Allowed

Laxman Baban Padvi v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC13 Oct 2014APEAL/132/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal appeal against a life sentence for murder. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish a chain of circumstances, as key witnesses contradicted the accidental discovery of evidence and failed to prove the time of death or motive. The appellant was acquitted.

What did the court decide?

The conviction and sentence are quashed; the appellant is acquitted, the fine is refunded, and he is released forthwith.

Laxman Baban Padvi Vs the State of Maharashtra — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

132-09-Appeal-Judgment=.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 132 OF 2009

¶4

Laxman Baban Padvi Age : 52 years, Occ. Labour, R/at Kundan Wadi, Taluka Dahanu, Dist. Thane, (At present in Thane Central Prison) .. Appellant

¶5

v/s.

¶6

The State of Maharashtra (Through Inspector of Police, Talasari Police Station, District Thane) .. Respondent

¶7

None for the appellant Mrs. S.D. Shinde, APP for the respondent State

¶8

CORAM : P. V. HARDAS & SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ. DATED : 13^th OCTOBER, 2014.

¶9

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per H.V. Hardas, J)

¶10

The appellant who stands convicted for offence punishable

¶11

under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default of which to undergo further RI for 2 months, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Palghar by judgment dated 19.01.2009 in Sessions Case No.20 of 2008 by this

¶12

1 of 11

¶13

Uday S. Jagtap

¶14

132-09-Appeal-Judgment=.doc

¶15

appeal questions the correctness of his conviction and sentence.

¶16

Facts as are necessary in the decision of this appeal may briefly be stated thus.

¶17

PW-7 PSI Sunil Bacho was entrusted with the investigation of the said crime, which was registered on the basis of the report of PW-1 Samsu at Exh.6. On being entrusted with the investigation, PW-7 PSI Sunil proceeded with PW-1 to the scene of the incident and drew the inquest panchanama of the dead body of deceased Parvati at Exh.7. The appellant who was present there was searched and was arrested on 23.30 hours. The dead body of deceased Parvati was referred for post mortem examination. On the next day i.e. on 16.12.2007, PW-7 PSI Sunil Bacho drew the scene of incident panchanama at Exh.18 in the presence of panchas. From the scene of the incident, he collected samples of ordinary mud and blood stained mud. He drew a sketch of the scene of the incident.

¶18

On 17.12.2007, during custodial interrogation, the appellant expressed his willingness to point out the place where the stick and clothes had been concealed. A memorandum to that effect was

¶19

2 of 11

¶20

Uday S. Jagtap

¶21

132-09-Appeal-Judgment=.doc

¶22

drawn in the presence of panchas at Exh.15. The appellant led the police and the panch to his agricultural field and from near a water tank produced clothes and stick which came to the seized under seizure memo at Exh.16. Meanwhile, statements of the witnesses had been recorded and the seized articles were referred to the chemical analyzer under requisition at Exh.19. The stick was referred to the medical officer for obtaining his opinion that if the injuries sustained by Parvati would be caused by the said stick. Statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. And further to the completion of investigation, a chargesheet against the appellant was filed.

¶23

The post mortem on the dead body of deceased Parvati was conducted by PW-8 Dr. Pralhad Padghane, who noticed the following external injuries :-

¶24

“1. Two grove like parallel and one above the other depressions placed below thyroid region of neck.

¶25

(ii) Longer and lower site 2 cm x ½ cm and positioned central region. (iii) Another was shorter little above the first placed laterally size of 1

¶26

3 of 11

¶27

Uday S. Jagtap

¶28

132-09-Appeal-Judgment=.doc

¶29

cm x ½ cm.

¶30

2. The thyroid cartilage and trachie were clinically much free and movable.

¶31

3. The neck extension was free and posteriorly as well as both side. 4. There was echymous and oozing of blood multiple in skin and anterior neck muscles.

¶32

5. Fracture of trachial cartilages with haemorrhagics and multiple sites of muccsa as well as of outer surface of thyroid & trachina.

¶33

6. Oblique bluish black swollen region (contusion) in the Axillar line and at the lower ½ levral of breast measuring 3 inch x 1 ½ inch.”

¶34

He opined that all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and

¶35

on internal examination found accumpsses and humourages trechia and cartilages. Brain and lungs were also congested and there was oozing of blood at cut surface. He, therefore, opined that cause of death was axphysia due to strangulation. The post mortem report is at Exh.29.

¶36

On committal of the case to Court of Sessions, the trial Court vide Exh.3 framed charge against the appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C. The appellant denied his guilt and claimed to be tried. Prosecution in support of its case examined 8 witnesses. The defence of the accused is of denial.

¶37

4 of 11

¶38

Uday S. Jagtap

¶39

132-09-Appeal-Judgment=.doc

¶40

The case against the appellant rests on circumstantial evidence

¶41

namely; (i) extra-judicial confession (ii) the appellant pointing out the place where the dead body of deceased Parvati was concealed to the witnesses and (iii) discovery of blood stained stick and blood stained clothes of the appellant.

¶42

In respect of third circumstance i.e. about discovery, prosecution has examined PW-6 Navsu a panch to the discovery memorandum. PW-6 Navsha deposed about the appellant expressing his willingness to point out the place where a stick and blood stained clothes have been concealed. In the cross-examination, he has admitted that when he was called to the police station and when he reached to the police station, the appellant was sitting in the jeep. He then admits that as soon as when he reached to police station, he sat in jeep. He further admits that they had reached the agricultural field of the appellant at about 1.00 p.m. He admits that he had put three signatures out of which one signature was made at the police station. He also admits that at the police station, when he had signed the document, the appellant was sitting in the jeep. He also

¶43

5 of 11

¶44

Uday S. Jagtap

¶45

132-09-Appeal-Judgment=.doc

¶46

admits that he had signed the document when he was boarding the jeep. He states that at that time, the appellant was also sitting in the jeep.

¶47

In the light of the aforesaid admission, in our opinion, this witness has completely demolished the evidence regarding the discovery of the stick and the clothes. This witness in terms admits that the appellant was sitting in the jeep when the signature of this witness was obtained on the memorandum, thus ruling out the appellant making any disclosure to this witness about his willingness to point out the place and discovery of the articles. This witness has also admitted that the appellant was sitting in the jeep and consequently it is extremely doubtful if the appellant had made any disclosure statement in the presence of this witness. Moreover, the report of the chemical analyzer at Exh.20 indicates that the stick and the clothes of the appellant were stained with human blood but the group could not be determined.

¶48

Prosecution has examined PW-1 Samsu, who deposes that

¶49

deceased Parvati was his younger sister, who was married to the

¶50

6 of 11

¶51

Uday S. Jagtap

¶52

132-09-Appeal-Judgment=.doc

¶53

appellant. On 15.02.2006, Samsu along with his wife Yamnuabai was working at home while his daughter PW-4 Sundar was working with deceased Parvati. At about 11.00 a.m., Sundar came running and informed PW-1 Samsu that Parvati had been killed. PW-1 Samsu along with his wife Yamunabai and his daughter PW-4 Sundar rushed to the agricultural land of the appellant. On reaching the agricultural land, they noticed the appellant loading grass in the bullock cart. On the bank of a small stream, a heap of grass was lying and they noticed the dead body of deceased Parvati. PW-1 Samsu, therefore, along with others went to the police station and lodged his report at Exh.6.

¶54

In cross-examination, an omission has been elicited that he had

¶55

not stated in his report at Exh.6 that his daughter Sundar had informed him that Parvati had been killed. Prosecution has examined PW-4 Sundar, who deposes that on the day of the incident, she had gone to the agricultural field in the morning and noticed that the appellant wandering here and there. PW-4 Sundar did not notice Parvati and, therefore, inquired from the appellant as to where

¶56

7 of 11

¶57

Uday S. Jagtap

¶58

132-09-Appeal-Judgment=.doc

¶59

Parvati was. The appellant confessed to PW-4 Sundar that he had killed Parvati and had thrown the dead body of Parvati in the stream. PW-4 Sundar, therefore, returned home and immediately informed this to her mother PW-5 Yamunabai and her father PW-1 Samsu. Along with her parents, she returned to the agricultural field and when PW-1 Samsu inquired from the appellant about the whereabouts of Parvati, the appellant also confessed to have killed Parvati. PW-4 Sundar states that she searched for the dead body of Parvati and found the dead body near a mango tree on the bank of the stream. In cross-examination, an omission has been elicited that she had not stated in her previous statement that she noticed the appellant wandering in the agricultural field. An omission is also elicited that she had not stated in her previous statement that she had noticed the dead body lying near a mango tree. She has also admitted that the house of the Police Patil is also near the agricultural field of the appellant. She has also admitted as correct that the houses of the employees of Dapcheri Milk Project were near the agricultural land of the appellant. She has also admitted that the work of Reliance Company was also going on near the scene of the

¶60

8 of 11

¶61

Uday S. Jagtap

¶62

132-09-Appeal-Judgment=.doc

¶63

incident. She has admitted that about 10 to 12 workers were working daily in the field of the appellant.

¶64

Prosecution has examined PW-5 Yamunabai, who deposes that on the day of the incident, PW-4 Sundar returned home and informed her that the appellant had murdered Parvati. PW-5 further deposes that she along with her husband PW-5 Samsu and others and PW-4 Sundar went to the scene of the incident. They searched for the dead body of Parvati and the dead body was sound after PW-1 Samsu removed the heap of grass. According to Yamnubai, her husband PW-1 Samsu had inquired from the appellant about whereabouts of Parvati and the appellant had informed PW-1 Samsu that he had committed murder of Parvati and had thrown the dead body in the stream. She then states that the place where the dead body was found was pointed out by the appellant. In cross-examination, an omission has been elicited that she had not stated in her previous statement that the appellant had pointed out the place where the dead body of Parvati was concealed.

¶65

9 of 11

¶66

Uday S. Jagtap

¶67

132-09-Appeal-Judgment=.doc

¶68

PW-1 Samsu does not make any reference whatsoever to PW-4

¶69

Sundar informing him that the appellant had confessed to have killed Parvati and thrown her dead body in the stream. Similarly, PW-1 Sundar also makes no reference to the appellant confessing to him at the scene of the incident to have killed Parvati and to have thrown the dead body in the stream. PW-1 Sundar also makes no reference to the appellant pointing out the place where the dead body of Parvati was concealed. We thus, find that there is no evidence whatsoever which would in any manner, implicate the present appellant. There is no evidence regarding the time of last meal which deceased Parvati had taken. The time of death, therefore, has not been established and there is no evidence to indicate that the appellant was present in the agricultural filed at about the time when the offence was committed. Prosecution has utterly failed to prove any motive for the appellant to have committed the crime.

¶70

In our opinion, therefore, the prosecution has not been able to establish any circumstance which had been alleged by the prosecution. Prosecution is unsuccessful in establishing a chain of

¶71

10 of 11

¶72

Uday S. Jagtap

¶73

132-09-Appeal-Judgment=.doc

¶74

circumstances, which would point to the guilt of the accused. The appellant in our view, therefore, is entitled to be given the benefit of doubt.

¶75

Accordingly, Criminal Appeal No.132 of 2009 is allowed and the conviction and sentence of the appellant is hereby quashed and set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the offence with which he was charged and convicted.

¶76

Fine if payed by the appellant be refunded to him. Since the appellant is in jail, he be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

¶77

( ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.) ( P.V. HARDAS, J.)

¶78

11 of 11

¶79

Uday S. Jagtap

Laxman Baban Padvi v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxman Baban Padvi v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ganesh Hanumant Ghuge Vs the State of Maharashtra

Nandu Dada Survase Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dattatraya Bhaurao Khairnar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Gunga Natha Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra

Siddhappa Bhima Lade Vs the State of Maharashtra

Zubeda Ibrahim Tajania Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.