Allowed

Ramakant Chandrasen Jadhav and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC4 Aug 2017APEAL/49/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against conviction for murder and causing disappearance of evidence, the case resting entirely on circumstantial evidence. The court found the medical evidence equivocal, several trial court circumstances not proved or misappreciated, the chain incomplete, and the appellants entitled to the benefit of doubt. Conviction and sentence set aside, appellants acquitted.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentence under Section 302, Section 201 read with Section 34 IPC quashed; appellants acquitted and fine, if deposited, refunded.

Ramakant Chandrasen Jadhav and Anr. Vs State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

cria49.01

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.49 OF 2001

¶6

1) Ramakant s/o Chandrasen Jadhav,
 Age-25 years, Occu-Agril.,
 R/o-Musalewadi, Tq. Renapur,

¶7

 Dist-Latur.

¶8

2) Chabubai w/o Chandrasen Jadhav,
 Age-45 years, Occu-Household,

¶9

 R/o-As Above.

¶10

...APPELLANTS

¶11

 VERSUS

¶12

The State of Maharashtra

¶13

...RESPONDENT

¶14

...

¶15

 Mr. Joydeep Chatterji, Advocate for Appellants.
 Mr. A.R. Borulkar, A.P.P. for Respondent-State.
 ...

¶16

CORAM: S.S. SHINDE AND

¶17

 S.M. GAVHANE, JJ.

¶18

DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT : 28TH JUNE, 2017.

¶19

 DATE OF PRONOUNCING JUDGMENT: 4TH AUGUST, 2017.

¶20

JUDGMENT [PER S.S. SHINDE, J.]:

¶21

1.This Appeal is directed against the

¶22

cria49.01

¶23

¶24

Judgment and order dated 6th January, 2001, passed

¶25

by the Additional Sessions Judge, Latur in
Sessions Trial No.59 of 1999 thereby convicting
accused No.1/Appellant No.1 - Ramakant s/o

¶26

Chandrasen Jadhav and accused No.4/Appellant No.2
- Chabubai w/o Chandrasen Jadhav for the offence
punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of the
Indian Penal Code (for short "I.P. Code") and
sentencing them to suffer imprisonment for life
and to pay fine of Rs.5000-/ each, and in default,
to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months.
The trial Court also convicted accused No.1/

¶27

Appellant No.1 - Ramakant s/o Chandrasen Jadhav
and accused No.4/Appellant No.2 - Chabubai w/o
Chandrasen Jadhav for the offence punishable under

¶28

Section 201 read with Section 34 of the I.P. Code
and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment
for two years each and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-

¶29

each, and in default, to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for two months. All the sentences
were directed to be run concurrently. Hence this

¶30

cria49.01

¶31

¶32

Appeal is filed by both the Appellants challenging
the conviction and sentence.

¶33

2.Before the trial Court there were in all
five accused including Appellant No.1/ accused
No.1 - Ramakant s/o Chandrasen Jadhav, his brother
accused No.2 - Rajabhau s/o Chandrasen Jadhav, his
father, accused No.3 Chandrasen s/o Shankar
Jadhav, his mother Appellant No.2/ accused No.4
Chabubai w/o Chandrasen Jadhav and wife of his
brother accused No.5 Sunanda w/o Rajabhau Jadhav.

¶34

The trial Court acquitted accused Nos.2, 3 and 5

¶35

from the offence punishable under Sections 302,
201, 498-A read with 34 of the I.P. code, with
which they were charged. The trial Court also
acquitted Appellant No.1/accused No.1 - Ramakant
s/o Chandrasen Jadhav and Appellant No.2/ accused

¶36

No.4 - Chabubai w/o Chandrasen Jadhav from the
offence punishable under Section 498-A read with
Section 34 of the I.P. Code.

¶37

cria49.01

¶38

¶39

3.The prosecution case, in brief, is as

¶40

under:-

¶41

A)Prosecution case is that victim Mrs.

¶42

Aruna Jadhav was legally wedded wife of accused
Ramakant Jadhav. Accused Rajabhau Jadhav is
brother of accused Ramakant. Accused Chandrasen
and Mrs. Chabubai Jadhav are their parents.
Accused Mrs. Sunanda Jadhav is the wife of Accused
Rajabhau Jadhav. Accused reside at village
Muslewadi, Tahsil Renapur, PW-1 Balasaheb Kadam is
the father of Mrs. Aruna Jadhav.

¶43

B)It is the case of prosecution that
marriage of Aruna was solemnized with accused
Ramakant Jadhav prior to four years. After
marriage Aruna started to cohabit with accused
Ramakant Jadhav at his matrimonial home at
Muslewadi. On 22nd December, 1998, an informant

¶44

PW-1 Balasaheb Vishwanath Kadam received

¶45

information that on the said date at 4.00 p.m. his

¶46

cria49.01

¶47

¶48

daughter Aruna was burnt. When Balasaheb came to
the village Muslewadi and saw Mrs. Aruna, he found
that she was no more. On the strength of the said
report, P.S.O. Renapur Police Station registered
A.D. No. 40 of 1998 and started the investigation.

¶49

C)PW-7 Shri. A.D. Kshirsagar, P.S.I. of

¶50

Renapur Police Station investigated the A.D. No.
40 of 1998. He recorded inquest panchnama of the

¶51

dead body of the deceased (Exhibit-15). He
recorded the spot panchnama (Exhibit-21). He sent
the dead body of Aruna to Medical Officer, Primary

¶52

Health Center, Renapur, for post-mortem. He
collected the post-mortem note of the dead body of
Aruna from the Medical Officer. He recorded the
statements of the witnesses.

¶53

D)During investigation of the A.D. No. 40
of 1998, PW-1 Balasaheb Kadam lodged report

¶54

against the accused in the Police Station vide
Exhibit-18. In the said report, the informant

¶55

cria49.01

¶56

¶57

stated that, in the marriage of Aruna, he was to
pay an amount of Rs.31,000/- as dowry and one tola
gold. But he paid amount of Rs.26,000/- as dowry
and one tola gold to accused Remakand Jadhav in
the marriage. He was to pay remaining amount of
Rs.5,000/- towards balance of dowry amount to the
accused Ramakant Jadhav. Aruna complained him
that all the accused started to give ill-treatment
to Aruna because the informant did not pay
remaining amount of dowry. On 16th December, 1998,
he paid remaining amount of dowry i.e. Rs. 5,000/-
to the accused, but the accused subjected Aruna to

¶58

cruelty on the ground that by this time the
remaining amount of Rs.5,000/- would be doubled.
He further stated in the report that on 22nd
December, 1998 at 4.00 p.m. two persons came on
motor-cycle and informed him that Aruna sustained

¶59

burn injuries because of bursting of stove and
died. Then the informant and other relatives came

¶60

to Muslewadi at 7.30 p.m. and found the dead body
of Aruna. The accused subjected Aruna to cruelty

¶61

¶62

cria49.01

¶63

on the ground that the informant was to pay
remaining amount of Rs.5000/- towards balance of
dowry amount to them. He further stated in the
report that the accused committed murder of the
victim Aruna and thereafter they poured kerosene
on her body, and set her on fire with intention to
screen themselves from legal punishment.

¶64

E)On the strength of the said report, Shri

¶65

Bhagat, Police Head Constable of Renapur Police

¶66

Station registered the offence vide Crime No. 68
of 1998 against the accused and handed over the

¶67

papers of this offence to PW-7 Kshirsagar, P.S.I.
for further investigation.

¶68

F)Shri Kshirsagar, P.S.I. recorded the

¶69

statements of the witnesses, seized the articles

¶70

as per the seizure panchnama (Exhibit-31). He
seized the pillow from accused Ramakant vide

¶71

Exhibit-32. During investigation it was transpired
that on 22nd December, 1998 in the morning victim

¶72

cria49.01

¶73

¶74

Aruna drunk milk. Hence, initially the quarrel

¶75

took place between accused Chabubai and Aruna.
Thereafter quarrel took place between Aruna and
accused Ramakant Jadhav. Accused Chabubai Jadhav
pushed Aruna on ground, then the accused Ramakant

¶76

Jadhav brought pillow and put the same on the
mouth and nose of victim Aruna and sat on the said
pillow. Accused Chabubai Jadhav caught hold the
legs of Aruna. Hence, Aruna died because of
smothering and suffocation. Accused Chabubai and

¶77

accused Ramakant thereafter poured kerosene on the
dead body of Aruna and set her on fire pretending

¶78

that victim Aruna was burnt because of flames of
stove and died. They committed the said act with
intention to screen themselves from the legal
punishment. After completion of investigation,
P.S.O., Renapur Police Station submitted charge-

¶79

sheet against the accused for the offence
punishable under Sections 498-A, 302 and 201, read

¶80

with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in the
court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latur,

¶81

cria49.01

¶82

¶83

who committed the said case to the court of
Sessions, because the offence punishable under
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is

¶84

exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions.

¶85

G)A charge for an offence punishable under
Sections 498-A, 302, 201 read with Section 34 of
the I.P. Code was framed against the accused and
the same was explained to them. Accused pleaded
not guilty and claimed to be tried. The defence of
the accused is that, Aruna was accidentally burnt

¶86

because of the flames of stove when she was
preparing food. Their defence is that they were
not present on the spot when Aruna burnt and died.

¶87

4.After recording the evidence and

¶88

conducting full fledged trial, the trial Court

¶89

convicted accused accused No.1/Appellant No.1 -
Ramakant s/o Chandrasen Jadhav and accused
No.4/Appellant No.2 - Chabubai w/o Chandrasen
Jadhav for the offence punishable under Section

¶90

cria49.01

¶91

¶92

302, 201 read with Section 34 of the I.P. Code and

¶93

sentenced them to suffer the imprisonment and to
pay fine, as afore-stated. Hence this Appeal is
preferred by the accused No.1/Appellant No.1 -
Ramakant s/o Chandrasen Jadhav and accused
No.4/Appellant No.2 - Chabubai w/o Chandrasen
Jadhav challenging the conviction and sentence.

¶94

5.Heard learned counsel appearing for the

¶95

Appellants and learned A.P.P. appearing for the

¶96

State, at length. With their able assistance, we
have carefully perused the entire notes of
evidence so as to find out whether the findings
recorded by the trial Court are in consonance with
the evidence brought on record or otherwise.

¶97

6.The prosecution examined PW-6 Dr. Ramrao
Narsing Pawar. He deposed that on 23rd December,
1998 he was attached to Primary Health Center,
Renapur. On that day he received dead body of Mrs.
Aruna Ramakant Jadhav for post-mortem. It was

¶98

cria49.01

¶99

¶100

brought by Kande, police constable, Renapur police
station. He conducted post-mortem. He found ante-
mortem injuries on her dead body which are stated
in Column No.17 of the post-mortem report. The
said injuries are as follows:

¶101

"Body was found totally burnt, black
scald without vesicles"

¶102

.PW-6 Dr. Ramrao Pawar further deposed

¶103

that on page No.7 of post-mortem notes he gave
probable cause of death of deceased is "due to

¶104

cardio respiratory arrest due to asphyxia due to
smothering or suffocation". Accordingly, he
prepared post-mortem note Exhibit-25.

¶105

.During the course of cross-examination,
PW-6 Dr. Ramrao Pawar stated that he issued

¶106

provisional post-mortem report Exhibit-26 with
cause of death. It was issued soon after
completion of autopsy. Referring column No.18-A of

¶107

cria49.01

¶108

¶109

post-mortem report he was unable to say definitely
as to whether the injuries mentioned in the said

¶110

Column are ante-mortem or post-mortem. He did not
notice any injury on any part of dead body. He did
not notice any injuries over the lip by pressure
of teeth. He did not notice any contusion over the
gum. Burn injuries are possible, if a person is in
standing position or in rolling position. He
further stated that suffocation means blockages of
the air-way. It is possible that burn flames can
suffocate. If flames enter in mouth then larynges
spasm could be possible. He agrees with the
opinion given by Dr. Parikh in his medical
jurisprudence page No.376 Vth Edition that death
may occur without inhaling smoke due to rapid
consumption of Oxygen by intense fire. If
larynges spasm is found then black suit may not be

¶111

there. He admits that in the present case cause of
death may be possible due to hot flames causing

¶112

suffocation. Congestion is common symptoms of
asphyxiate death. Finding of symptom is

¶113

cria49.01

¶114

¶115

asphyxiate death. In Column No.16 he mentioned
that lower limbs and upper limbs were flexed from
elbow and limbs. He found both the hands were
flexed towards outside the shoulder. The same
thing was found in case lower limb. This position
shows that it is protective attitude. He again
said that about upper limb it is protective
attitude. Smothering is pressure from outside. In
suffocation there may not be smothering from
outside. In cases of smothering application from
outside, then injuries over the lip, gum and face
part are found.

¶116

7.The prosecution examined PW-1 Balasaheb
Vishwanath Kadam. He deposed that he has three
daughters and one son. Deceased Aruna was his
daughter. Her marriage was solemnized prior to

¶117

four years from the date of recording his
evidence. Her marriage was solemnized at

¶118

Muslewadi. He paid an amount of Rs.31,000/- as
dowry and one Tola gold in marriage. He paid an

¶119

cria49.01

¶120

¶121

amount of Rs.26,000/- and gold in marriage. The
remaining amount of Rs.5,000/- was to be paid by
him in next year. After marriage Aruna started to
cohabit with the accused Ramakant at Muslewadi.

¶122

She was treated nicely for six months after
marriage. Thereafter the accused were asking her
to bring remaining amount of dowry. He went to
Muslewadi and told the accused that he was unable
to pay the amount and he will pay the said amount

¶123

after some days. He paid remaining amount of
Rs.5000/- to the accused on 16th December, 1998.

¶124

The accused told him that upto that date the
amount would have been doubled. After 5-7 days he
received message about demise of Aruna from the
accused. He along-with his relatives, went to
Muslewadi. At Muslewadi, he saw the dead body of
Aruna. It was burnt. Then he went to the police

¶125

station and lodged report Exhibit-17. Thereafter
police came to Muslewadi and dead body of Aruna

¶126

was sent to Primary Health Center, Renapur. After
the post-mortem, he brought the dead body of Aruna

¶127

cria49.01

¶128

¶129

at Muslewadi and cremated the same.

¶130

.During the course of cross-examination,

¶131

PW-1 Balasaheb stated that accused Rajabhau is
serving as lecturer in the college at Renapur.

¶132

Accused Ramakant, Chandrasen, Chabubai are
agriculturists. Accused Ramakant is illiterate and
Aruna was also illiterate. His family is
agriculturist. He is having five acres of land and
the same is irrigated. He further stated that name

¶133

of accused Ramakant was suggested by Narayan and

¶134

Ashok. Uttam Jadhav of Muslewadi had also

¶135

suggested the name of accused Ramakant. Uttam and
Narayan are sons of his maternal aunt. He further
stated that incident happened on 22nd December,

¶136

1998. Dashrath Jadhav and Dnyanoba Jadhav came to
him at 4.00 p.m. and they gave him the message

¶137

that Aruna burnt because of bursting of stove and

¶138

died. Then he along with his wife and other

¶139

persons came to Muslewadi by jeep at about 7.00
p.m. He did not enquire with his relatives about

¶140

cria49.01

¶141

¶142

the demise of Aruna. Accused paid marriage
expenses of Aruna. After one year of the marriage
of Aruna, marriage of Rajabhau was solemnized in
the month of May, 1998. He further stated that in

¶143

June, 1998 he brought Aruna at his house for
delivery. Aruna delivered a female child on 24th
July, 1998. At the end of October, 1998 accused
Chandrasen came to him and had taken Aruna and her
daughter with him at Muslewadi. He further stated
that he has not stated in the report Exhibit-17
that he was to pay remaining amount of Rs.5,000/-
in next year and that on 16th December, 1998 he

¶144

paid Rs.5000/- to the accused and the accused told
that during the said period the amount would have
been doubled. He further stated that Aruna's
daughter Pooja is with the accused. He denied that
firstly he gave in writing that he did not want to
lodge report against the accused and thereafter
his villagers told him to take amount of
Rs.1,00,000/- from the accused and hence he filed

¶145

false report against the accused.

¶146

cria49.01

¶147

¶148

8.The prosecution examined PW-2 Ashok

¶149

Tatyarao Bhise. He deposed that he knows informant
Balasaheb Kadam, residing at Gadwad. House of
Balasaheb is near his house. He was knowing Aruna,

¶150

the daughter of Balasaheb. He was present to
settle marriage of Aruna. An amount of Rs.31,000/-
and one Tola gold was to be given in the marriage.

¶151

Balasaheb paid Rs.26,000/- as dowry amount in
marriage and an amount of Rs.5,000/- was to be

¶152

paid afterwards. After one and half year of
marriage, Aruna complained about ill-treatment on

¶153

account of non-payment of Rs.5,000/-. He along
with Balasaheb had been to Muslewadi. He told the
parents of accused Ramakant not to ill-treat
Aruna. But the ill-treatment was continued.
Balasaheb and he himself had been to the accused

¶154

to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- to parents of
Ramakant. Soon thereafter there was demise of
Aruna. He had been to Muslewadi. He saw dead body
of Aruna.

¶155

cria49.01

¶156

¶157

.During the course of cross-examination,

¶158

PW-2 Ashok stated that Balasaheb is his distant

¶159

Bhauband. He did not remember how many days before
the marriage the settlement took place. He did not

¶160

remember the date on which Saksh-Gandh took place.
He was present at the time of post-mortem
conducted on the dead body of Aruna. He came to
know the cause of death after post-mortem, that

¶161

due to suffocation Aruna died. He received
information that Aruna died because of flames of
stove. In the statement recorded by the police he

¶162

stated before the police that he had been to the
accused with Balasaheb to pay an amount of
Rs.5,000/- before demise of Aruna. He was unable

¶163

to assign any reason as to why the police has not
mentioned the said fact in his statement. He has

¶164

not stated before the police in his statement that
Balasaheb alone went to Muslewadi with amount of
Rs.5,000/- and he came to know about the said fact

¶165

when Balasaheb met him in the village. He had

¶166

cria49.01

¶167

¶168

stated before the police in his statement that
Balasaheb was to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/-. He
was unable to assign any reason as to why the said
fact is not mentioned in his statement. He denied
the various suggestions put to him by the defence.

¶169

9.The prosecution examined PW-3 Jyotiram
Madhav Jadhav. He deposed that on 23rd
December,1998 he was called by police to act as a
Panch. Police recorded spot panchnama Exhibit-21
in his presence. Another panch Parshuram was
present with him.

¶170

.During the course of his cross-

¶171

examination, he stated that house of Ramakant is
situated in thick locality. House of Ramakant
consists of three rooms. Kitchen is to the North.

¶172

There is one room and thereafter another room to
the South of the kitchen. There are two doors in

¶173

the rooms adjoining to the kitchen, one is for the
kitchen and another for exit. There are two doors

¶174

cria49.01

¶175

¶176

fixed in the kitchen, one is towards bathroom and
another towards courtyard, facing East and North.
Police recorded inquest panchnama of dead body of

¶177

Aruna. Dead body of Aruna was lying in the
kitchen. They did not receive kerosene smell in
kitchen or of dead body. There was aluminum pot
lying by the side of the dead body. Other articles
like stove, pin and utensils were lying in the
kitchen. Police had not broke open the lock or

¶178

seized the same. Oily spot found on the spot,
where food was prepared. Burnt pieces of polyster
sari were lying on the spot. There was Parat, tin

¶179

of Jawar flour. He further stated that there is a
field of Ramakant in Muslewadi admeasuring 8-9
acres and the accused are cultivating the same
personally. He went to the spot after the incident
at about 11.30 a.m. to 12.00 noon. He knows that
Baburao Shankar Jadhav, Hanumant Jadhav, Dhondabai
Shankar Jadhav were extinguishing the fire. None

¶180

of the accused were present on the spot when they
went there. Pooja, daughter of Aruna, was sleeping

¶181

cria49.01

¶182

¶183

in another room. They sent Ashok Jadhav and
Shankar Jadhav to call accused Ramakant and his
mother Chabubai from field. Accused Ramakant, his
mother and others returned from field. They sent
Nanasaheb and Shankar on motorcycle to call
accused Chandrasen to Dharmapuri. Accused Sunanda,
wife of Rajabhau was called from Patoda by sending
a message of demise of Aruna. Kondiba sent message
to Renapur to accused Rajabhau who came at about
3.30 p.m. All the accused were present at the time
of cremation of dead body of Aruna. Whole body of
Aruna was burnt. Her both hands were turned
towards head.

¶184

10.The prosecution examined PW-4 Shagunabai

¶185

Mohan Kadam. She deposed that deceased Aruna was
her niece. Marriage of Aruna was solemnized with
accused Ramakant. An amount of Rs.31,000/- was to
be paid as dowry and one Tola gold was to be given
in marriage. An amount of Rs.26,000/- was paid and
it was decided that remaining amount of Rs.5,000/-

¶186

cria49.01

¶187

¶188

would be paid afterwards. Aruna was treated nicely
for six months and thereafter accused started ill-
treating Aruna. Aruna used to tell her the said
facts. Aruna stated her that accused were ill-
treating her due to non-payment of Rs.5,000/-.
Thereafter her husband and father of Aruna went to
the village of accused for settlement. After eight
days Ashok Bhise and Balasaheb went to the accused
and paid remaining amount. After eight days, two
persons came to her village on motor-cycle and
told that Aruna died. They all went to Muslewadi.
She saw that Aruna was burnt and her dead body was
lying in the kitchen.

¶189

.During the course of cross-examination,
PW-4 Shagunabai stated that a person came on
motor-cycle told that Aruna sustained burn injury
because of burst of stove. She denied that sari on
the person of Aruna was burnt because of flames of
stove and her mother extinguished the fire. She
denied that amount of Rs.5,000/- was remained to

¶190

cria49.01

¶191

¶192

be paid and the same was not paid thereafter. She
denied that Aruna was suffering from Typhoid at
the time of Diwali. Chabubai, the accused is
crippled by one hand.

¶193

11.The prosecution examined PW-5 Haribhau
Mukind Shitole. He deposed that Aruna was his
sister's daughter. He deposed about the settlement
of marriage of Aruna with accused Ramakant and
that an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards dowry was
remained to be paid. He further deposed about the
ill-treatment given to Aruna by the accused
persons.

¶194

.During the course of cross-examination,

¶195

PW-5 Haribhau stated that he did not inquire with
his relatives Ashok and Narayan at Muslewadi about
death of Aruna. Khuntephal is at the distance of 4
to 5 Kms. from Gadwad. He did not know the name of

¶196

the persons who had been to Muslewadi and paid the
amount of dowry at the time of marriage.

¶197

cria49.01

¶198

¶199

12.PW-7 Ashokkumar Dagadu Kshirsagar, P.S.I.

¶200

attached to Renapur police station, was the
Investigating Officer. He deposed about the manner
in which he has carried out the investigation in
the crime.

¶201

13.The defence examined DW-1 Bhagwat Baliram
Shinde. He deposed that he is serving as clerk in
Shivaji Mahavidyalaya, Renapur since 1993. He
brought original record of their college. The said
record pertaining to the Muster Roll of teaching

¶202

staff, notice, certificate issued to accused
Rajabhau and time table. The copies of the said
record are filed at Exhibit-44 to 47. Accused No.2
Rajabhau is serving as Lecturer in their college
in the year 1998. In the year 1998, Shri Borade
was the Principal of the college. Nick name of the
accused Rajabhau is Raja. He further deposed that

¶203

college timings in the year 1998 were from 8.10
a.m. to 2.15 p.m. On 24th September, 1998 he

¶204

cria49.01

¶205

¶206

circulated the notice to the teaching staff of
their college, signed by Principal. He has also
signed the said notice. He obtained signatures of
the Lecturers after circulating the notice. The
notice bears the signature of accused Rajabhau. He
further deposed that on 22nd December, 1998 he was
in the office. After perusing the Muster Roll of
22nd December, 1998 he stated that there is
signature of accused Rajabhau in the Muster Roll
of the said date. Lecturers used to sign in the
Muster Roll in his presence. Accordingly accused
Rajabhau signed the muster roll on the said date.

¶207

He further deposed that on 22nd December, 1998,
Principal of their college received police message
from Muslewadi, at about 2.00 p.m. Principal
called him in the cabin and told him to inform
accused Rajaram that wife of his brother was burnt

¶208

due to flames of stove. Then he went to the class
of accused Rajaram where he was teaching. He told

¶209

the said message to Rajaram and returned to his
office. On 24th December, 1998 accused Rajaram was

¶210

cria49.01

¶211

¶212

in the college from 8.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m.

¶213

Certificate to that effect was issued to Rajaram
on 28th December, 1998. The said certificate bears
his signature and signature of Principal. As per
time table accused Rajaram had taken four periods

¶214

in the college, on that day. Accused resides at
Renapur since prior to the incident.

¶215

.During the course of his cross-
examination by the prosecution, DW-1 Bhagwat

¶216

stated that the college maintains the register

¶217

about receiving of phones. He has not produced the

¶218

said register. Rajaram was taking English class in
Room No.2 of B.A. first year. Lecturers used to
sign in muster roll immediately after their
arrival at 8.00 a.m. He used to keep the said
muster roll in the cupboard after Lecturers signed
the same. Muslewadi is 30 Kms. away from Renapur.

¶219

14. The defence examined DW-2 Prabhakar

¶220

Rangrao Borade. In the year 1998 he was serving as

¶221

cria49.01

¶222

¶223

Principal of Shivaji Mahavidyalaya, Renapur. He
has corroborated the version of DW-1 Bhagwat. He
deposed that accused Rajaram was present in the
college on 22nd December, 1998. He deposed that he
circulated the notice dated 14th September, 1998
to the Lecturers of the college, stating therein
that all the Lecturers should come to the college
before 8.00 a.m. and should not leave the college
till 3.30 p.m. Certificate Exhibit-46 was issued
by him stating therein that on 22nd December, 1998
accused Rajaram was present in the college
from 8.10 a.m. to 2.10 p.m. Accused Rajaram had

¶224

taken the periods on 22nd December, 1998 as per
the time table. He personally saw that accused
Rajaram had taken period on the said day. He
further deposed that on 22nd December, 1998 he
received telephonic message from Muslewadi
informing him that wife of brother of accused
Rajaram received burn injuries due to flames of

¶225

stove. He was cross-examined by the prosecution.

¶226

¶227

cria49.01

¶228

15.The defence examined DW-3 Dnyanoba

¶229

Nivruti Jadhav. He deposed that he knows all the

¶230

accused who reside at Muslewadi. Wife of accused

¶231

Ramakant is dead. The incident happened about two
years from the date of recording his evidence. He

¶232

was in the village. The incident happened at about
11.30 a.m. Wife of Ramakant sustained injuries
because of flames of stove. He heard noise, and
went to the spot. He saw that Dhonidba, Baburao,
Hanumant were on the spot. They extinguished the
fire. He also started to extinguish the fire. He
personally extinguished the flames of stove.

¶233

Narayan, Ashok, Jyotiram, Parasram, Shobha,
Pratibha and many females assembled on the spot.
He saw brass Parat, one Patile, a tin, a pin of

¶234

stove and a pot containing of water in the
kitchen. Nobody from family of Ramakant was
present on the spot. Shankar and Ashok went to
accused Ramakant on motor-cycle and brought

¶235

Ramakant. Mother of Ramakant came on the spot few
minutes after arrival of Ramakant. Ramakant was

¶236

cria49.01

¶237

¶238

brought from field. Shankar and Nanasaheb went to
Dharmapuri on motor-cycle to bring Chandrasen who
had gone there to sell the cotton. Thereafter,
they went to Patoda to inform the incident to
Sunanda, to inform about the incident. He along
with Dashrath went to Gadwad on motor-cycle to
inform the incident to father-in-law of Ramakant.

¶239

He told father-in-law of Ramakant that wife of
Ramakant sustained burn injuries because of flames

¶240

of stove. He informed about the incident to
relatives of Narayan. The guest of Gadwad inquired
about the incident. They went to police station,

¶241

Renapur and afterwards returned to Muslewadi from
police station and resided at Muslewadi at night.
Accused were at Muslewadi during night. On next
day police came to Muslewadi and recorded
panchnama. Then police recorded their statements.

¶242

He was present when dead body of deceased was
cremated. Narayan and Ashok are his cousin
brothers. Shobha is wife of Narayan. Relatives
from Gadwad demanded Rs.1,00,000/- to Chandrasen

¶243

cria49.01

¶244

¶245

and others. Accused refused to pay the amount.

¶246

.During the course of his cross-

¶247

examination by the prosecution, DW-3 Dnyanoba
stated that accused Chandrasen and Ramakant are

¶248

his Bhau-band. Kitchen room was closed when he
went on the spot. Dhondubai pushed the door and
the kitchen was opened. Dhondubai and Hanmant were
at the house of Ramakant before his arrival. They
went on the spot five minutes before his arrival.
Dhondubai and Hanmant were found in kitchen.
Clothes on the person of victim and other clothes

¶249

were burning. When he went to the spot, the victim
died. The victim was burning for about 10 to 15
minutes before his arrival. He extinguished the

¶250

fire of stove and Dhonubai extinguished the fire
of dead body. He heard the cry of Dhonubai and
Hanmant and went to the spot. He stated that
accused Chandrasen was going to Dharmapuri and he

¶251

saw Chandrasen when he was going to Dharmapuri.
Wife of Chandrasen and accused Ramakant did not

¶252

cria49.01

¶253

¶254

tell him that Ramakant and wife of Chandrasen were
going to field but he knows that Ramakant and wife
of Chandrasen were going to field. Firstly
Ramakant went to the field at about 8.00 a.m. and
his mother went to the field at about 8.30 a.m. to

¶255

9.00 a.m. He was standing on the road. He was in
the chowk. He was present when Ramakant and his
mother returned home. He had not seen from where
Ramakant was brought by Dattu. He denied that
Ramakant and his mother set wife of Ramakant on
fire and went outside the house.

¶256

16.We have discussed in detail, the entire

¶257

evidence brought on record by the prosecution and
defence. In all five accused were tried in the
trial Court, however, the trial Court acquitted
accused No.2 - Rajabhau Jadhav, accused No.3 -

¶258

Chandrasen Jadhav and accused No.5 - Sunanda
Jadhav from all charges levelled against them.

¶259

Even the present Appellants are acquitted from the
offence punishable under Section 498-A read with

¶260

cria49.01

¶261

¶262

34 of the I.P. Code. Therefore, there is

¶263

considerable force in the submission of the
counsel appearing for the Appellants that in view
of acquittal of all the accused from the offence
punishable under Section 498-A of the I.P. Code,
there was no any motive for commission of an
offence and the motive assumes much importance in
the case based upon the circumstantial evidence.

¶264

17.In order to prove the prosecution case,

¶265

the prosecution placed reliance upon the
circumstances mentioned by the trial Court in
Para-62 of the impugned Judgment. The trial Court,

¶266

in relation to those circumstances, has
appreciated the evidence brought on record and
convicted the Appellants for the offence
punishable under Section 302 of the I.P. Code.
Those circumstances are reproduced herein below:

¶267

"1) The place where the tragic incident
is happened is in possession and in

¶268

cria49.01

¶269

¶270

occupation of the accused.

¶271

2) Positive opinion of the Doctor that
the death was not due to asphyxia as
well as apart from 100% burns. If it
would have been pure case of burning,
there must be evidence of vomiting.

¶272

3) No stove was found on the spot.
Nothing has stated in the spot
panchnama about the stove or stove-pin.

¶273

4) There was total absence of any
shouts or cries of the victim when she
was burning.

¶274

5) Blood in heart was not found
clotted.

¶275

6) DW-3 Dnyanoba Jadhav found that the
accused Ramakant and accused Mrs.
Chabubai were going to the field and
immediately after some time he came on
the spot and found that the deceased
was burning.

¶276

7) At the time of incident accused

¶277

cria49.01

¶278

¶279

Ramakant and Chabubai were found in the
village and other accused were not in
the village.

¶280

8) The latch of the house of the
accused was found bent, and the lock
was found broken.

¶281

9) In burn, brain is usually shrunken
and firm. But in this case the brain
was simply found congested.

¶282

10) The accused did not inform about
the death of victim to the police
station, though there was ample time
for them to inform about it."

¶283

18.So far as the first circumstance is
concerned, it is not in dispute that the place
where the tragic incident is happened is in
possession and in occupation of the accused.
Therefore that circumstance has been proved by the
prosecution.

¶284

19.Second circumstance is, positive opinion

¶285

cria49.01

¶286

¶287

of the Doctor that death was not due to asphyxia
as apart from 100% burns and if it would have been
pure case of burning, there must be evidence of
vomiting. In order to find out the correctness of
the findings recorded by the trial Court that
medical evidence fully supports the prosecution
case, it would be necessary to refer the evidence
of PW-6 Dr. Ramrao. We have already discussed the
evidence of PW-6 Dr. Ramrao. The medical officer

¶288

in his cross-examination stated that referring
column No.18-A of post-mortem report he cannot say
definitely as to whether the injuries mentioned in

¶289

the said Column are ante-mortem or post-mortem. He
did not notice any injury on any part of dead
body. He did not notice any injuries over the lip

¶290

by pressure of teeth. He further stated that
suffocation means blockages of the air-way. He
further stated that it is possible that burn
flames can suffocate. The medical officer agrees

¶291

with the opinion given by Dr. Parikh in his
medical jurisprudence page No.376 Vth Edition that

¶292

cria49.01

¶293

¶294

death may occur without inhaling smoke due to

¶295

rapid consumption of Oxygen by intense fire. The

¶296

medical officer further admitted that in the
present case cause of death may be possible due to
hot flames causing suffocation. He further stated

¶297

that smothering is pressure from outside and in
suffocation there may not be smothering from
outside.

¶298

.Thus, it is clear from the evidence of

¶299

medical officer PW-6 Ramrao that he has not
expressed the clear opinion that death of Aruna

¶300

had occurred due to smothering and thereafter body
of Aruna was burnt by the accused so as to cause
disappearance of the evidence. The medical officer

¶301

has admitted that in the present case cause of
death may be possible due to hot flames causing
suffocation. Therefore, it cannot be said that the
medical opinion expressed by the medical officer
completely supports the case of the prosecution.
On the contrary, the admissions given by him in

¶302

cria49.01

¶303

¶304

the cross-examination makes the prosecution case
doubtful.

¶305

20.Coming to the third circumstance that, no
stove was found on the spot and nothing has stated
in the spot panchnama about the stove or stove-
pin, in this respect the evidence of PW-3
Jyotiram, who acted as panch to the spot
panchnama, is material. We have already discussed
his evidence in detail. PW-3 Jyotiram admitted in
his cross-examination that there was aluminum pot
lying by the side of dead body. He further stated
that other articles like stove, pin and utensils
were lying in the kitchen. It appears that the
trial Court did not appreciate the evidence of
PW-3 Jyotiram in its entirety and only proceeded
to conclude that no stove or stove-pin was found

¶306

on the spot after perusal of spot panchnama. It is
not correct appreciation of evidence by the trial
Court. Therefore, that circumstance is not proved

¶307

by the prosecution. In fact, whether three

¶308

cria49.01

¶309

¶310

circumstances discussed above are incriminating or
otherwise, has also not been discussed by the
trial Court. it is only the incriminating
circumstances are required to be taken into
considerationwhileappreciatingthe

¶311

circumstantial evidence brought on record by the
prosecution.

¶312

21.The fourth circumstance is that there was

¶313

total absence of any shouts or cries of the victim
when she was burning. In that respect, evidence of
DW-3 Bhagwat is important. During the course of
recording his evidence, PW-3 Bhagwat stated that
the incident occurred at about 11.30 a.m. wherein
wife of Ramakant sustained burn injuries due to
flames of stove. He stated that he heard noise and
immediately he went to the spot and tried to
extinguish the fire. Thus, the fourth circumstance
is not proved by the prosecution.

¶314

22.The fifth circumstance is that, blood in

¶315

cria49.01

¶316

¶317

heart was not found clotted. In fact it was for
the concerned medical officer to elaborate on the

¶318

said aspect during the course of recording his
evidence, however, it appears that the medical
officer has not highlighted the said aspect during
his deposition.

¶319

23.The sixth circumstance is that DW-3

¶320

Dnyanoba found that accused Ramakant and accused
Chabubai were going to the field and immediately
after some time he came on the spot and found that
the deceased was burning. DW-3 Dnyanoba deposed in
his examination-in-chief that incident took place
at 11.30 a.m., and during his cross-examination he
categorically stated that Appellant No.1 Ramakant
went to the field at about 8.00 a.m. and his
mother i.e. Appellant No.2 Chabubai went to the

¶321

field at about 8.30 a.m. to 9.00 p.m. PW-3
Jyotiram and other prosecution witnesses and also
DW-3 Bhagwat have stated in their evidence that at

¶322

the relevant time both the Appellants were in

¶323

cria49.01

¶324

¶325

their agricultural field. The said field is 2
and 1/2 Kms. away from the house and after the
incident message was sent to them and then
Appellant No.1 along with other accused arrived at
the spot of the incident.

¶326

24.Coming to the seventh circumstance that

¶327

at the time of incident accused Ramakant and
Chabubai were found in the village and other
accused were not in the village, that circumstance
would support the case of the Appellants and other
co-accused, in as much as, it is their contention

¶328

that Aruna died in accidental burns while cooking
food at about 11.00 to 11.30 a.m. It is also
relevant to mention that the medical officer has
stated in his evidence that semi-digested food was
found in the stomach of Aruna. It means before the

¶329

said incident which took place in between 11.00 to
11.30 a.m., prior to that in between 8.00 to 9.00
a.m. deceased had break-fast. Apart from this,
medical officer has not mentioned exact/proximate

¶330

cria49.01

¶331

¶332

time of death of Aruna. Thus, in the present
case, the prosecution has not brought on record

¶333

the exact time when the death of Aruna took place.

¶334

25.So far as 8th circumstance that the latch
of the house of the accused was found bent and the
lock was found broken, in this respect the
prosecution has not brought on record cogent and
clinching evidence to prove said circumstance.

¶335

26.The 9th circumstance is that, in burn,
brain is usually shrunken and firm but in this
case the brain was simply found congested. In that
respect, it appears that the trial Court on its
own referred to the passage on page Nos.237 and
238 of the book, namely, "The Essentials of
Forensic Medicine and Toxicology" of Dr. K.S.
Narayan Reddy, without confronting said passage to
the medical officer. The parties were also not
aware that the trial Court is going to place
reliance upon the said passage from the said book.

¶336

cria49.01

¶337

¶338

27.The last circumstance is that the accused

¶339

did not inform about the death of victim to the
police station, though there was ample time for
them to inform about it. It cannot be taken as
incriminating circumstance and therefore no
reliance can be placed on such circumstance when
the prosecution is not able to establish the chain
of circumstance brought on record.

¶340

28.There are also other reasons why the
benefit of doubt deserves to be extended in favour

¶341

of the Appellants. It is the case of the
prosecution that accused Chabubai Jadhav pushed
Aruna on the ground, then the accused Ramakant

¶342

Jadhav brought pillow and put the same on the
mouth and nose of victim Aruna and set on the said

¶343

pillow, accused Chabubai Jadhav caught hold the
legs of Aruna, and Aruna died due to smothering
and suffocation. However, PW-4 Shagunabai admitted
in her cross-examination that Chabubai, the

¶344

cria49.01

¶345

¶346

accused is crippled by one hand. Therefore, the
prosecution case becomes doubtful as the defence
has brought on record that Appellant No.2 Chabubai
is crippled by one hand and is not physically so
fit. Secondly, the First Information Report was
lodged belatedly with delay of one day, without
any explanation. Therefore, it strengthens the
defence of the Appellants that the informant and
his relatives were asking for an amount of
Rs.1,00,000/- to settle the matter and as they
refused to pay the said amount, the First
Information was lodged with ulterior motive.

¶347

29.Admittedly, in the present case there is

¶348

no eye witness to the prosecutions case and the

¶349

prosecution case is entirely based upon the
circumstantial evidence. So far as the

¶350

appreciation of the circumstantial evidence is
concerned, the law is well settled. The Supreme
Court in the case of Hanuman Govind Nargundkar and

¶351

cria49.01

¶352

¶353

another Vs. State of M.P.1, held thus:

¶354

"It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.

¶355

30.The Supreme Court in the case of Sharad

¶356

Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra2has
held that, the prosecution must stand or fall on

¶357

its own legs and it cannot derive any strength

¶358

1 AIR 1952 SC 343

¶359

2 (1984) 4 SCC 166

¶360

cria49.01

¶361

¶362

from the weakness of the defence. It is not the

¶363

law that where there is any infirmity or lacuna in
the prosecution case, the same could be cured or
supplied by a false defence or a plea which is not
accepted by a Court. It is also to be borne in
mind that the case in hand is a case of
circumstantial evidence and if two views are
possible on the evidence on record, one pointing
to the guilt of the accused and other their
innocence, the accused are entitled to have the
benefit of one which is favourable to them.

¶364

31. The Supreme Court in the case of Shankarala Gyarasilal Dixit Vs. State of Maharashtra³ in para 13 held thus :

¶365

"13. Since this is a case of circumstantial

¶366

evidence, it is necessary to find whether

¶367

the circumstances on which the prosecution
relies are established by satisfactory

¶368

3 AIR 1981 SC 765

¶369

cria49.01

¶370

¶371

evidence, often described as `clear and

¶372

cogent' and secondly, whether the

¶373

circumstances are of such a nature as to
exclude every other hypothesis save the one

¶374

that the appellant is guilty of the
offences of which he is charged. In other
words, the circumstances have to be of such
a nature as to be consistent with the sole

¶375

hypothesis that the accused is guilty of
the crime imputed to him."

¶376

.After discussing the circumstances

¶377

brought on record and the evidence available
therein, in the case of Shankarala Gyarasilal
Dixit (supra), the Supreme Court observed that
though 12 circumstances have been relied upon by

¶378

the prosecution, the important circumstance is
that the appellant therein was present in the

¶379

house, was not proved by the prosecution.
Therefore, in the facts of that case, Supreme
Court held in Para-26 of the Judgment that the
crucial link in the chain of circumstances is the

¶380

cria49.01

¶381

¶382

presence of the appellant in his house at the time
when the dead body of Sunita was discovered. Once
that link snaps, the entire case would have to
rest on slender tit-bits here and there. This
discussion disposes of the second part of the 4th
circumstance, part of 5th circumstance and
circumstances (6) and (7). The Supreme Court
acquitted the appellant therein. In the present
case also the chain of circumstances on which

¶383

reliance was placed by the prosecution has not
been established beyond reasonable doubt by the
prosecution. Therefore, benefit of doubt in favour
of the Appellants deserves to be extended.

¶384

32.In the light of discussion in foregoing

¶385

paragraphs, we are of the considered view that
the entire prosecution case rests upon the
circumstantial evidence and the evidence brought

¶386

on record by the prosecution is not cogent,
sufficient and convincing so as to prove the
offence against the Appellants beyond reasonable

¶387

cria49.01

¶388

¶389

doubt.Therefore, an inevitable conclusion is

¶390

that the Appellants are entitled for the benefit
of doubt. Hence we pass the following order:

¶391

O R D E R

¶392

(I) The Criminal Appeal is allowed.

¶393

(II) The impugned Judgment and order
dated 6th January, 2001, passed by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Latur in
Sessions Trial No.59 of 1999 convicting
and sentencing Appellant No.1 -
Ramakant s/o Chandrasen Jadhav and
AppellantNo.2-Chabubaiw/o
Chandrasen Jadhav for the offence
punishable under Section 302, Section
201 read with Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code, is quashed and set aside.

¶394

(III) Appellant No.1 - Ramakant s/o
Chandrasen Jadhav and Appellant No.2 -
Chabubai w/o Chandrasen Jadhav are
acquitted of the offence punishable
under Section 302, Section 201 read
with Section 34 of the Indian Penal

¶395

cria49.01

¶396

¶397

Code. Fine amount, if deposited as per
the impugned Judgment and order, be
refunded to the Appellants.

¶398

(IV) The Appellants are released on
bail during the pendency of this
Appeal. The bail bond of the Appellants
shall stand cancelled.

¶399

(V) Appellant No.1 - Ramakant s/o
Chandrasen Jadhav and Appellant No.2 -
Chabubai w/o Chandrasen Jadhav shall
furnish the fresh personal bonds of
Rs.15,000/- each and surety of like
amount each under Section 437-A of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, before the
concerned trial Court at Latur.

¶400

[S.M. GAVHANE, J.] [S.S. SHINDE, J.]

¶401

asb/JUL17

Ramakant Chandrasen Jadhav and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramakant Chandrasen Jadhav and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra

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

Devidas S/O. Baburao Gavai and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Dilip S/O. Matsendrarao Kandharkar and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Gunwant @ Dhudaku Trymbak Patil Vs the State of Maharashstra

Umakant Vasantrao Kumbhare / Borikar (C-10321) Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dr Kailas Laxman Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

State of Maharashtra Vs Vishnu Ziparu Aagavane