Allowed

Rahul Yogesh Jadhav v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC17 Nov 2014BA/1340/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed bail application under Section 439 CrPC regarding a charge of culpable homicide causing death. The court granted bail citing lack of cogent incriminating circumstances, specifically the absence of an extra judicial confession naming the applicant and the unidentifiable dead body, noting evidence relies on circumstantial factors.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicant enlarged on bail by furnishing Police Receipt Bond of Rs. 15,000/- plus one or two sureties in like amount. Applicant not to tamper with evidence and not to reside in Vi

Rahul Yogesh Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

8.ba1340.14.sxw

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1340 OF 2014

¶5

Rahul Yogesh Jadhav. Versus The State of Maharashtra.

¶6

... Applicant. ... Respondent.

¶7

Mr. Tapan Thatte, advocate for Applicant.

¶8

Mr. S.S. Pednekar, APP for State.

¶9

--- CORAM : SMT.SADHANA S. JADHAV,J DATE : NOVEMBER 17, 2014

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

1 Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for State. Perused the papers.

¶12

2 This is an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The applicant herein is arrested on 8/1/201 in Crime No. 1 of 2013 registered at Arnala Sagari Police Station for offence punishable under Section 302, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code on 4/1/2014. The investigation is completed and charge-sheet is filed on 30th March, 2014. Learned APP submits that statement of material witnesses have also been recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

¶13

Talwalkar 1/8

¶14

2 8.ba1340.14.sxw

¶15

3 It is the case of the prosecution that on 4/1/2014 at about 7.45

¶16

a.m. one Joseph Ignatius Rodrigues informed the police that he is the owner of the agricultural land known as wadi. He has two wells. On 4/1/2014 in the morning when he had been to agricultural land to start electric motor, he had noticed dead body of an unidentified male aged about 35 to 40 years in his well. He has specifically informed the police that the identity of the said male person was not known. The dead body was removed from the well with the help of fire brigade. On the basis of the said information, A.D. No. 3 of 2014 was registered at Arnala Sagari Police Station. The dead body was sent for autopsy examination and while performing autopsy on the said dead body on 5/1/2014 at about 9.30 a.m. the medical officer had observed that the whole body was swelling and disfigured Bullae formation and ruptured all over body. P.M. lividity was found on the back buttock and scapular regions. The body was almost decomposed. Maggots were found all over dead body. It would prima facie indicate that the death had occurred more than 72 hours prior to finding of the dead body. It is pertinent to note at this stage that the dead body was found in the well and yet there was maggots

Talwalkar

2/8

3 8.ba1340.14.sxw

formation. However, the medical officer had opined that cause of death was due to intra cranial haemorrhage due to head injury. In the column of additional remark it was mentioned that death must have occurred 36 hours to 7 days prior to conduct post mortem examination.

¶21

4 Investigating Officer had on the basis of the post mortem arrived at a conclusion that the death of unidentified person was homicidal death and hence, Crime No. 1 of 2014 was registered against unknown person for offence punishable under Section 302, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Investigating Officer had recorded spot panchanama and other panchanamas.

¶22

5 In the A.D. enquiry, it appeared that no person in the said area could identify the dead body. On 7/1/2014 in the course of investigation the police officers had recorded statement of one Raju Purshottam Kancharala. He had disclosed that in the said area he had seen present applicant and his associates consuming alcohol and indulging in other vices. They were obstructed to do so by the people living in the close vicinity. However, at that relevant time, they used

Talwalkar

3/8

4 8.ba1340.14.sxw

to threaten the people residing in that area. The witness has specifically disclosed that they used to often visit the said site frequently at 8 to 11 a.m. and 6 to 8 p.m. According to the said witness, on 4/1/2014 an unidentified dead body was found. The body was decomposed. It was kept in the mortuary. According to the said witness, the present applicant and his associates were not seen in the said area after 4/1/2014 and therefore, he expressed suspension that in all probabilities the applicant had indulged into the same.

¶27

6 On 8/1/2014 the Investigating Officer had recorded the statement of one Jeris @ Anna Phelix Pillai. He had disclosed to the police that on 1/1/2014 relative of his friend had arranged new year party and that the present applicant and his friends were also attending the said party alongwith witness. In the midnight at about 1 a.m. an unidentified person had dashed Gautam Pardeshi. The applicant and his associates w ere under the influence of alcohol. They got annoyed with the same and therefore, they started assaulting the said unidentified person. Initially they had formed an opinion that he is a beggar. However, later on Gautam Pardeshi told that he was not a beggar but he is a thief. The applicant and his

¶28

Talwalkar 4/8

¶29

5 8.ba1340.14.sxw

¶30

associates had allegedly started assaulting him with fists and kick blows. The witness was trying to restrain them from assaulting. However, since they were under the influence of alcohol. They continued to assault the said person. Thereafter the witness had left site. On 2/1/2014 he had been to usual place to meet his friends but he could not meet anybody. It is alleged that on 2/1/2014 when he met the co-accused Gautam Pardeshi, he had disclosed that they had assaulted and eliminated the unidentified male who they met on the previous night and disposed of his dead body in a well. Gautam Pardeshi had also threatened the witness not to disclose the same to anybody. He also gave them a lemon since it was an ill-spirited dead body. On 4/1/2014 some boys had informed the witness that they have seen an unidentified dead body in the well. The witness therefore, suspected that it must have been the same person/beggar whom the applicant and his associates had admitted to have eliminated. Similar statements were recorded on 8/1/2014.

¶31

7 The dead body was kept in the mortuary till 3/2/104. Nobody had claimed the said dead body. It is pertinent to note that none of the witnesses whose statements were recorded were also shown the

¶32

Talwalkar 5/8

¶33

6 8.ba1340.14.sxw

¶34

dead body. Hence, the dead body was not identified by any of the witness. It is further pertinent to note that the Investigating Officer has recorded the statements of witnesses who happen to be the friends of the applicant and were in his company on the date of the incident. They are witnesses to the fact that an unidentified person was assaulted by the applicant and his associates. However, the case rests upon circumstantial evidence and extra judicial confession of Gautam Pardeshi (co-accused) as narrated to Jeris @ Anna Phelix Pillai on 2/1/2014.

¶35

8 One of the witness namely Martin has disclosed that the other co-accused Pravin @ Pava had also made an extra judicial confession to him on 2/1/2014. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the case rests upon the circumstantial evidence. As on today, the statement/extra judicial confession of the co-accused cannot be relied upon while considering the application of the present applicant as prima facie there is no witness who has disclosed that the present applicant had also made any extra judicial confession. The applicant is not specifically named in the said extra judicial confession

Talwalkar

6/8

7 8.ba1340.14.sxw

and therefore, Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act cannot be considered at this stage.

¶40

9 Taking into consideration the fact that as on today there is no cogent incriminating circumstance in the form of extra judicial confession to the effect that the applicant was involved in causing homicidal death and thereafter, causing disappearance of evidence, the applicant would be entitled for grant of bail.

¶41

10 It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove are prima facie in nature. The Sessions Court shall not be influenced by the same at the time of trial. Similarly, the co-accused shall not claim parity with the present applicant as the applicant is being granted bail in the facts of the evidence which is collected in the course of investigation as far as the applicant is concerned. The co-accused would not be entitled to claim for relief by an application of doctrine of parity.

¶42

11 Hence, following order :

Talwalkar

7/8

8 8.ba1340.14.sxw

ORDER

(i) The application is allowed.

¶48

(ii) The applicant be enlarged on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- and one or two sureties in the like amount.

¶49

(iii) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence.

¶50

(iv) The applicant shall not reside in the jurisdiction of Virar Police

¶51

Station till the conclusion of the trial.

¶52

12 The application is disposed of accordingly.

¶53

Talwalkar

¶54

8/8

Rahul Yogesh Jadhav v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Yogesh Jadhav 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

Mahavir Chaturbhan Narvate Vs the State of Maharashtra

Arul Raypanna Nathan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sushant Ramesh Dubey Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bahadur @ Sonu Vijendra Singh Gurjar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Avinash Parshuram Jagtap Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ashok Zende Vs the State of Maharashtra