the aid of
 section 34 of IPC. It is true that under certain
 circumstances, when the conviction is with the aid
 of sections of the IPC by which constructive
 liability can be fixed upon the accused such as
 sections 149, 34 or 109, the same may form a
 mitigating circumstance. For example, where the
 prosecution evidence was silent about the actual
 part that an accused had played in the murders and
 the conviction was therefore, required to be made
 with the aid of section 34 of IPC, the same could be

¶893

 : 220 :

¶894

 said to be mitigating factor because it would be
 difficult to take a definite view that the actual
 part that an accused played in the said killing was
 cruel or callous. In the present case, we have the
 evidence of (PW 1) Kiran which speaks about the mode
 and manner of the killing of the various children by
 these accused and Anjanabai. We are however,
 conscious of the fact that in so far as this part of
 the evidence of (PW 1) Kiran relating to the mode
 and manner of killing of the children is concerned,
 we have choosen a safer path of not placing reliance

¶895

 on the same and convicted the accused for the
 offence relating to the murder of the various
 children on the basis of voluminous circumstantial
 evidence brought on record by the prosecution, thus
 securing the conviction with the aid of section 34
 of IPC. However, on a careful consideration, we
 find that even within this mitigating circumstance
 exist various shades and degrees. In the case of a
 single incident where the murder was cruel and
 callous but the exact role played by each of the
 accused was not known, the weightage that could be
 given to such a mitigating circumstance would be

¶896

 higher in degree. However, in a case where the

¶897

 accused continued to commit serial murders over a

¶898

 long period such as the 6 years in the present case,
 even if the exact role of each of the accused could
 not be established in each individual case, the mere
 increase in the number of brutal murders would

¶899

 : 221 :

¶900

 decrease the probability that the accused were not
 involved in the brutality and callousness and would
 reduce the value that could be attached to the
 aforesaid mitigating circumstance. This mitigating
 circumstance would further reduce in value if the
 numerous killings were effected over a long period
 of time as this would eliminate any feeling of
 remorse or repentence having been felt by the
 accused. As observed here-in-above, the killings in
 the present case had taken place over a period of 6
 years and the accused have shown gross dis-regard
 for any human and civilized behaviour during this
 entire period.

¶901

 29. We then considered as to whether the accused

¶902

 could be said to have acted under the duress or
 domination of any other person and we must record
 our finding that there is no evidence what-so-ever
 to indicate that these accused were either under the
 duress or domination of either their mother
 Anjanabai or (PW 1) Kiran. In fact, the evidence
 indicates that the present accused were in the
 forefront of the planning and execution of the
 kidnappings and killings. The evidence indicates
 that the proceeds of the thefts including the money
 and ornaments were kept by accused no.1 Renuka in
 her control. The approver (PW 1) Kiran used to come
 and collect money from Renuka. The evidence
 indicates that the accused Seema was the one

¶903

 : 222 :

¶904

 checking into the hotels in various towns where the
 family used to stay for the purpose of kidnapping
 and killing. From the various bank accounts which
 were frozen, it was evident that Renuka had also
 invested monies in fixed deposits in the name of her
 children. We have seen nothing to indicate that
 Seema was under the control or domination of her
 elder sister, mother or Kiran. She appears to have
 been a fullfledged participant in all the criminal
 activities indulged by the family of the accused.

¶905

 30. Having weighed the aggravating and mitigating
 circumstances, we find that the former far out weigh
 the latter and this is one of the rarest of rare
 cases which would call for the imposition of the
 death penalty in relation to the proved murder of
 several children.

¶906

 31. Before pronouncing the order, we would like to
 place on record that we are acquitting the accused
 of the charge under section 364 as we have held that
 the initial conspiracy was only to be for the
 purpose of kidnapping children for the use in petty
 thefts. We have convicted the accused for the
 various offences of murder with the aid of Section
 34 of the IPC and not under Section 302 r/w. 120-B
 of IPC as has been done by the trial court in
 respect of the offences of murders and other
 offences. We have further made minor modification

¶907

 : 223 :

¶908

 in the convictions such as convicting the accused
 for attempt to kidnap the child Devli and not for
 kidnapping the child Devli. We have also modified
 the sentences awarded. These modifications made
 would be as found in the operative portion of our
 order given here-in-below.

¶909

 32. We would also like to express our deepest
 appreciation for the good and consencious efforts
 made by the Additional Public Prosecutor Mrs.Pai in
 assisting the court in the confirmation proceedings
 and in the appeal. She had prepared and placed
 before us a voluminous compilation, detailing
 precisely the evidence relating to each of the
 several incidents which was very helpful in the
 course of arguments as well as while going through
 the records.

¶910

 33. We therefore, proceed to pass the following

¶911

 order :-

¶912

 O R D E R

¶913

 (a) For the criminal conspiracy of kidnapping
 children and using them for thefts, both the accused
 are convicted under Section 120-B of IPC and
 sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a
 period of 3 years each and to pay a fine of
 Rs.2000/- each, in default to suffer further

¶914

 : 224 :

¶915

 imprisonment of 6 months each;

¶916

 (b) For the kidnapping of the minor children
 Santosh, Bunty, Swati, Guddu, Meena, Raja, Shradha,
 Kranti, Gauri and Pankaj from lawful guardianship,
 each of the accused are convicted of an offence
 punishable under Section 363 r/w section 34 of IPC
 in respect of each of such offence relating to each
 of the aforesaid children and are sentenced to
 under-go rigorous imprisonment for 3 years each on
 each count and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- each in
 default to suffer further R.I. for 6 months for
 each default with all the substantive sentences of
 imprisonment running concurrently ;

¶917

 (c) For the kidnapping of the minor children
 Santosh, Bunty, Swati, Guddu, Meena, Raja, Shradha,
 Gauri and Pankaj with intent to cause the child to
 be secretely and wrongfully confined, each of the
 accused are convicted of an offence punishable under
 Section 365 r/w section 34 of IPC in respect of each
 of such offence relating to each of the aforesaid
 children and are sentenced to under-go rigorous
 imprisonment for 3 years each and to pay a fine of
 Rs.2000/-, in default to suffer further imprisonment

¶918

 of 6 months for each default, with all the
 substantive sentences of imprisonment running
 concurrently ;

¶919

 : 225 :

¶920

 (d) Accused Renuka Kiran Shinde is convicted of the
 offences punishable under Sections 468 of the Indian
 Penal Code for committing forgery for the purpose of
 cheating while attempting to obtain the custody of
 the child Naresh through court and is sentenced to
 suffer Rigorous imprisonment for a period of three
 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default to
 suffer further R.I. for 1 year ;

¶921

 (e) For the attempt to commit kidnapping of the
 child Devli, each of the accused are convicted under
 Section 511 r/w section 363 and section 511 r/w
 section 365 of IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous
 imprisonment for a period of 1 year each on each
 count and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each, in
 default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 months
 for each default, with the substantive sentences on
 the aforesaid two counts running concurrently ;

¶922

 (f) In respect of the murder of the children
 Santosh, Anjali, Shradha, Gauri and Pankaj in
 respect of each of such offence, both the accused
 are convicted under Section 302 r/w section 34 of
 IPC and for each offence, the sentence of death as
 awarded to each of them by the trial court is
 confirmed.

¶923

 (g) That for causing the disappearence of the
 evidence of murder by disposing off the dead bodies

¶924

 : 226 :

¶925

 of Santosh, Anjali, Shradha, Gauri and Pankaj in
 respect of each such offence, both the accused are
 convicted under Section 201 read with 34 of the
 Indian Penal Code and for each such offence they are
 sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years each and to
 pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each, in default to suffer
 further R.I. for 2 years for each default with all
 substantive sentences running concurrently ;

¶926

 (h) The accused are acquitted of all other charges ;

¶927

 (i) Both the accused would be entitled to get set
 off for the period of their detention in jail in
 accordance with section 328 of the Code of Criminal
 Procedure 1973 ;

¶928

 (j) To enable the accused to file a further appeal
 before a higher court, and/or to prefer any other
 legal remedy available to them, the sentence of
 death will not be executed for a period of 90 days
 from the date of this Judgment ;

¶929

 (k) On execution of one of the death sentences as
 aforesaid, it would not be necessary to execute the
 other substantive sentences.

¶930

 33. The Judgment and order of the trial court to
 stand modified and the confirmation case and the
 appeal to stand disposed off accordingly.

¶931

 : 227 :

¶932

(R.M.S.Khandeparkar,J)

¶933

 ( R.S.Mohite,J)

The State of Maharashtra v. Renukabai @ Rinku @ Ratan W/O.Kiran Shinde and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharashtra v. Renukabai @ Rinku @ Ratan W/O.Kiran Shinde and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State vs. a.D.Bhekare and Ors. Vs Arjun D.Bhekare and Ors.

Arjun Dattaram Bhekare and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

State vs. Ashok K.Shendkar Vs Ashok K. Shendkar

Faruq Ismail Kalyani and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mohd. Ubaid @ Tarique Rashid Ansari Vs the State of Maharashtra

Deepti Dilip Kiran Vs Central Bureau of Investigation (Cbi-Acb), and Anr.