Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 117

(1)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

Receivedon:08042008 Registeredon:08042008 Decidedon:20032012 DurationYMD 31112 ExhibitNo.229.

INTHECOURTOFSESSIONSJUDGE,PUNE,ATPUNE
(PresidedoverbyA.M.Badar,SessionsJudge,Pune)

SESSIONSCASENo.284/2008
STATEOFMAHARASHTRA (ThroughTalegaonDabhadePoliceStation, DistrictPune). .. Versus 1. PurushottamDashrathBorate, Age:26Years,Occup.Cardriver, 2. PradeepYashwantKokade, Age:20Years,Occup.Painter, BothR/o.Sainagar,GajananSociety, Gahunje,TalukaMaval, DistrictPune.

Complainant

..

Accused

Appearances: 1) Mr.UjjwalNikam,SpecialPublicProsecutorfortheState. 2) Mr.A.R.Patil,Advocatefortheaccused. Charge for the offences p unishable u/s.120B,364,376(2)(g),302,404 R/wSec.34ofthe Indian PenalCode.

(2)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

JUDGMENT (Deliveredonthis20thdayofMarch,2012) Accusedsittinginthedockaretakingtrialfortheoffences punishableunderSections120B,364R/w120B,376(2)(g)R/w120B, and302R/w120Band404R/w120BoftheIndianPenalCodeandin thealternativefortheoffencespunishableunderSections364R/w34, 302R/w34,376(2)(g)and404R/w34oftheIndianPenalCode,with an accusation that on or about 1112007, they conspired to do an illegal act of abducting Jyotikumari Ramanand Chaudhary, for committing her murder after commission of gang rape on her and thereafterdishonestlymisappropriatingherbelongings. 2] Factsleadingtotheprosecutionofaccusedprojectedfrom JyotikumariRamananandChaudhary(sincedeceased)was serving as an Associate with Wipro Business Process Outsourcing CompanyatHinjwadi,Pune.Shewasresidingwithherbrotherinlaw GaursundarPrasad(P .W.12),sister Sudhakumari(P .W.13)andtheir7 monthsoldsonKartikinthatflatatPanchwati,PashanareaofPune city.JyotikumariusedtogotoherofficeatWiproCo.bythecabhired bythesaidCompany.Thecabusedtopickherupfromresidencefor goingtoofficeandusedtodropher atherresidenceafterherduty hours. AsperruleoftheCompany,iffirstpickupwasofafemale employee,thenthedriverofthecabwasdutyboundtotakesecurity guard of the Company with him for such pick up. Work at Wipro Companywasusedtobedoneinshift.Attherelevanttime,Jyotikumari washavingnightshiftandherworkinghourswere1100p.m.to900 a.m.. Jyotikumari Chaudhary was using mobile phone bearing No.

thepolicereportcanbesummarisedthus:

(3)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

9960621120whichwasinthenameofhersisterSudhakumari. 3] On 1112007atabout1015 p.m.,as usual Jyotikumari gotmissedcallfromthedriverofthecabforherpickup.Shethen calledthedriverandtoldhimtocomefortakinghertotheworkplace. ThenJyotikumarialongwithherbrotherinlawGaursundarPrasadand nephew Kartik come down from their flat. Indica car bearing registrationNo.MH14/AH4560whichwasgivencabNo.535driven by accused No.1 Purushottam Borate came to pick up Jyotikumari. AccusedNo.2PradeepKokadewassittingontherearseatbehindthe driver.JyotikumaritalkedwithherbrotherinlawGaursundarforsome timewhenthatcabwaswaiting.ThenJyotikumariwentforgoingto Wipro Company by that cab. During her journey in that cab, JyotikumarireceivedcallsonhermobilephonefromherfriendJeevan Jyoti Baral (P .W.14) R/o. Bangalore and she was throughout talking withhim.JeevanBaralheardJyotikumariaskingdriverPurushottamas towherehewastakingthevehicle,whythecarwasstoppedinajungle and what he was doing. The phone call of Jeevan Baral made to Jyotikumariwasabruptlydisconnectedandhissubsequentattemptto talkwithherbymakingcallprovedfutileasJyotikumari'smobilephone wasfoundtobeswitchedoff. 4] According to the prosecution case, under the guise of

takingJyotikumaritoherworkplace,i.e.WiproCompany;inpursuant to the criminal conspiracy hatched by accused persons, she was abducted and taken to a secluded field within jurisdiction of village Gahunje,TalukaMaval,DistrictPune.Accusedpersonsthencommitted gangrapeonherandthereaftermurderedherbystrangulatingherby

(4)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

meansofherOdhani,smashingherheadbyhittingstoneandslashing herwristbytheblade.Accusedpersonsthentookawayhergoldfinger ring,earrings,wristwatch,mobilephone,cashamountingtoRs.330/ andpurse. 5] ByleavingthedeadbodyofJyotikumariChaudharyatthe

fieldofKisanBodkewheretheincidenttookplace,accusedthenwent tohouseofSagarBidkar(P .W.11)coworkerofJyotikumariforpicking himupanddroppinghimtohisemployerWiproCompany.Theytook SagarBidkarat0045a.m.of2112007bytellinghimthatthedelay wasduetopuncturedtyreandotheremployeesoftheCompanyarenot coming for work. On request of accused Purushottam, Sagar Bidkar evenwroteonpickupsheetthatthecabwaslateduetotyrefailure. 6] In the morning hours at about 715 a.m. of 2112007,

PankajLaxmanBodke,residentofGahunjewasproceedingtowardshis field.Atthattime,hesawdeadbodyofunknownfemaleonboundary offieldofKisanBodke. He,therefore,informedthisfacttoHiraman Bodke (P .W.1), Police Patil of village Gahunje. Hiraman Bodke then visited the spot and after verifying the dead body, went to Police Station,TalegaonDabhadeandlodgedFIR(Exhibit21)on2112007 itselfmentioningthatdeadbodyofunknownfemalewithheadinjury, abrasiononneckandslashedrightwristisfoundatthefieldofKisan Bodke. This FIR resulted in registration of Crime No.167/2007 and wheelsofinvestigationweresetinmotion.RanjanKadam(P .W.23)PSI ofTalegaonDabhadePoliceStation,thenvisitedthespoton2112007 itself. Inquest notes were taken on inspecting dead body of that unknown female which later on came to be identified as that of

(5)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

Jyotikumari Chaudhary. The dead body was then dispatched for postmortemexamination.Spotpanchnamawaspreparedinpresenceof panchwitnesseson2112007itself.Bloodstainedstone,pairofladies sandal,bloodstainedblade,soilmixedwithbloodandsimplesoilcame to be seized from the spot of the incident. After postmortem examination of dead body, clothes found on dead body, viz. yellow colouredKurta,saffroncolouredSalwar,brassier,petticoatandknicker cametobeseized. 7] Inthemeanwhile,on2112007,whenGaursundarwasat

garage for repairing car, his wife Sudhakumari informed him that Jyotikumari has not returned from work and her mobile phone is switched off. At about 1200 noon, Sudhakumari again called Gaursundar and informed him that Jyotikumari did not return from office. Gaursundar then returned to his home. As Jeevan Baral had earlier contacted Sudhakumari on telephone for making inquiry of Jyotikumari, he made telephone call to Jeevan Baral who at the relevanttimeresidingatBangalore.Duringtheirconversation,Jeevan BaralnarratedconversationofJyotikumariwhileherjourneyinthecab with accused No.1 Purushottam Borate, which he heard during telephonetalkwithJyotikumari.Graspingseriousnessofthesituation, Gaursundar and his wife Sudhakumari went to Chatushringi Police Stationon2112007itselfandlodgedreportinformingthefactthat Jyotikumariismissingfrom1112007. 8] On 3112007, Gaursundar and Sudhakumari were

informedbypolicethatdeadbodyofunknownfemaleisfoundwithin jurisdictionofTalegaonDabhadePoliceStation.Hence,Gaursundarand

(6)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

Sudhakumari went to Police Station, Talegaon Dabhade and showed photographofJyotikumaritoRajendraPatil,(P .W.27)PoliceInspector ofthesaidPoliceStation.Healsoshowedphotographofthedeceased female to them. Gaursundar and Sudhakumari identified that photograph to be of Jyotikumari Chaudhary. Clothes found on dead body of Jyotikumari were shown to Gaursundar and Sudhakumari. They both identified the clothes and sandals as belonging to Jyotikumari.AtthemorgueoftheSassoonHospital,Pune,boththese witnessesidentifiedthedeadbodyasthatofJyotikumariChaudhary. 9] On3112007,bothaccusedpersonscametobearrestedby

ChatushringiPoliceStation.Indicacarinvolvedinthecrimealongwith pickupanddropsheetsfoundinitcametobeseized.Confessional statement of accused Purushottam Borate made on 3112007 has resultedinrecoveryofwristwatch,fingerringandsimcardfromhis house.ThesearticleswereidentifiedtobebelongingtoJyotikumariby Gaursundar and Sudhakumari. Similarly, confessional statement of accusedPradeepKokademadeon3112007hasresultedinrecoveryof earringsandNokia handsetofJyotikumarifromhishouse.Further investigation was thereafter conducted by Rajendra Patil of Talegaon DabhadePoliceStation.ConfessionalstatementofaccusedPurushottam Borate made on 4112007 has resulted in recovery of Odhani of JyotikumariChaudhary.TheInvestigatingOfficerthencollectedreport of postmortem examination of dead body of Jyotikumari Chaudhary. Statementofwitnessescametoberecorded.Seizedarticlesweresent forchemicalanalysis.ForensicexaminationofIndicacarwasalsodone. Test identification parade of both accused was conducted through Tahsildar of Vadgaon Maval. Call detail record of the mobile in

(7)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

possession of Jyotikumari Chaudhary came to be collected. On completion of routine investigation, chargesheet for the offences punishableunderSections302,376(2)(g),364and404R/wSec.34of theIndianPenalCodecametobefiledintheCourtofJ.M.F.C,Vadgaon Maval. 10] Astheoffencespunishableundersection302and376(2)

(g) of the Indian Penal Code are exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions,thelearnedJ.M.F.C,waspleasedtocommitthecasetothe CourtofSessionsfortrialofaccusedpersons. 11] Charge for the offencespunishable under Sections 120B,

364R/w120B,376(2)(g)R/w120B,302R/w120Band404R/wSec. 120BoftheIndianPenalCodeandinthealternative,underSections 302R/w34and404R/w34oftheIndianPenalCodewereframedand explainedtoaccusedpersonsbymylearnedpredecessor.Theyabjured theguiltandclaimedtrial. 12] Inordertobringhometheguilttotheaccused,prosecution

hasexaminedinall29witnesses.InformantHiramanBhikobaBodke, Police Patil of village Gahunje is examined as P W. 1 at Exhibit 20. . Exhibit21isFIRlodgedbyhimon2112007.SantoshMohanBotre, apanchwitnessofinquestnotesisexaminedasP .W.2atExhibit23. Exhibit24aretheinquestnotes.RajuDnyandeoTikhe,apanchwitness ofspotpanchnamaisexaminedasP .W.3atExhibit40.Exhibit41isthe spotcumseizurepanchnamaofthearticlesfoundonthespotrecorded on2112007.HanumantGulabChavan,apanchwitnessofseizureof Indica car and documents found therein is examined as P W. 4 .

(8)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

atExhibit42.Exhibit43isthatseizurepanchnamadated3112007. ShahajiBabanraoGhojage,apanchwitnessofseizurepanchnamaof articles,i.e.clothesandsandalsofthedeceasedmadeafterbeingshown to relatives of Jyotikumari; is examined as P W. 5 at Exhibit 44. . Exhibit 45 is the seizure panchnama of those articles. Sunil Arjun Bodke, apanch witness of seizure of clothes from the dead body of JyotikumariisexaminedasP .W.6atExhibit46. Exhibit47isthat seizurepanchnamaofclothesofthedeceased.VijayGulabraoShirke, apanchwitnessofconfessionalstatementandresultantrecoveryatthe instance of both the accused is examined as P W. 7 at Exhibit 49. . Exhibit 50 and 50/A are the memorandum statement of accused PurushottamBorateandresultantrecoverypanchnamaofwristwatch, fingerringandmobilesimcard.Exhibit51and51/Aarememorandum ofaccusedPradeepKokadeandresultantrecoverypanchnamaofear ringsandmobilephoneofJyotikumari. PankajLaxmanBodke,who saw dead body of Jyotikumari is examined as P W. 8 at Exhibit 52. . BashirDastagirShaikhisexaminedasP .W.9atExhibit63.Hesaw accusedPurushopttamBoratetakingaccusedPradeepKokadewithhim inIndicacaratabout8to830p.m.on1112007. HiramanBaban Bhandare,ownerofIndica car isexaminedasP .W.10atExhibit64. Exhibit 67, 68 and 69 are pick up/drop sheets/Roster of Wipro Company.SagarManojBidkar,coemployeeofJyotikumariisexamined asP .W.11atExhibit75.GaursundarAbhayshankarPrasadisexamined asP .W.12atExhibit78.MissingreportlodgedbyhimisatExhibit80 andoccurrencereportregisteredbyChatushringiPoliceStationonthe basis of this report is at Exhibit 79. Sudhakumari Gaursundar is examinedasP .W.13atExhibit85.Exchangenoteofmobilehandset whichwasinpossessionofJyotikumariisatExhibit87.Exhibit88is

(9)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

theofficecopyofSubscribersEnrollmentFormofBharatiAirtelLimited. Exhibit 90 is call detail record of mobile phone bearing No. 9960621120 which was in possession of Jyotikumari. Exhibit 91 is receiptofwristwatchofJyotikumari.JeevanjyotiAnandchandraBaral isexaminedasP .W.14atExhibit94.AnkushKisanTumkarapanch witnesstoconfessionalstatementofaccusedPurhsottamBoratemade on 4112007 which resulted in recovery of Odhani is examined as P .W.15atExhibit95.Exhibit96isconfessionalstatementofaccused PurushottamBorateandExhibit96/Aisresultantrecoverypanchnama of Odhani. Autopsy Surgeon Dr. Madhav Adelu Waghmare, Medical Officer of Primary Health Centre, Talegaon Dabhade is examined as P W. 16 at Exhibit 97. Exhibit 98 is postmortem report. Amol . Ramchandra Mugade, Security Supervisor of Wipro Company is examinedasP .W.17atExhibit105.KishorVasantraoGhadge,Tahsildar Vadgaon Maval, who conducted test identification parade of both accused on 14012008 is examined as P W. 18 at Exhibit 111. . Exhibit 114 is the memorandum of identification parade of both accused. Dadasaheb Bhimrao Sawane, Police Constable who carried seized muddemal to the office of Chemical Analyser is examined as P W. 19 at Exhibit 115. Kumudini Nanasaheb Ahire, Asstt. Sub . Inspector who took entry of missing report and other connected documents in the station diary of Chatushringi Police Station is examinedasP .W.20atExhibit124. SheshraoBaburaoSuryawanshi, Sr.PoliceInspectorofChatushringiPoliceStationisexaminedasP .W.21 atExhibit127. Atthe initial stage,he hadconductedinvestigation. Hearrestedaccusedpersons,recordedtheirconfessionalstatementand recoveredarticlesinpursuanttothosestatements.ShahajiRamchandra Athawale, Police Head Constable who recorded F.I.R. is examined as

(10)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

P .W.22atExhibit131.RanjanSajanraoKadam,P .S.I.,whovisitedthe spotoftheincidentinitiallyandconductedpreliminaryinvestigationis examinedasP .W.23atExhibit138.Dr.PurushottamGaneshDarshane, Medical Officer, Sassoon Hospital, Pune is examined as P W. 24 at . Exhibit 142. Both accused persons were examined by him. Adinath DevidasNagane,PoliceNaikisexaminedasP .W.25atExhibit148. HehadtakendeadbodyofJyotikumariforpostmortemexamination andobtainedclothesonthatdeadbodywhichwereultimatelyseized. SanjayBabaraoBodke,apanchwitnesstoidentificationparadeofboth accusedisexaminedasP .W.26atExhibit156.RajendraGanpatiPatil, Police Inspector of Talegaon Dabhade Police Station, who conducted restoftheinvestigationisexaminedasP .W.27atExhibit161.Kailas DattatrayaDhamale,PoliceConstablewhosubmittedcopyofFIRtothe CourtofJ.M.F.C,VadgaonMavalisexaminedasP .W.28atExhibit185. Ganesh Ramrao Pawar, Asstt. Nodal Officer of Airtel Limited is examinedasP .W.29atExhibit219.Exhibit220isrequestletterby policetoAirtelLimited.C.A.reportsareatExhibit99,100,101,166, 167,221and222. 13] Defence of both accused persons is that of total denial.

Accused No.1 Purushottam Borade has contended that he was not drivingthatIndicacar(CabNo.535)on1112007. Inhisstatement under Section 313 of Cr. P C, accused Purushottam Borate has . contendedthatidentificationparadewasheld,buthewasnotidentified by the witness. He stated that his blood and semen samples were collectedduringinvestigation.Headmittedthathisclotheswereseized duringinvestigation,butaccordingtohim,theywere notcontaining anystains.Similarly,accusedNo.2PradeepKokadeisalsostatingthat

(11)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

identification parade was held, but he was not identified by the prosecution witnesses. He has also stated that his blood and semen sampleswerecollectedbytheInvestigatingOfficersoalsohisclothes, buttheywerenotcontaininganystains. 14] IheardShri.UjjwalNikam,thelearnedSpecialProsecutor

appearingfortheprosecution.Accordingtohim,deceasedJyotikumari waslastlyseenincompanyofbothaccusedpersonsandthereaftershe wasneverseenalive.Noexplanationisofferedbyaccusedpersonsin this regard. Evidence of P W. 12, 13 and 14 is consistent and . trustworthy. It is supported by documentary evidence, i.e. call detail record.AccusedNo.1waslateinpickingupP .W.11SagarBidkarand falseexplanationwasgiventhatthetyrewaspunctured.AccusedNo.2 Pradeepwasinthesaidcaritself.FalsereasonisgivenbyaccusedNo.1 Purushottamtootherprosecutionwitnessesregardinghislatearrivalat WiproCompanyfordroppingP .W.11SagarBidkar.Accusedgavefalse explanationtoprosecutionwitnessesthatJyotikumarididnotboardthe cab in that night. Confessional statement made by accused persons resultedinrecoveryofarticleswhichwereinpossessionofJyotikumari. Her Odhani recovered at the instance of accused Purushottam was found to be containing semen stains of both accused persons. C. A. reportfurthershowsthatfiberontheligaturemarkfoundonneckof deceasedJyotikumaritalliedwithfiberfromOdhanirecoveredatthe instance of accused Purushottam Borate. Semen stains of both the accusedwerefoundonclothesofthedeceased.Thus,accordingtothe learned Special Public Prosecutor the circumstances against accused persons are firmly established by the prosecution and, therefore, charges stand proved. Per contra, according to the learned defence

(12)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

advocate, accused deserve acquittal as there is discrepancy in the clothesallegedlyfoundondeadbodyofKum.Jyotikumari,witnesses arenotstatingthatthoseclotheswerestainedwithblood,paddycrop onwhichdeadbodywasfound,wasnotseized,bladeandstoneseized fromthespotofincidentwerenotreferredtotheChemicalAnalyser, registerofWiproCompanyisnotproducedbeforetheCourt.Hefurther arguedthatIdentificationparadeofseizedarticleswasnotconducted andthepanchnamasarevague.Articleswereplantedatthehouseof accusedpersons.ThedeadbodywasjustadjacenttoExpressHighway having huge traffic and patrolling by police, therefore, there wasno opportunity to accused to commit crime. According to the learned defenceadvocate,evidenceofP .W.9istotallyunreliableasheisunable toread.ShiftdutyandworkofP .W.10Bhandariisnotclearlybrought onrecord.EvidenceofP .W.12aboutdescriptionofaccusedpersonsis unsatisfactory. Motive is not proved by the prosecution. Evidence regardingtestidentificationparadeisunreliable.Forensicevidenceis not supporting the prosecution. According to the learned defence counsel, evidence of all prosecution witnesses is not reliable and trustworthy. The case is based on circumstantial evidence and circumstances alleged against accused are not firmly established and therefore, accused persons deserve acquittal. The learned defence counsel has placed on record elaborate written notes of arguments whicharecarefullyperusedbyme. 15] Uponhearingrivalsubmissionsandonperusalofevidence

made available on record, the following points arise for my considerationanddeterminationandIrecordmyfindingsthereon,for thereasonstofollow:

(13)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

POINTS 1)

FINDINGS

Whether it is proved by the prosecution that ..Yes. Jyotikumari Ramanand Chaudhary died homicidaldeath? Whetheritisprovedbytheprosecutionthaton ..Yes. or about 1112007, accused persons agreed andcausedtobedoneillegalacts,viz.toabduct Jyotikumari Chaudhary from her house at Panchwati,Pashan,Pune,tocommitgangrape on her, thereafter to commit her murder by intentionallyandknowinglycausingherdeath and to dishonestly misappropriate her belongings? Whetheritisprovedbytheprosecutionthaton ..Yes. 1112007atabout1030p.m.fromPanchwati, Pashan, Pune, both the accused persons in pursuanttotheircriminalconspiracyabducted JyotikumariRamanandChaudhary? Whetheritisprovedbytheprosecutionthaton ..Yes. 1112007inbetween1030p.m.to1220a.m. of 2112007 at the paddy field of Kisan Tukaram Bodke, within jurisdiction of village Gahunje,accusedpersonscommittedgangrape on Jyotikumari Ramanand Chaudhary in pursuant to criminal conspiracy hatched by them? Whether it is proved that in pursuant to the ..Yes. criminalconspiracyhatchedbyaccusedpersons in the intervening night of 1112007 to 2112007, they committed murder of Jyotikumari Chaudhary by intentionally and knowinglycausingherdeath?

2)

3)

4)

5)

(14)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

6)

Whether it is proved that in pursuant to ..Yes. criminal conspiracy hatched by them, accused persons dishonestly misappropriated or convertedfortheirownusegoldfingerring,ear rings,wristwatch,mobilephonewhichwerein possession of Jyotikumari Ramanand Chaudhary at the time of her death after committinghermurder? Whatorder? ..Asperfinal order REASONS

7)

16]

According to the prosecution case, in pursuant to the

criminal conspiracy hatched by accused persons, they committed murder of Jyotikumari in the intervening night of 1112007 to 2112007 in the paddy field of Kisan Bodke within jurisdiction of villageGahunje.HerdeadbodywasseenbyP .W.8PankajLaxman Bodkeat715a.m.of2112007. EvidenceofP .W.8PankajBodke showsthatwhenhewasproceedingtowardshisfieldbymotorcycle,he saw dead body of a lady on boundary of field of Kisan Bodke with injuriesonneckandrighthand.Therewasbloodonpaddycropand stone.EvidenceofP .W.8Pankajfurthershowsthattherewasayellow KurtaandasaffronSalwarondeadbody. Apairofsandalwaslying nearby. HepassedthisinformationtoP .W.1HiramanBodkewhois PolicePatilofvillageGahunje. 17] EvidenceofP .W.1HiramanBodke,PolicePatilshowsthat

ongettinginformation,hedidvisitfieldofKisanBodkeandsawdead bodyofaladylyingtherewithinjuriesonhand.Abloodstainedstone wasseenbyhimlyingnearby.Hisevidencefurthershowsthathethen

(15)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

went to Police Station, Talegaon Dabhade on 2112007 itself and lodgedFIRExhibit21. PerusalofthisFIRatExhibit21showsthatit was lodged at 915 a.m. by Hiraman Bodke. In this FIR against unidentifiedaccused,itismentionedthatdeadbodyofafemaleaged about20to22yearsisfoundinthe fieldofKisan Bodke. TheFIR furthershowsthattherewereinjuriestohead,rightwristandneckof thedeadbody.TheFIRalsoshowsthatpairofsandalwasfoundlying nearthedeadbody. 18] P W. 22 Shahaji Athawale, Police Head Constable of .

TalegaonDabhadePoliceStationrecordedFIRExhibit21lodgedbyP . W.1HiramanBodke. EvidenceofP .W.22ShahajiAthawaleshows thataccordinglyCrimeNo.167/2007wasregisteredagainstunknown accused and investigation was handed over to P 23 PSI Kadam. .W. EvidenceofthisP .W.23RanjanKadam,PSIshowsthaton2112007, he wenttothe spotofthe incidentatvillage Gahunje andrecorded inquest notesat Exhibit 24. Inquestnotesat Exhibit 24 recorded on 2112007 shows that there were two cut injuries on right wrist, abrasion on cheeks, black mark and abrasions on neck, injury to foreheadand brain of the deadbody.The dead body wasthereafter dispatched for postmortem, examination at Primary Health Centre, TalegaonDabhade.P .W.25AdinathNagane,PoliceNaikofTalegaon DabhadePoliceStationdeposedthathetookdeadbodyofthatyoung femalewhichwasstillunidentifiedtoPrimaryHealthCentre,Talegaon Dabhadeon2112007forpostmortemexamination.EvidenceofP .W. 25NaganeshowsthattheDoctorcameat315p.m..Hegaveletterof P .S.O.(Exhibit139)raisingqueriesregardingdeadbodytotheDoctor andthereafterautopsywasperformedonthedeadbody.

(16)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

19]

ThisishowthedeadbodyofunknownfemaleinCrimeNo.

167/2007wastakenfromvillageGahunjetothePrimaryHealthCentre ofTalegaonDabhadeon2112007forperformingautopsy.On211 2007, P W. 16 Dr. Madhav Waghmare, Medical Officer attached to . Primary Health Centre, Talegaon Dabhade conducted postmortem examinationonthatdeadbodyfrom325p.m.to425p.m..Evidence of P W. 16 Dr. Madhav Waghmare shows that during postmortem . examination,henoticedfollowingexternalinjuriesonthatdeadbody: 1) 2) 3) CLWonleftparietalscalpregion,size1cxdeepbone. CLWonlefttemproparietalscalpregionsize1xx deepbone. Ligaturemarkaroundtheneckregion,Naturegrievous, Positionmarksituatedlowdowninthebelowthyroidthe baseofgroovebeingsoftandreddish.Dimensionsize6 xx.DirectionsHorizontallycontinuouslowdown intheneckbelowthethyroidcartilage,encirclingtheneck. Probableageoftheinjury16hours.Conditionof subcutaneoustissueunderthemarkecchymosedcharacter ofligaturemarknylonropefibersareusedasligature. Fracturehyoidbone.Fractureskullinvolvingfrontal parietallefttemporalbone,frctureribsright2,3,4. 4) 5) 6) 7) Multipleabrasiononlefttemporaltocheekleft,andlower mandibularregionssize6x3x. Multipleabrasionsatbaseofleftclavicalandmidsternum thoracicregions,size2x2x. Multipleabrasionswithfingernailmarks,rightsideofneck region,frontolaterally,size2x1x. Multipleabrasionswithfingernailmarksonleftsideofthe

(17)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

neckregionsfrontolaterally,size2x1x. 8) 9) 10) 11) Incisedwoundonrightwristjointregionventrally,size2x 1xdeepbone(radialarterynotcut) IncisedwoundjustbelowaboveinjuryNo.8onrightwrist regionventrally,size2x1xdeepbone. Contusiononlefteyeanduppereyelidregion,size1x1 (cynosed). CLWonlefteyebrowtofrontalscalpregion,size1xx deepbone. EvidenceofP .W.16Dr.MadhavWaghmarefurthershows

20] injuries. 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9)

that upon internal examination of dead body, he noticed following CLWonleftparietalscalpregion. CLWonlefttemproparietalscalpregion. CLWonlefteyebrowtofrontalscalpregion. Fractureofskullinvolvingfrontalparietallefttemporal bone. Lacerationtothebrain. Fracturetoribs(right2,3,4)ofrightside. Pleurarupturedright. Fracturelarynxandtrachea,bronchialtubecontainsfroth. Rightlungcongested,emphysematous,bullaeonthe surfaceofthelung.Duetooverdistensionruptureofintra aveolarsepta. 10) 11) CarotidarteriesInternalcoatrupturedseen. Pubichairnotfound,mattedduetothepresenceofsemen ordriedsemenorstains.Bleedingfromvaginaisvery slight.Noinjuryisseentolabiamajoraandlabiaminor.No

(18)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

vaginalsecretionseen.Uteruswascongestedand normal.Ossclosed. 21]

Evidence of P W. 16 Dr. Madhav Waghmare establishes .

thatinjuriesfoundondeadbodyofthatfemalewasantemortemin nature. P .W.16 Dr. Waghmare, upon conducting postmortem examinationondeadbodycametotheconclusionthatthedeathofthat ladywasduetoshockandhaemorrhageduetogrievousinjuryonvital organswithfracturedskullinvolvingfrontallefttemporal,parietalbone withlacerationtobrainwithfracturedribs,rupturedrightlungwith strangulation. His evidence further shows that strangulation may be committedwhenthevictimwassuddenlyoverpoweredfrombehindby usingropewithhands.Dr.Waghmarehadpreparedmemorandumof postmortem examination on 2112007 itself which is at Exhibit 98. ThiscontemporaneousdocumentfullycorroborateversionofP .W.16 Dr.MadhavWaghmare. 22] Now one will have to examine whether the prosecution

provesthatthedeadbodyoffemalefoundinthefieldatGahunjewas thatofJyotikumariChaudhary.EvidenceofP .W.12Gaursundarshows that on 3112007, in pursuant to missing report in respect of Kum. JyotikumariChaudharylodgedbyhim,policecameandtoldthatdead body of unknown female was found within jurisdiction of Talegaon DabhadePoliceStation.EvidenceofP .W.12GaursundarandP .W.13 Sudhakumari shows that then they went to Police Station, Talegaon DabhadewhereCrimeNo.167/2007wasregisteredonfindingofdead body at Gahunje. At that place, photograph of that dead body was showntothemandtheyidentifiedthesaidphotographtobeofdead

(19)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

body of Jyotikumari. Evidence of both these witnessesunanimously showsthatthentheyweretakentoSassoonHospital,Punebypolice wheredeadbodyofthatfemalewasshowntothem. Theyidentified thatdeadbodyasofJyotikumariChaudhary.Thisevidenceofbrother inlaw and sister of deceased Jyotikumari gains corroboration from evidenceofP .W.27RajendraPatil,InvestigatingOfficer.Hehasalso testifiedthaton3112007,heshowedphotographofthedeadbodyof unidentifiedfemaleinCrimeNo.167/2007toP .W.12Gaursundarand P W.13 Sudhakumari. P W. 27 Patil, Investigating Officer further . . deposedthattheybothidentifiedthephotographasofJyotikumari.It is,thus,clearthatdeadbodyofunidentifiedfemalefoundinthefieldof KisanBodkewithinjurisdictionofvillageGahunjeon2112007wasof JyotikumariChaudhary.Onestablishingidentityofthatdeadbodyas thatofJyotikumariChaudhary,P .W.27Patil,InvestigatingOfficerhad issued a letter at Exhibit 162 to the Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Talegaon Dabhade to mention name of the deceased as JyotikumariRamanandChaudharyinthecertificateofcauseofdeath and postmortem report. That is how P W. 16 Dr. Waghmare wrote . nameofdeceasedasJyotikumariRamanandChaudharyinpostmortem reportatExhibit98.Evenincrossexamination,thisAutopsySurgeon has clarified that on 5112007, police informed him name of the deceasedandthereafteritwasmentionedinthepostmortemreportat Exhibit 98 as Jyotikumari Chaudhary though it was prepared on 2112007. Thereisnomaterialonrecordtosuggestthatinjurieson deadbodyofJyotikumariwereaccidentalorsuicidal.Injuriesreflected inpostmortemreportrulesoutsuchpossibility.Consideringnatureof ante mortem injuriesfoundon deadbodyof JyotikumariChaudhary andcauseofherdeathgivenbytheautopsysurgeon,itneedstoputon

(20)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

record that Jyotikumari Chaudhary died homicidal death prior to 715a.m.of2112007andherdeadbodywasfoundat715a.m.of 2112007intheagriculturalfieldatvillageGahunje,DistrictPune. 23] Now let us examine, whether it is proved by the

prosecution that by entering in criminal conspiracy, accused persons abducted, raped, murdered Jyotikumari and misappropriated her belongings. 24] Caseoftheprosecutioniswhollydependoncircumstantial

evidence.Prosecutionisrelyingonthefollowingcircumstancesinorder to establish that both the accused persons have hatched criminal conspiracy to abduct Jyotikumari Chaudhary on 1112007 for committing her murder after raping her and then for dishonestly misappropriatingthepropertywhichwasinherpossessionatthattime, fortheirownuse.Thecircumstancesreliedonbytheprosecutioncan beculledoutasunder: [i] JyotikumariChaudharywaslastlyseenalivebyPW12 Gaursunderatabout10.30p.m.on1112007,whenshe leftherhouseincompanyofboththeaccusedinCabNo. 535viz.IndicaCarbearingregistrationNo.MH14/AH 4560,andthereafter,shewasneverseenalive. Accused havenotofferedanyexplanationastowhathappenedto JyotikumariChaudharyaftershesatintheCabinthenight of1112007. [ii] JyotikumariChaudharywaslastlyperceivedtobealivein thecompanyof boththe accuseduptoabout11.00p.m. on 1112007, while talking with her on mobile phone

(21)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

byP .W. 14Jeevan Baral. The accuseddid not offer any explanationastowhathappenedtoJyotikumari Chaudharythereafter. [iii] StatementsmadebyJyotikumaritoP .W.14JeevanBaral duringtheirtelephonicconversationastothe circumstancesofthetransactionwhichresultedinher death. [iv] DeadbodyofJyotikumariwithinjuriesthereonwasfound at7.15a.m.on2112007intheagriculturalfieldofKisan Borade within jurisdiction ofvillageGahunjebyPW8 PankajBodake.Shesufferedhomicidaldeath. [v] ThoughaccusedNo.1PurushottamBoratewassupposed topickupPW11SagarBidkarat10.30p.m.of1112007 afterpickingupofJyotikumari,hewaslatebymorethan twohoursforthispickup.HepickedupP .W.11Sagar Bidkarat00.45a.m.of2112007andatthattime, accusedNo.2PradeepKokadewasaccompanyingaccused No.1PurushottamBorateinthatCabNo.535. [vi] AccusedNo.1PurushottamBorategavefalseexplanation forlatepickupofPW11SagarBidkarandlatereaching atWiproCo.; toPW1SagarBidkarandPW17Amol Mugade,thatthedelaywasduetopunctureoftyreand JyotikumarididnotboardhisCabon1112007. [vii] AccusedNo.1PurushottamBorategavefalseidentityof accused No.2Pradeep Kokadeas'Shankar'toPW10 HiramanBhandare.InhearingofP .W.10Hiraman

(22)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

Bhandare,accusedNo.1PurushottamBoratemadeafalse statement that Jyotikumari did not come for work on 1112007. [viii] Onthebasis ofconfessionalstatementofaccusedNo.1 PurushottamBorate,awristwatch(articleNo.26),gold ring(articleNo.27),one SIMcard(articleNo.21)were recoveredon3112007.Thesearticleswereidentifiedto beof Jyotikumari by P .W.12GaursunderandP .W.13 Sudhakumari. [ix] Onthebasisof confessionalstatementofaccusedNo.2 PradeepKokade,mobile phone (articleNo.29)andear rings(articleNo.28)wererecoveredon2112007.These articles were identifiedtobeofJyotikumaribyPW12 GaursunderandPW13Sudhakumari. [x] Onthebasisofconfessional statementofaccusedNo.1 PurushottamBorate,OdhaniidentifiedtobeofJyotikumari wasrecoveredon4.11.2007.ThatOdhaniwasfoundtobe havingsemenstains ofbloodgroupofboththeaccused persons.(C.A.ReportatExh.166). [xi] Fibersdetected onscratchmaterialonligaturemarkon neckofJyotikumaritalliedwithfibersfromclothesof OdhanirecoveredattheinstanceofaccusedNo.1 PurushottamBorate.(C.A.ReportsatExhs.222and 221respectively.) [xii] KurtaandSalvar(articlesNo.6and7)ofJyotikumariwere

(23)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

foundtobehavingstainsofsemenofbloodgroupofboth theaccusedpersons.KnickerofJyotikumariwasfoundto behavingsemenstainsofbloodgroupofaccusedNo.2 PradeepKokade. [xiii] OnpubichairandvaginalswabofJyotikumari,human semenwasdetected(C.A.ReportExh.99). [xiv] BloodstainswerefoundonCabNo.535inwhich Jyotikumari undertook lasttravel of herlife.Accused persons have not offered any explanation about it. (C.A.ReportExh.167). Accordingtotheprosecution,evidenceadducedbyitfirmly establishes these circumstances and these proved circumstances are establishingguiltoftheaccusedintheoffenceallegedagainstthem. 25] Asthecaseisbasedonthecircumstantialevidence,itneeds

tobekeptinmindthattheprosecutionwillhavetoestablishallthese circumstancesbyindependentevidenceandthecircumstancesmustbe clinchingandformingcompletechainofeventsleadingtoirresistible conclusionthatthoseweretheaccusedandnoneelsewhohavecaused deathofJyotikumariafterabductingandrapingher.Thelawinthis regardiswellsettledandcanbefoundinStateofU.P .Vs.Dr.Ravindra Mittal,AIR1982SUPREMECOURT2045,whereinitisheldthatthe essential ingredients to prove guilt of an accused persons by circumstantialevidenceare: (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion was drawnshouldbefullyproved;

(24)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

(2) (3)

Thecircumstancesshouldbeconclusiveinnature; all the facts so established should be consistent withthehypothesisofguiltandinconsistentwith innocence; The circumstances should be to a great certainty excludethepossibilityofguiltofanypersonother thantheaccused.

(4)

26]

In Kashmira Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR

1952SUPREMECOURT159, Hon'bleSupremeCourthasheldthatin case of cruel and revolting murder, it will be necessary to examine evidencewithmorethanordinarycarelesttheshockingnatureofthe crime induced an instinctive reaction against a dispassionate judicial scrutinyofthefactandlaw. Thecaseathandisalsoacaseofcruel murderofayounggirlaftercommissionofrapeonherand,therefore, evidenceadducedbytheprosecutionwillhavetoscrutinizecarefully. 27] In the case at hand, according to the prosecution,

Jyotikumari was in the Company of both the accused since she left homewiththemat1030p.m.of1112007inthecabNo.535driven byaccusedNo.1PurushottamBorate.Shewasperceivedtobealive upto1100p.m.andthenherdeadbodywasfoundat715a.m.inthe fieldofvillageGahunje.Thus,thetheoryoflastseentogetherisrelied bytheprosecutiontoprovetheguiltofaccused.InSk.YusufVs.State ofWestBangal2011ALLMR(Cri)2365(S.C.),reliedbythedefence theoryoflastseentogetherisexplainedbytheHon'bleSupremeCourt inparaNo.14ofthereport,whichreadsthus: 14. Thelastseentheorycomesintoplaywherethe timegapbetweenthepointoftimewhentheaccusedand

(25)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

deceased were last seen alive and when the deceased is founddeadissosmallthatpossibilityofanypersonother than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible. 28] Similarly,paraNos.12,13and15inthematterofShivaji

@ Dadya Shankar Alhat Vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 2009 SUPREME COURT 56 relied by the prosecution are relevant to understandappreciationofevidenceincasesofcircumstantialevidence. ParaNo.12,13and15ofthisreportneedsreproductionandtheyread asunder: 12. So far as last seen aspect is concerned it is necessarytotakenoteoftwodecisionsofthiscourt.In StateofU.P .v.Satish[2005(3)SCC114]itwasnotedas follows:22.Thelastseentheorycomesintoplaywhere thetimegapbetweenthepointoftimewhentheaccused and the deceased were seen last alive and when the deceasedisfounddeadissosmallthatpossibilityofany person other than the accused being the author of the crimebecomesimpossible. Itwouldbedifficultinsome casestopositivelyestablishthatthedeceased waslast seen with the accused when there is a long gap and possibilityofotherpersonscominginbetweenexists.In the absence of any other positive evidence to conclude that the accused and the deceased were last seen together,itwouldbehazardoustocometoaconclusion of guilt in those cases. In this case there is positive evidence that the deceased and the accused were seen togetherbywitnessesP .Ws.3and5,inadditiontothe evidenceofP .W.2. 13. InRamreddyRajeshkhannaReddyv.StateofA.P . [2006(10)SCC722]itwasnotedasfollows:27.Thelast seentheory,furthermore,comesintoplaywherethetime gapbetweenthepointoftimewhentheaccusedandthe deceasedwerelastseenaliveandthedeceasedisfound deadissosmallthatpossibilityofanypersonotherthan the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible.Eveninsuchacasethecourtsshouldlookfor

(26)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

somecorroboration. 15. Before analyzing factual aspects it may be stated thatforacrimetobeproveditisnotnecessarythatthe crimemustbeseentohavebeencommittedandmust,in allcircumstancesbeprovedbydirectocularevidenceby examiningbeforetheCourtthosepersonswhohadseen its commission. The offence can be proved by circumstantialevidencealso.Theprincipalfactorfactum probandummaybeprovedindirectlybymeansofcertain inferences drawn from factum probans, that is, the evidentiary facts. To put it differently circumstantial evidenceisnotdirecttothepointinissuebutconsistsof evidence of various other facts which are so closely associatedwiththefactinissuethattakentogetherthey formachainofcircumstancesfromwhichtheexistenceof theprincipalfactcanbelegallyinferredorpresumed. To buttress its contention that in cases of circumstantial evidence,thereisalwaysthedangerthattheconjectureorsuspicion maytaketheplaceoflegalproofand,therefore,achainofevidence must be complete so as not to leave any reasonable ground for conclusionconsistentwiththe innocenceoftheaccused,thedefence hasreliedonrulingsinthemattersof HanumanGovindNargundkar andanotherVs.StateofM.P .AIR1952S.C.343(1); Shankarala DixitVs.StateofMaharashtraAIR1981SupremeCourt765(1). Similarly,accordingtothelearneddefencecounsel,meresuspicionor suspiciouscircumstancescannotrelievetheprosecutionofitsprimary dutyofprovingthecaseagainstanaccusedbeyondreasonabledoubt. Courtofjusticecannotbeswayedbythesentimentorprejudiceagainst a person accused of the very reprehensible crime of the incident. Reliance is placed by the defence on Syed Osman Vs. State of Maharashtra1998ALLMR()Cri.)204;AshishBathamVs.Stateof M.P .2002CR.L.J.4676(S.C.); ParashramSiddhaVs.Stateof

(27)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

Maharashtra2001Bom.C.R.(Cri.)166; KashinathPatilVs.State ofMaharashtra 2000ALL MR(Cri.)1847 and ToranSingh Vs. State of M. P 2002 CRI. L. J. 3737 (S.C.). The learned defence . counseliscontendingthatwhenthelinkinthechainofcircumstances ismissing,thechargescannotbeestablishedbyrelyingonMujjiband anotherVs.StateofKerala2000Cri.L.J.742.Ihaveminutelygone through the rulings cited by the learned defence counsel wherein principles of appreciation of evidence in the case based on circumstantialevidenceiselaboratedbythesuperiorCourts. Letus, therefore, examine whether the circumstances alleged against the accusedareofconclusivenatureandiffoundtobeproved,theyare suchastoexcludeeveryhypothesisbuttheoneproposedtobeproved bytheprosecution. 29] Attheoutsetletusexaminewhethertheprosecutionhas

provedthatJyotikumariwaslastlyseenaliveincompanyofboththe accused personssoon before her death. P .W.12Gaursundar her brotherinlawisaprimewitnessonthisaspect.P .W.12Gaursundar andhiswifeP .W.13Sudhakumari(sisterofdeceasedJyotikumari)are unanimousinstatingthaton1112007,Jyotikumariwasondutyin thirdshiftcommencingfrom1100p.m.to900a.m..Acabhiredby WiproCompanyusedtocometotheirresidencetofetchJyotikumari. P W. 12 Gaursundar and P 13 Sudhakumari have consistently . .W. deposedthatasperpractice, beforecomingdriverofthecabgavea missed call to Jyotikumari on her mobile phone bearing No. 9960621120. Though this cell phone is in name of P 13 .W. Sudhakumari,evidenceofboththesewitnessesestablishesthatthiscell phonewasbeingusedbyJyotikumari.Thesewitnessesfurtherdeposed

(28)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

that Jyotikumari then talked with driver of the cab and told him to cometopickherup.Atthattime,JyotikumariwasplayingwithKartik. When she started going down, Kartik started crying. Hence, as per version of both these witnesses, Jyotikumari, Kartik and P W. 12 . GaursundarwentdownstairstoaccompanyJyotikumariuptothecab. HeandJyotikumaritalkedwitheachotherforfiveminuteswhenthat cab was waiting for Jyotikumari. It is in evidence of P W W. 12 . GaursundarthatregistrationnumberofthatIndicacarwhichcameto fetchJyotikumariwasMH14/AH4560andthereweretwopersonsin thatcab. P .W.12Gaursundarhasstatedthatdriverwasblackishin complexion. He was wearing maroon coloured pant, cap as well as jacket. Asperhisversion,anotherpersonwassittingjustbehindthe driverandhewaswearingbluepantandblackTshirt.EvidenceofP .W. 12 Gaursundar shows that he had ample opportunity to see and observeboththe driverandhiscompanion in the lightof the street light.Asperhisversion,aftertalkingwithJyotikumariforfiveminutes atthatplace,JyotikumariwentforherjobinthatIndicacarbearing registration No. MH14/AH4560. P W. 12 Gaursundar Prasad has . identifiedaccusedNo.1PurushottamBorateasadriverandaccused No. 2 Pradeep Kokade as companion of the driver; with whom JyotikumariwentforofficeinIndicacaratabout1030p.m.on111 2007. 30] By relying on ruling in the matter of Sharad Sarda Vs.

State of Maharashtra AIR 1984 SC 1622, the learned defence advocate has contended that as P W. 12 Gaursundar and P 13 . .W. Sudhakumari are closely related to deceased Jyotikumari, their evidenceisnotreliableastheyhaveatendencytoexaggerateoradd

(29)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

facts. No doubt, it is normal rule of appreciation of evidence that evidenceofrelatedorinterestedwitnesseshastobeappreciatedwith greatcareandcautionbutitisequallywellsettledthatmerelybecause the witnesses are related to the deceased, their evidence cannot be outrightlythrownaway.Rejectionofsuchevidenceonthesoleground that witnesses are related to the deceased would invariably leads to failureofjustice.Oncetheevidenceofwitnessesexaminedappearsto betruthful,reliableandacceptable,themerefactthattheyarerelated tothedeceaseddoesnotmaketheirevidenceunworthyofcredence. On the contrary, close relatives of the deceased would normally be themselvesreluctanttosparetherealassailantandfalselymentionthe nameofotherpersons. Inthecaseathand,P .W.12and13namely GaursundarandSudhakumariaremostnaturalwitnessesandpresence ofP .W.12GaursundartoseeoffJyotikumariwhenshewentforwork incompanyoftheaccusedcannotbedoubtedinnormalway. 31] Thereisabsolutelynothingonrecordtodoubtversionof

P 12 Gaursundar and P W. 13 Sudhakumari on the aspect of .W. . P .W.12GaursundaraccompanyingJyotikumariuptothecab. Onthe contrary, this version of both these witnesses is strengthened in the crossexamination of both these witnesses. It has came on record in crossexaminationofP .W.12Gaursundarthatheusedtogodownstairs fordroppingJyotikumariatthecabregularlyandinhisabsence,his wife used to do this work. Similar is the version of P W. 13 . Sudhakumariincrossexaminationwhereinshestatedthatherhusband usedtoaccompanyJyotikumariuptothecabandinhisabsence,she usedtodropheruptothecab.Thus,thereisnoreasontodoubtversion of P W.12 Gaursundar that on 1112007, he went downstairs with .

(30)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

JyotikumaritoaccompanyJyotikumariuptothecabandashestayed withJyotikumarifor aboutfive minutesatthecab,he hadseen the driverofthatcabandthepersonaccompanyingthedriverinthatcab viz. accused No.1 Purushottam Borate and accused No. 2 Pradeep Kokade. Even in crossexamination of this witness, it has come on recordthatthesamedrivercametopickupJyotikumarievenon3010 2007and31102007. AsP .W.12Gaursundarwasregularlygoing downstairstodropJyotikumariatthecab,hehadeveryopportunityto seeandobservethephysiqueandpersonalityofthedriverwhousedto cometopickherupfortakinghertotheworkplace.Atthisjuncture,it isappositetonotethatP .W.13Sudhakumariisnotclaimingtohave accompaniedJyotikumarion1112007tothecab.Sheisnotclaiming tohaveseentheaccusedpersons.Thus,itisseenthatthoughclosely relatedtothedeceased,sheisnotaddingembellishmenttoherversion. Forthesereasons,evidenceofP .W.12Gaursundarthatitwasaccused No.1 Purushottam Borate who was driving the cab and it was the accusedNo.2PradeepKokadewhowasaccompanyinghiminthecab whentheyhadtakenJyotikumarion1112007atabout1030p.m. needstobeacceptedasthesameisfullytrustworthyandreliable. 32] So far as identity of that cab is concerned, evidence of

P .W.12Gaursundariscogentonthisaspectandevenstrengthenedfrom thematerialbroughtonrecordfromhiscrossexamination.Ithascome onrecordinhiscrossexaminationthaton30102007and31102007, samevehicle,i.e.IndicacarbearingregistrationNo.MH14/AH4560 cametopickupJyotikumari.Thiswitnesshasstatedthatthesedetails areinhismindbecausehelosthissisterinlawJyotikumari.Evidence ofP .W.12Gaursundarisverynaturalonthisaspectandthereasonfor

(31)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

keeping memories of the incident fresh in his mind is also genuine. Therefore, there is no reason to doubt version of this witness that Jyotikumari was taken in Indica car bearing registration No. MH 14/AH4560 at about 1030 p.m. on 1112007 by both the accused persons. 33] Defence has contended that evidence of P W. 12 .

Gaursundar and P W. 13 Sudhakumari is untrustworthy because . whateverisstatedbythembeforetheCourtisnotdisclosedbythem whilelodgingreportregardingmissingofJyotikumari.Letus,therefore, examinewhethernondisclosureofthefactsthatJyotikumariwastaken bytheaccusedinthecabon1112007byP .W.12Gaursundarcreates doubtintheveracityofevidenceofP .W.12GaursundarandP .W.13 Sudhakumari. P 12 Gaursundar has stated that on 2112007, he .W. alongwithhiswifeP .W.13SudhakumariwenttoChatushringiPolice Stationandlodgedmissingreport. DefencehasconfrontedP .W.12 GaursundarwiththismissingreportwhichisatExhibit80. Onthe basisofthismissingreport,occurrencereportwasrecordedbyPolice Station, Chatushringi and the same is at Exhibit 79. Perusal of this missingreportatExhibit80showsthatitwasrecordedbysomeAsstt. SubInspectorintheformofstatementofP .W.12Gaursundarwherein itisstatedthatJyotikumarileftforworkasusualat1030p.m.on111 2007,butshehasnotreturnedupto1030a.m.inthemorning.Itis furthermentionedthereinthatshewassupposedtoreturnbythecabof theCompanyand,therefore,inquirywasmadeintheCompanyandit wasinformedthatshehadnotattendedduty.Accordingtothedefence, P .W.12Gaursundarhasnotdisclosedinthisfirstreportlodgedbyhim thatJyotikumarilefthomeincompanyoftheaccusedinthecabdriven

(32)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

by accused No.1 Purushottam Borate and, therefore, evidence of the prosecutionisnottrustworthy.However,nosubstanceisfoundinthis contentionbecauseofclarificationgivenbyP .W.12Gaursundarand P 13 Sudhakumari in their crossexamination itself. P W. 12 .W. . Gaursundar has categorically denied that he had not disclosed description of the driver and his friend to the police or about conversationbetweenhimandJeevanBaraltothepolice.Accordingto this witness, police informed him that first they will record missing report, do the investigation and then FIR would be filed. Hence, accordingtoP .W.12Gaursundar,policedidnotwritedetailsgivenby himinmissingreportatExhibit80oroccurrencereportatExhibit79. AccordingtoP .W.12Gaursundar,hedidinformpoliceaboutmobile phone number as well as name of Jeevan Baral but police had not writtenthesedetailsastheywantedtodoinvestigation.Inthesimilar manner, even P W. 13 Sudhakumari in her crossexamination has . candidlystatedthattheyhaddisclosedlotofinformationtothepolice while lodging missing report, but police did not record all the information given by them. She denied the fact that she and her husband simply informed police that Jyotikumari left the house by sayingthatsheisgoingtotheCompany.Thismaterialcomingonrecord fromcrossexaminationofboththesewitnessesissufficienttoremove the doubt which a prudent person may have due to nonfinding of details about leaving house in the Company's cab with both the accusedbyJyotikumariinthemissingreportatExhibit80.Itappears that police had taken the matter too casually and recorded missing report at Exhibit 80 in the way in which they thought fit to record reportregardingmissingofa younggirl agedabout20to22years. Even,occurrencereportatExhibit79preparedafterregisteringmissing

(33)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

report at Exhibit 80 shows that police even thought that the report disclosednoncognizableoffenceand,therefore,P .W.12Gaursundar, as seen from this occurrence report Exhibit 79, was given an understandingthathiscomplaintisofnoncognizablenature.Ifpolice showsapathyinsuchseriouscasethatcannotbeagroundtodiscredit otherwise truthful version of reliable witnesses such as P W. 12 . Gaursundar and P W. 13 Sudhakumari. Shri. Nikam, the learned . Special Public Prosecutor has rightly relied on Dhanraj Singh alias SheraVs.StateofPunjab2004S.C.C.(Cri.)851,whereintheHon'ble ApexCourt relyingonearlierdecisionshasheldthatifthelapseor omission is committed by the investigating agency because of negligence, the prosecution evidence is required to be examined dehorsesuchomissionstofindoutwhethersaidevidenceisreliableor not.Itisfurtherheldthatifprimacyisgiventonegligentinvestigation, totheomissionorlapsesbyperfunctoryinvestigationoromissions,the faithandconfidenceofthepeoplewouldbeshakennotonlyinthelaw enforcingagency,butalsointheadministrationofjustice.Incaseof defectiveinvestigation,theCourthastobecircumspectinevaluating the evidence. As discussed in foregoing para, evidence of P W. 12 . GaursundarandP .W.13Sudhakumariistotallyconsistent,cogentand freefromallinfirmities.Itiscorroboratedinallmaterialparticularsby otherevidenceonrecordwhichwouldbediscussedsubsequentlyand, therefore, only because concerned police official has not recorded detailsgivenbyP .W.12Gaursundarabouttheincidentwhilelodging missingreport,hisevidencecannotbediscarded. 34] Now let us examine other evidence adduced by the

prosecution in ordertoascertain whetheraccusedNo.1Purushottam

(34)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

BoratewasdriveronIndicacarbearingNo.MH14/AH4560inwhich Jyotikumarileftherhomeforattendingtheworkatabout1030p.m. on1112007.P .W.10HiramanBhandareistheownerofthisIndica carbearingNo.MH14/AH4560.Hisevidenceshowsthatthiscarwas purchasedtoplyasTaxibyhiminFeb.2006andfrom16022006,he hadattachedthiscartoOmSaiEnterprisesthroughwhichitwasgiven toMicoCarPrivateLimited,Punewhichwasdoingtheworkofferrying the employees of Wipro BPO Company, Hinjwadi, Pune from their houses to the work place and from work place to their houses. EvidenceofP .W.10HiramanBhandarefirmlyestablishesthefactthat hisIndicacarbearingNo.MH14/AH4560wasgivenCabNo.535and he himself and accused Purushottam Borate was driving this car for picking up employees of Wipro Company from their houses and for droppingthemtotheirworkplaceandviceversafrom24102007.It isinevidenceofP .W.10HiramanBhandarethatOmSaiEnterprises had provided mobile phone No. 9975557535 for this work of transportingtheemployeesofWiproCompanyandthatmobilephone usedtobeinhiscarviz.CabNo.535. WiproCompanyusedtogive chart known as Pick Up Drop sheets/Rosters to them in advance mentioningnameofemployeeswhicharerequiredtobetransported. P .W.10HiramanBhandarecandidlydeposedthatfrom24102007to 28102007heworkedasdriverontheCabNo.535duringnightshift andaccusedNo.1PurushottamBorateworkedasdriverindayshift. Thereafter, from 29102007, as per version of P W. 10 Hiraman . Bhandare, he drove that cab in day time and accused Purushottam Borate drove it in night time for transporting employees of Wipro Companytilldateofincident,i.e.1112007.ThusevidenceofP .W.10 HiramanBhandarealsoshowsthataccusedNo.1PurushottamBorate

(35)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

hadtakenJyotikumariinthiscabNo.535at1030p.m.on1112007. 35] Duringsearching crossexamination of P .W.10Hiraman

Bhandare,pickupDropsheet/RostersseizedfromthisCabNo.535 were referred to him by the learned defence counsel in order to demonstratethatthesesheetsbearshisnameasdriverofthecaband thisaspectcreatesdoubtintheprosecutioncasethatitwasaccused No.1PurushottamBoratewhowasdrivingtheCabNo.535atthetime oftheincident.P .W.21SheshraoSuryawanshi,Sr.P .I.ofChatushringi PoliceStationhadseizedtheIndicacarbearingNo.MH14AH4560 and the pick up sheets/rosters found therein in presence of panch witnessP .W.4HanumantChavanbyseizurepanchnamaExhibit43on 3112007.Theirevidenceprovestheseizureofpickupsheets/rosters. P .W.4HanumantChavanwhoapartfromactingaspanchwitnessto this seizure is also proprietor of Om Sai Enterprises which supplies vehicles to Wipro Company through Mico Cars Pvt. Ltd.. His cross examinationshowsthatafterpickingupanddroppingtheemployees, pickrosterisreturnedtotheSupervisor. EvidenceofP .W.17Amol Mugade,SupervisorofWiproCompanyshowsthattherewaspracticeto givephotocopyofthesepickupsheetstothedriversofthecab.This evidence brought on record through crossexamination of P W. 4 . HanumantandP .W.17Mugadeestablishesauthenticityofseizureof pickupsheetsatExhibit67to69fromIndicacarNo.MH14/AH4560 (Cab No. 535). Pick up an Drop sheet/Rosters of 30102007, 31102007and1112007areatExhibit69,67and68,respectively.In theseprintedsheetsregistrationnumberofthevehicleisgivenasIndica Car No. 4560, Cab Number allotted to it is shown as 535. In the columnofnameofdriverHiramaniswritten.Hence,accordingtothe

(36)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

defence,itwasP .W.10Hiramanwhowasdrivingthatcabandnot accusedNo.1PurushottamBorate.However,thisargumentisdevoidof meritbecauseincrossexaminationofP .W.10HiramanBhandare,it has come on record that he used to mention his name as well as distancetravelledinthepickupdropsheets/Rosterswellinadvance and,therefore,hisnameisappearinginthesesheetsatExhibit67to69 asdriver.Inthesimilarway,hehasstatedthatdistancetobetravelled bythecabisacalculateddistanceanditisalsomentionedineachsheet as 44 km.. This explanation of P W. 10 Hiraman is an honest, . trustworthyandreliableexplanationforthesimplereasonthatthecab wasengagedfortransportingtheemployeesroundtheclockbecause workofWiproCompanygoesonroundtheclockinthreeshifts,first shift commencingfrom700a.m.andthethirdshiftendingon700 a.m.ofthenextday.Assuch,itisvirtuallyimpossibleforonedriverto work round the clock for ferrying the employees. Accused No.1 Purushottam Borate was employed as driver by P .W.10 Hiraman BhandareonhisIndicacarandP .W.10HiramanBhandarewasalso drivingthatcarbydividingtheirworkintwoshifts,viz.dayshiftand nightshift.Itis,therefore,butnaturalthatP .W.10Hiramanwhoisalso ownerofthecabhadwrittenhisnameasdriverinthepickupdrop sheetsatExhibit67to69wellinadvance.Merementioningofnameof PW.10Hiramanasdriverinthesesheetsisnotsufficienttojettison clear evidence of P W. 12 Gaursundar that it was accused No.1 . Purushottam Borate who was driving Indica car bearing No. MH 14/AH4560at1030p.m.of1112007whiletakingJyotikumarifor her office. Moreover, there is substantive evidence of P .W.9 Bashir Shaikh,P .W.10HiramanBhandare,P .W.11SagarBidkarandP .W.17 Amol Mugade which shows that it was accused No.1 Purushottam

(37)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

BoratewhowasdrivingtheIndicacabNo.535inthenightof111 2007.BytheirevidenceentryofnameofP .W.10HiramanBhandarein pickuipsheetsatExhibit67to69getsexplained. 36] PickupDropsheetsatExhibit67to69showsthatIndica

car No.MH14/AH4560 was supposed to transport in all four employeesnamedthereinwhowereresidingatPanchwatiandPashan areatoWiproCompanyon30102007,31102007and1112007.P . W.11SagarBidkarisoneofsuchemployee.Hisevidenceshowsthat on28102007,ManagerofWiproCompanyinformedhimthatIndica carbearingNo.MH14/AH4560viz.CabNo.535wouldcometopick himupfrom29102007. Accordinglyfrom29102007,CabNo.535 drivenbyaccusedNo.1PurushottamBoratestartedcomingforhispick upalongwithotheremployeesincludingJyotikumari.P .W.11Sagar Bidkar has also identified accused No.1 Purushottam Borate as a personwhowasdrivingCabNo.535from29102007to1112007 while picking him up for night shift commencing from 1100 p.m.. ThereisnothingincrossexaminationofP .W.11SagarBidkartodoubt hisversionaboutaccusedNo.1PurushottamBoratebeingdriverofCab No. 535 in night shift from 29102007 to 1112007. This witness deniedthesuggestionthatJyotikumariwastravellinginCabNo.7and notinCabNo.535from29102007. Thiswitnesswasfirmtostate thatJyotikumariwaswithhimascopassengerinCabNo.535from 29102007. Even pick up sheet at Exhibit 69 for 30102007 and Exhibit 67 for 31102007 shows signature of Jyotikumari in the prescribedcolumnagainsthernameasatokenofbeingpassengerin CabNo.535forthirdshift.Itisseenthatpickupsheetsaremaintained inthecommoncourseofbusinessbyWiproCompanyforthepurposeof

(38)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

transportingtheiremployeestoworkplace.Thoseappearstohavebeen signed by the concerned employees regularly and, therefore, presumption needs to be drawn from these pick up sheets bearing signatureofJyotikumarithatshewastotraveltoherworkplaceinthe CabNo.535from29102007to1112007andinfactshedidtravelin thatcab.Thus,evidenceofP .W.10HiramanBhandareandP .W.11 Sagar Bidkar coupled with documentary evidence regarding pick up sheetsatExhibit67to69corroboratesversionofP .W.12Gaursundar thatitwasaccusedNo.1PurushottamBoratewhowasdrivingIndica carNo.MH14/AH4560(CabNo.535)inwhichJyotikumarilefthome forworkon1112007. 37] Evidence of P W. 11 Sagar Bidkar shows that on .

1112007,thoughthecabwassupposedtopickhimupat1030p.m,it actuallycametopickhimupat0045a.m.of2112007.Whenhesat inthatCabNo.535,apartfromaccusedNo.1PurushottamBorate,he foundonepersonagedabout23to24yearssittingatthebacksideof thecar.OninquirybyP .W.11SagarBidkar,thatpersongavehisname asPradeepKokadebysayingthatheisfriendofthedriverandpainter by occupation. P .W.11 Sagar Bidkar had sufficient opportunity to observehimduringtheirtravel.Thereisnoreasontodisbelievethis partofevidenceofP .W.11SagarBidkarregardingpresenceofaccused No.2PradeepKokadeinthatCabNo.535at0045a.m.of2112007. P .W.11SagarBidkarhasidentifiedboththeaccusedpersonsbeforethe CourtasdriverofCabNo.535andthepersonaccompanyingthedriver on1112007.Thus,evidenceofP .W.12GaursundarthataccusedNo.2 PradeepKokadewassittinginrearseatofIndicacardrivenbyaccused No.1PurushottamBorategainscorroborationfromevidenceofP .W.11

(39)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

SagarBidkar. 38] Evidence of P W. 12 Gaursundar to the effect that . Jyotikumari was taken by both the accused persons in Cab No. 535 gains further corroboration from version of P W. 9 Bashir Dastagir . Shaikh,aChickenVendorresidingatvillageMurmadofaccusedNo.2 PradeepKokade.ThiswitnessisneighbourerofaccusedNo.2Pradeep Kokade.HisevidenceshowsthataccusedNo.1PurushottamBorateis friendof accused No. 2Pradeep Kokade andon 1112007at about 800to830p.m.whenhehimself,accusedNo.2PradeepKokadeand oneRahulwerechitchatting,accusedNo.1PurushottamBoratecameby IndicacarandtookaccusedNo.2PradeepKokadewithhim. P .W.9 BashirShaikhhasstatedregistrationnumberofthatcarasMH14/AH 4560,butthisappearstobe hisexaggeratedversion ashe doesnot knowEnglishreadingandwriting.Atthesametime,ithascameon recordinhiscrossexaminationthathehadseenaccusedPurushottam Borate in the said car as driver since last three days prior to the incident.Hisversionrevealsthatnumberplateofthatcarwasyellow. Therefore, even if registration number of Indica car stated by this witnessisignoredthenalsoevidenceofP .W.9BashirShaikhshowsthat on1112007atabout800to830p.m.accusedNo.2PradeepKokade accompaniedaccusedNo.1PurushottamBorateinIndicacarwhichwas in fact plying as taxi and therefore having yellow number plate. Evidence on this aspect of P W.9 Bashir Shaikh needs to be relied . becausehewasacquaintedwithboththeaccusedpersonsandhadseen accusedNo.1drivingIndicacaratleastsincethreedayspriortothe incident.Thoughthiswitnesswasservedwithsummonswithcopyof hisstatement,thereisnothingonrecordtoinferthatheisatutored

(40)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

witness. Hedoesnotknowreadingandwriting.Itisthusclearthat from 830 p.m. of 1112007, accusedNo.2 Pradeep Kokade wasin companyofaccusedNo.1PurushottamBorate.Therefore,immediately thereafter,hemusthaveaccompaniedaccusedPurushottamforpicking upJyotikumaribyindulgingincriminalconspiracytoabductherfor committingherrapeandmurder.EvidenceofP .W.9BashirShaikhas suchcorroboratesevidenceofP .W.12Gaursundarthatthosewerethe accusedsittinginthedockwhohadtakenJyotikumariinthecabat about1030p.m.on1112007. 39] Theprosecutionhasconductedtestidentificationparadeof

boththeaccusedpersonsthroughP .W.18KishorGhadge,Tahsildarof VadgaonMavalon14012008.Boththeaccusedpersonsareadmitting this fact but are contending that witness had not identified them. EvidenceofP .W.18Ghadgeshowsthathereceivedrequestletterdated 19112007 (Exhibit 112) from Police Station for conducting identificationparadeofboththeaccusedandthisrequestwasfollowed byremindersdated26122007(Exhibit113)and7012008(Exhibit 114). On 14012008, he conducted test identification parade in the Tahsil hall atVadgaon Maval.Ascame on record from his evidence, arrangementofsittingofwitnesswasdoneinseparateroomanddoor andwindowsofthatroomwereclosed.P .W.12Gaursundarcameand hewasaskedtositinthatclosedroom.Thereafter,twopanchwitnesses wereselectedfrom amongstthe personspresent in the Tahsil office. After calling about 15 persons resembling personality of both the accused, P W. 18 Ghadge selected 12 persons resembling . height,physiqueandcolouroftheaccusedpersons.EvidenceofP .W.18 Ghadge shows that precaution was taken so as to ensure that the

(41)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

accusedandthewitnessshouldnotseeeachother.Theaccusedwere brought in veil in the Tahsil hall where the dummies were present. Optionwasgiventotheaccusedtochangetheirclothesandhairstyle soalsotostandinarowatthepositionoftheirchoice. Accordingly, boththeaccusedtookposition of their choice. Thereafter,P .W.12 Gaursundarwascalledandhewasaskedtoidentifyaccusedpersons. EvidenceofP .W.18KishorGhadgeshowsthatP .W.12Gaursundar identifiedaccusedNo.1PurushottamBorateandaccusedNo.2Pradeep Kokade and accordingly memorandum Exhibit 114 was prepared by dictatingtextaspershortnotestakenbyhimtohiswriter.Perusalof this memorandum at Exhibit 114 shows that at two places, date is incorrectlywrittenas16012008,butthesameisstatedtobeamistake ofthewriter.P .W.18Ghadgestoodthetestofcrossexaminationand nothing came on record in his crossexamination to disbelieve his version. Incrossexaminationalso,hemaintainedthattherewasonly one door to the Tahsil office where test identification parade was conducted and he had verified that panchas are respectable and independentpersons.Thus,evidenceofP .W.18Ghadgeshowsthattest identificationparadewasconductedbytakingallnecessaryprecautions thatthewitnessandtheaccusedshouldnotseeeachotherpriortotest identificationparade.Byrelyingon RamuThapaVs.State2007ALL MR(Cri.)925,thelearneddefenceadvocatecontendedthatasthereis delay in holding the identification parade, such parade is valueless. However,inthatmatter,theInvestigatingOfficerhadnotexplainedthe delayinholdingtheidentificationparade.Trueitisthatinthepresent case there is some delay in conducting test identification parade of accused who were arrested on 3112007, but P W. 27 Patil, . InvestigatingOfficerhasexplainedthereasonasheavypolicedutyand

(42)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

atthesametime,itisseenthatthoughrequestletterwassenttothe Tahsildar on 19112007, which was subsequently followed by two reminders, it was the Tahsildar who delayed the matter by actually conductingthetestidentificationparadeon14012008. Atthesame time, there is nothing on record to suggest that prior to this test identificationparade,P .W.12Gaursundarhadseenboththeaccusedat anypointoftime.RelyingontherulinginGaneshPandianVs.Stateof Maharashtra 1985 Cri. L. J. 191, the learned defence advocate criticisedtheidentificationparadebycontendingthatastwoaccused are dissimilar in appearance, two separate parade should have been taken.However,inthecaseathand,boththeaccusedareofsimilarage andsimilarappearanceandevidenceofP .W.18Ghadgeshowsthat dummiesofsimilarappearancewereusedintheidentificationparade. Thus, it is established that accused were identified by P 12 .W. Gaursundar in test identification parade and this fact lends corroboration to his version that on 1112007, they had taken Jyotikumarionthepretextoftransportinghertotheworkplace.His identificationofboththeaccusedinthedockgainscorroborationfrom evidenceoftestidentificationparade. 40] The learned defence advocate relied upon the ruling in

AnwarandanotherVs.State1961(1)Cri.L.J.22 andsubmitted thatevidenceofidentificationoftheaccusedisaweaktypeofproof anditmustsatisfythetestofdefinitionoftheword'proved'contained inSec.3oftheEvidenceAct.However,inthecaseathand,thereis substantive evidence of identification of both the accused before the CourtbyP .W.12Gaursundar.Similarly,hisevidencedoshowthaton 1112007,hehadgoodopportunityofseeingboththeaccusedinthe

(43)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

lightofstreetlightwhenhewastalkingwithJyotikumariforaboutfive minutes and as accused No.1 Purushottam Borate came to fetch Jyotikumarievenon30102007and31102007.Thefeaturesofboth theaccusedwerewellfixedinthe mindofP .W.12Gaursundaron 1112007 and they remained imprinted in his memory because of gruesomemurderofhissisterinlawJyotikumari.P .W.12Gaursundar hadreliablepowerofidentificationasheidentifiedboththeaccused fromamongsttwelvedummiesofidenticalphysiqueandresemblance. Similarly,thereisnothingonrecordtoshowthatP .W.12Gaursundar hadanopportunitytoseeboththeaccusedaftertheirarrest.Nothingof suchtypeiselicitedfromhiminhiscrossexamination.Thus,evidence oftestidentificationparadeattachesgreatvaluetoevidenceofP .W.12 Gaursundar. 41] After Jyotikumari was taken by the accused persons,

accordingtotheprosecutioncase,she wascontinuouslytalkingwith P .W.14JeevanBaralresidentofBangaloreonhercellphonebearing No. 9960621120 which was proved to be in her possession from unimpeached evidence of P W. 12 Gaursundar and P W. 13 . . Sudhakumari.P .W.14JeevanBaralisfriendofJyotikumariandhehas alsodisclosedthesamenumberasmobilenumberofJyotikumarion whichheusedtocontactherdaily.Thiswitnesswashavingloveaffair withJyotikumariandwasusedtobeinherconstantcontactovercell phoneasseenfromhiscrossexamination.Asadmittedbyhimincross examination,evenon1112007,hetalkedwithJyotikumarionhercell phone for 6 to 7 times. With this, let us examine his evidence. His evidence shows that on 1112007, at about 1030 p.m. he called Jyotikumarionhercellphoneandshetoldhimthatsheisgoingto

(44)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

office in office car. After 5 to 7 minutes of talk, the call was disconnected and, therefore, P W. 14 Jeevan Baral again called . Jyotikumari. At this time, their conversation last for long till disconnectionofcallafterloudnoise.P .W.14JeevanBaralhasstatedin hisevidencethatduringconversationwithJyotikumariinthissecond call,heheardJyotikumarisayingdriverPurushottamwhere youare takingthevehicleandthedriver'sanswerthatapersonfromNigadiis requiredtobepickedup.P .W.14JeevanBaralfurtherstatedthatafter some time, Jyotikumari asked driver Purushottam as to why he was takingcarinthejungleandthedriverrepliedthatasconditionofthe road is worst, another road is adopted. Thereafter, P W. 14 Jeevan . BaralaskedJyotikumariwhethershewasaloneinthecaranduponthat shetoldthatfriendofdrivernamelyPradeepwasalsopresentinthe car.Thenaftersometime,asperversionofJeevanBaral,Jyotikumari askedthedriverwhythecarwasstoppedinthejungleandshouted pleasewhatyouaredoing.Thereafter,accordingtoP .W.14Jeevan Baral there was loud noise and the call was disconnected and subsequentlycellphoneofJyotikumariwasfoundtobeswitchedoff.In crossexaminationofthiswitness,itisbroughtonrecordthatheeven tried to contact Pune police by dialing 020100, but could not get responsefrompolice.ThiswitnesshasactedprudentlybycallingPune police but his attempt prove futile . On the next day, he had also contactedrelativesofJyotikumari.Evenithasbroughtonrecordfrom hiscrossexaminationthaton2112007,hereceivedacallfromPune policeanddisclosedtoPunepolicewhatheheardduringconversation with Jyotikumari. From evidence of P W. 14 Jeevan Baral, it is . established that during the course of her travel in cab No. 535, JyotikumariwasaccompaniedbyaccusedNo.1PurushottamBorateand

(45)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

accusedNo.2PradeepKokade.TrustworthinessofevidenceofP .W.14 Jeevan Baral is implicit from call detail record of cell phone No. 9960621120ofJyotikumari. ThiscalldetailrecordisatExhibit90. Apartfrombeingexhibitedduetoitsreferenceinthecrossexamination ofP .W.13Sudhakumari,thiscalldetailrecordatExhibit90isalso proved by P W. 29 Ganesh Pawar, Asstt. Nodal Officer of Airtel . Company. ThecalldetailrecordatExhibit90showsthatat10.31.10 p.m.of1112007,therewasincomingcallonthismobilephoneNo. 9960621120frommobilephoneNo.9986233097anddurationofthis callwas406secondsi.e.6.07minutes. Thentherewasanothercall fromthesamenumberon1112007at10.30.28anditsdurationwas 1422seconds,i.e.23.07minutes.CellPhoneNo.9986233097isthat of P W.14Jeevan Baral.Thiscalldetail recordatExhibit90lends . assurancetothetruthfulnessofversionofP .W.14JeevanBaralandit does shows that he was continuously talking with Jyotikumari from 1031p.m.of1112007uptoabout101p.m.of1112007.Therefore, itisbutnaturalthathewouldhearwhatJyotikumariwastellingtothe driverofthecab.Hence,thereisnoreasontodoubtversionofP .W.14 JeevanBaralaboutwhatheheardduringthecourseofhisconversation withJyotikumari. 42] That apart, P .W. 14 Jeevan Baral has narrated what he heard during the course of his conversation with Jyotikumari to P .W.12GaursundarandP .W.13Sudhakumariimmediatelyonthe nextday,i.e.on2112007whenP .W.12Gaursundarcalledhimfrom cell phone of P W. 13 Sudhakumari. In their evidence P W. 13 . . GaursundarandP .W.13Sudhakumariarevividlydescribingwhatthey heardfromP .W.14JeevanBaralandhowheheardJyotikumaritalking

(46)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

withthedriverofthecabandthequestionssheputtothedriverand answersgivenbyhim.Itis,thus,clearthatP .W.14JeevanBaralhad immediately,i.e.onverynextdayhasnarratedtoP .W.12Gaursundar andP .W.13Sudhakumariwhattranspiredduringthecourseofjourney ofJyotikumariinthecab,whichwasheardbyhimonhiscellphone. Previous statement of P W.14 Jeevan Baral made to P W.12 . . Gaursundar and P W.13 Sudhakumari is perfectly admissible under . Section157oftheEvidenceActtocorroboratehisversionasitwas made immediately when mind of P 14 Jeevan Baral was .W. uninfluenced.[seeStateofTamilNaduVs.SureshAIR1998SC1044] 43] True it is that there is some delay in recording police

statementofP .W.14JeevanBaral,R/o.Bangalorebutexplanationfor thesamehascomeonrecordfromhismouthincrossexaminationthat afterhearingshockingnewsofmurderofJyotikumari,hewentunder depressionandevenpolicedidnotcallhimimmediately.However,he cametoPunefromBangaloreon10112007andthenhisstatement wasrecordedbypolice.Assuch,delayinrecordingstatementofthis witnessisnotfataltotheprosecutioninanymanner.Therulinginthe matterofBalya@BaliramMoreVs.State2010ALLMR(Cri.)2677 reliedbythedefenceisnotapplicabletothefactsofthepresentcaseas in that matter, there was delay in recording statement for which no proper explanation was given. In the case at hand, deceased JyotikumariwasloverofP .W.14JeevanBaralandherbrutalmurder put P W. 14 Jeevan Baral in depression leading to illness, but still . withinashorttime,hecameallthewayfromBangaloretoPuneon 10112007itself.Hence,merelyonaccountof delayoffewdaysin recoding the statement due to nonavailability of this witness, his

(47)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

evidencecannotbedoubted.InthematterofBanti@GudduVs.State ofM.P .2004SCC(Cri.)294 relied bythelearnedSpecialPublic Prosecutor, Hon'ble Supreme Court has ruled that it cannot be laid down as a rule of universal application that if there is any delay in examinationofaparticularwitness,theprosecutionversionbecomes suspect.Similarly,inthematterof StateofU.P .Vs.SatishAIR2005 SC1000,itisreiteratedbytheHon'bleSupremeCourtthatunlessthe InvestigatingOfficeriscategoricallyaskedastowhytherewasdelayin examination of the witness, the defence cannot gain any advantage therefrom.Inthecaseathandnosuchattemptismadebythedefence. EvidenceofP .W.14JeevanBaralassuchfullycorroboratesversionofP . W. 12 Gaursundar and the prosecution has proved that even after leavingherhouseincompanyofboththeaccusedpersonsat1030p.m. on1112007,Jyotikumariwaswiththemverymuchaliveupto1100 p.m.ofthatdate. 44] ThedeadbodyofJyotikumariwasfoundat7.05a.m.on

2112007atvillageGahunje. Letus,therefore,ascertaintimeofher deathinbetweenthosesevenhours.Postmortemexaminationondead bodyofJyotikumariwasconductedbyPW16Dr.MadhavWaghmare from3.25p.m.to4.25p.m.of2112007.Atthattime,asseenfromthe reportofPostmortemexaminationofJyotikumariatExhibit98,there was wellmarked rigor mortis on whole of the dead body. In cross examinationofPW16Dr.Waghmare,ithasbeenbroughtonrecord thatformationofrigormortisstartsin12hours,itremainsinthebody for12hoursanditstartsdisappearingafter12hours. Inthecaseat hand,rigormortisondeadbodyofJyotikumariwasverymuchpresent fullyatthetimeofherPostmortemexamination,whichwasconducted

(48)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

from3.25p.m.of2112007.Thisgoestoshowthatafterpassingof12 hours,rigormortiswasfullydevelopedandatthetimeofPostmortem examination,itwasfoundtobewellmarkedoverthedeadbody.Thus, thismedicalevidenceshowsthatJyotikumarimusthavediedatabout 12 O'clock in midnight of the intervening night of 1112007 and 2112007. ThistimeofdeathofJyotikumariassessedfrommedical evidenceonrecordshowsthecloseproximitybetweenherdeathand herbeingincompanyoftheaccusedattherelevanttime.Thisproved factregardingtimeofdeathofJyotikumarishowsthatinallhuman probability,shewasmurderedbyboththeaccusedpersonswhileshe wasstillintheircompany. 45] Statements made by Jyotikumari while proceeding in

company of both the accused on 1112007 and heard by P W.14 . Jeevan Baral constitutes the circumstances of the transaction which resultedinherdeath.P .W.14JeevanBaralhasstatedtohaveheard thatinthatnightof 1112007Jyotikumariwasquestioningaccused No.1 PurushottamBorate thatwhere hewastakingthe vehicle and answeroftheaccusedthat 'apersonfromNigadiwasrequiretobe picked up'. Similarly, Jyotikumari had questioned accused No.1 PurushottamBorateastowhyhewastakingcarinthejungleandwhy thecarwasstoppedinthejungle.Similarly,P .W.14JeevanBaralhad heardshoutofJyotikumaripleasewhatyouaredoing.Thesearethe statements of Jyotikumari made by her proximately to the actual occurrenceresultinginherdeathasherdeadbodywasfoundwithin fewhoursthereafterandpreciselyat715a.m.of2112007byP .W.8 PankajBodkeinthefieldatvillageGahunje.Medicalevidenceshows thatJyotikumarimighthavediedat12O'clockinmidnightofnight

(49)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

intervening in 1112007 and 2112007. Statements of Jyotikumari heardbyP .W.14JeevanBaralshowsthatshewasincompanyofboth the accused persons and they took her in the jungle. Though the learneddefenceadvocatehasstatedthattherewasnojungleadjoining theplacewherethedeadbodywasfound,itisamatterofcommon knowledge that a city dwellers perceives jungle as an isolated or secludedplaceandeventhe field. Inthenighthoursof1112007, Jyotikumariwasrightinsayingthatwhycarwastakenandstoppedata jungle because that place was agricultural field surrounded by other such fields. The statements regarding circumstances where she was takenandherutterancesinfearmadeincompanyofboththeaccused personshavecloseproximaterelationtotheactualoccurrenceofher rape and consequent murder. The statements made by Jyotikumari whichwereaddressedtoeitheraccusedNo.1PurushottamBorateorto both the accused persons constitutes her dying declaration as they forms circumstances of the transaction which resulted in her death. Clause (1) of Sec. 32 of the Evidence Act refers to two kinds of statements: (1) (2) Statementmadebyapersonastothecauseofhisdeath, and, Statementmadebyapersonastoanyofthecircumstances oftransactionwhichresultedinhisdeath. UtterancesofJyotikumariwhiletalkingoncellphonewith P .W.14JeevanBaralandsubsequentdisconnectionofthecallwith loud noise unerringly points out that both the accused persons with whosecompanyshewasattherelevanttimehadcommittedoffence alleged against them by raping and murdering Jyotikumari. At this juncture,itisappositetoquoteparaNos.18&19aswellasrelevant

(50)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

portionofparaNo.21inthematterofSharadBiridhichandSardaVs. StateofMaharashtraAIR1984SUPREMECOURT1622(1)(supra). 18. Before closing this chapter we might state that the Indianlawonthequestionofthenatureandscopeofdying declarationhasmadeadistinctdeparturefromtheEnglish lawwhereonlythestatementswhichdirectlyrelatetothe causeofdeathareadmissible.ThesecondpartofCl.(1)of S.32, viz. the circumstances of the transaction which resultedin hisdeath,in casesin whichthe causeofthat person'sdeathcomesintoquestionisnottobefoundinthe EnglishLaw.Thisdistinctionhasbeenclearlypointedoutin the case of RajindraKumarv.TheState,AIR1960Punjab 310,wherethefollowingobservationsweremade: Clause(1)ofSec.32oftheIndianEvidence Act provides that statements, written or verbal, of relevantfactsmadebyapersonwhoisdead,are themselves relevant facts when the statement is madebyapersonastothecauseofhisdeath,oras toanyofthecircumstancesofthetransactionwhich resultedinhisdeath,incase,inwhichthecauseof thatperson'sdeathcomesintoquestion..Itiswell settledbynowthatthereisdifferencebetweenthe IndianRuleandtheEnglishRulewithregardtothe necessityofthedeclarationhavingbeenmadeunder expectationofdeath. IntheEnglishLawthedeclarationshouldhave been made under the sense of impending death whereasundertheIndianLawitisnotnecessaryfor the admissibility of a dying declaration that the deceasedatthetimeofmakingitshouldhavebeen undertheexpectationofdeath. 19. AndinthecaseofStateV.KanchanSingh,AIR1954All 153,itwasobservedthus: The law in India does not make the admissibilityofadyingdeclarationdependentupon theperson'shavingaconsciousnessoftheapproach ofdeath.Evenifthepersondidnotapprehendthat

(51)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

hewoulddie,astatementmadebyhimaboutthe circumstances of his death would be admissible underS.32,EvidenceAct. 20... 21.Thus,fromareviewoftheauthoritiesmentionedabove andtheclearlanguageofS.32(1)oftheEvidenceAct,the followingpropositionsemerge: (1) Section 32 is an exception to the rule of hearsay and makes admissible the statement of a personwhodies,whetherthedeathisahomicideor suicide,providedthestatementrelatestothecause of death, or exhibits circumstances leading to the death.Inthisrespect,asindicatedabove,theIndian EvidenceActinviewofthepeculiarconditionsof oursocietyandthediversenatureandcharacterof our people has though it necessary to widen the sphereofS.32toavoidinjustice. (2) The test of proximity cannot be literally construedandpracticallyreducedtoacutanddried formulaofuniversalapplicationsoastobeconfined inastraitjacket.Distanceoftimewoulddependor vary with the circumstances of each case. For instance,wheredeathisalogicalculminationofa continuousdramalonginprocessandis,asitwere, afinaleofthestory,thestatementregardingeach stepdirectlyconnectedwiththeendofthedrama would be admissible because the entire statement wouldhavetobereadasanorganicwholeandnot torn from the context. Sometimes statements relevanttoorfurnishinganimmediatemotivemay alsobeadmissibleasbeingapartofthetransaction of death. It is manifest that all these statements cometolightonlyafterthedeathofthedeceased who speaks from death. For instance, where the death takes place within a very short time of the marriageorthedistanceoftimeisnotspreadover more than 34 months the statement may be admissibleunderS.32. (3) ..

(52)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

(4) .. (5) Where the main evidence consists of statements and letters written by the deceased whicharedirectlyconnectedwithorrelatedtoher death and which reveal a telltale story, the said statementwouldclearlyfallwithinthefourcorners of Section 32 and, therefore, admissible. The distanceoftimealoneinsuchcaseswouldnotmake thestatementirrelevant.

46]

StatementsmadebyJyotikumariastothecircumstancesof

transaction which resulted in her death shows that in all human probability,offenceofhermurderafterrapingherwascommittedby boththeaccusedpersonsinwhosecompanyshewasatthattime. 47] While examining whether Jyotikumari has suffered

homicidaldeath,onscrutinyofevidenceofP .W.8PankajBodkeaswell as that of P W. 12 Gaursundar and P W. 13 Sudhakumari, it has . . already been held that identity of the dead body found in the agricultural field at village Gahunje on 2112007 at 715 a.m. is establishedtobethatofJyotikumariChaudhary.Thus,byclear,cogent and consistent evidence, the prosecution has established that JyotikumariChaudharywasaliveinthecompanyofboththeaccused personsatabout1100p.m.of1112007andsoonthereafterat715 a.m.of2112007,shewasfoundindeadconditionwithinjuriesonher bodyintheagriculturalfieldatvillageGahunje.Herdeathseemsto haveoccurredinthemidnight.Thus,onaccountofcloseproximityof timebetweentheeventofboththeaccusedhavingbeenlastlyseenand perceivedincompanyofJyotikumariChaudharyandthefactofdeath of Jyotikumari Chaudhary, rational mind is persuaded to reach an irresistibleconclusionthateithertheaccusedshouldexplainhowandin

(53)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

which circumstances Jyotikumari suffered death or should owe the liabilityofherhomicidaldeath.Astheprosecutionhasprovedbeyond reasonabledoubtthatboththeaccusedpersonswerelastlyfoundin companyofJyotikumariChaudhary,burdenshiftsonthemtoatleast provehowandinwhatmannertheypartedcompanywithhersinceshe wasneverseenalivethereafter.Thisburdenisnotatalldischargedby both the accused persons. Their defence is that of total denial. No explanation is forthcoming in their statement under Section 313 of CodeofCriminalProcedure. Onthecontrary,standofaccusedNo.1 PurushottamBorateasreflectedfromcrossexaminationofprosecution witnessesistotheeffectthathewasnotdrivingCabNo.535atthe relevanttimeandJyotikumarihadnotboardedthatcabinthatfateful night.However,thisstandisabsolutelyfalseasseenfromprosecution evidence. Substantive evidence of prosecution witnesses and more particularlythatofP .W.9BashirShaikh,P .W.10HiramanBhandare,P . W.12Gaursundar,P .W.11SagarBidkarandP .W.17AmolMugade showsthatitwasaccusedNo.1PurushottamBoratewhowasdriving CabNo.535inthenighthoursof1112007.Thus,thishalfhearted pleaofalibiisnotprovedbyaccusedNo.1PurushottamBoratethough theburdentoestablishthisfactwasonhim. 48] Now, let us examine subsequent conduct of both the

accused persons when they went for second pick up of that night intervening 1112007 and 2112007. As per pickup roster of 1112007(Exhibit68),secondpickupofthatnightwasofPW11 SagarBidkar,SystemAdministratorofWiproCompany.Itisinevidence ofPW11SagarBidkarthatfrom29102007,hisdutywasinthird shiftstartingfrom11.00a.m.andaccusedNo.1PurushottamBorate

(54)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

usedtocomeinCabNo.535forpickinghimupalongwithotherco employees. His evidence shows that he and his coworkers were regularly picked up by accused No.1 Purushottam Borate from 29102007 to 31102007, but on 1112007, though accused No.1 PurushottamBorateinformedhimaboutpickupat10.30p.m.,hedid not come at that time. PW 11 Sagar Bidkar has deposed that he inquiredfromaccusedPurushottamaboutpickupafter10.45p.m.and accused Purushottam Borate assured that he will reach within ten minutes.However,accusedPurushottamBoratedidnotcomeandafter 11.00p.m.heinformedhimthatthetyreofthecarispuncturedand afterrepair,hewouldcome. EvidenceofPW11SagarBidkarshows thatultimatelyaccusedNo.1PurushottamBoratecameinCabNo.535 at00.45a.m.of2.11.2007forhispickup.AccordingtoversionofPW 11SagarBidkar,onepersonagedabout23to24yearswassittingat the backside of the car and that person told his name as Pradeep Kokade friend of the driver. PW 11 Sagar Bidkar deposed that Pradeep Kokade wasfrightenedwhile talkingandgotdown prior to enteringinthegateofWiproCompany.PW11SagarBidkarwhohad sufficientopportunitytoobserveboththeaccusedincabhasidentified boththeaccusedpersonsPurushottamBorateasthedriverontheCab attherelevanttimeandaccusedNo.2PradeepKokadeasfriendofthe driver,whowaspresentintheCab. Frightenedconditionofaccused No.2PradeepKokadeisalsorelevanttoinferthathewasthepartnerin thishorriduscrime.PW11SagarBidkarfurtherstatedthataccused Purushottam Borate requested him to write on pick up sheet/rosters thatthetyreofthatCabwaspuncturedbypleadingthatelsefinewould beimposed.PW11SagarBidkardidmakethatendorsementsothat accused Purushottam Borate should not suffer. When Cab No. 535

(55)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

enteredinthecompany,asitwaslate,Gatemandidnotaffixregular stamp on pick up sheet/rosters and, therefore, the pick upsheet at Exhibit68,accordingtoPW11SagarBidkar,isnotbearingstampof thecompany.PW11SagarBidkarhascandidlystatedthatontheway tothecompany,accusedPurushottamBorateinformedhimthatother coemployeesarenotcomingforwork. Thiswitnessstoodthetestof crossexamination and denied that Jyotikumari was not his co passengerinCabNo.535duringthatperiodorthatfrom29102007, Jyotikumariwas going tothe companyin CabNo.7. Even PW 11 SagarBidkardeniedsuggestionthataccusedPurushottamBoratewas notdriver on CabNo.535on1112007or duringthatperiod. An attemptwasmadetofalsifypickupsheetsatExhs.67to69byshowing those sheets to this witness and pointing out to him that he made signatures on these sheets in different styles. However, it was not suggestedto PW11Sagar Bidkarthatthose signatureswerenotof him.Whatwassuggestedisthathemadesignatureindifferentstyle. OncethedefenceacceptsthatthesignaturesonpickupsheetsatExhs. 67to69areofSagarBidkar,thenthestyleinwhichtheyaremade, loses importance. It is a common practice to make signature in different style on different paper. Less important papers are signed casuallyinvariousstylesand,therefore,nooverbearingimportancecan be given to such fact. Evidence of PW 11 Sagar Bidkar is duly corroborated by pick upsheet at Exhibit 68 wherein he made endorsementthatCablateduetotyrefailure,attheinstanceofaccused PurushottamBorate. 49] If scrutiny of this evidence of PW 11 Sagar Bidkar

establishedthataccusedPurushottamBoratewaslatebymorethantwo

(56)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

hours for pick up of this witness on 1112007. Accused No.1 PurushottamBorateisprovedtohavepickedupJyotikumariat10.30 p.m.of1112007andthereisnoexplanationfromtheaccusedasto what they were doing in the span of more than two hours with Jyotikumari.Ultimately,boththeaccusedpersonscameforpickupof PW 11 Sagar Bidkar at 00.45 a.m. of 2112007 in Cab No. 535. SubsequentconductofaccusedNo.1PurushottamBorateingivingfalse explanation to PW 11 Sagar Bidkar that the delay was due to puncturedtyreandJyotikumarididnotcomeforworkonthatday,goes alongwaytoinferguiltofboththeaccusedpersonsinthecrimein question,astheyhadsufficienttimeofmorethantwohourstocommit thesame.EvidenceofPW11SagarBidkarisdulycorroboratedbyPW 17AmolMugade,whowasSecuritySupervisoratWiproCompany.His evidencealsoshowsthataccusedNo.1PurushottamBoratewasdriving CabNo.535andhecameatabout1.00a.m.of2112007withpickup sheetatExhibit68witharequesttoentertimeofentryofthevehicleas '11.00p.m.' Accordingtoversionofthiswitness,herefusedtooblige accusedPurushottamBorateandenteredthetimeofentryofthatCab as'1.00a..m.'onpickupsheet/rostersatExhibit68.EvidenceofPW 17 Amol Mugade gains further corroboration from pick up sheet/rostersExhibit68whereinhemadeentryasIntime1.00a.m. Trueitisthatthiswitnesswasunabletotellhisnameofotherdrivers whocameinthecompanyon1112007,butbythatitselfitcannotbe presumedthatheistellingalie. Otherdriversmustnothavemade suchunusualrequestand,therefore,itwasbutnaturalifPW17Amol MugadehadstillrememberaccusedPurushottamBorate. 50] With this evidence, prosecution has established that

(57)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

accusedNo.1PurushottamBoratewaslatebymorethantwohoursfor pickupof PW11SagarBidkaron1112007,andwhenhewentto pickupPW11Sagar,hefalselyinformedthatthedelaywasdueto puncturedtyreoftheCabandJyotikumarididnotboardthecabfor workinthatnightof1112007.ThisconductofaccusedPurushottam Borateiscertainlycompatibletohisguiltanditwasinconsonancewith theirmeticulouslychalkedoutplanforcommissionofthecrime. 51] AsaccusedNo.1PurushottamBorategavefalseexplanation forlatepickupandnotcomingtotheworkbyJyotikumaritoP .W.11 SagarBidkar,soalsohe gavefalseidentityofaccusedNo.2Pradeep KokadeasShankartohisemployerP .W.10HiramanBhandare.Itisin evidence of P W. 10Hiraman Bhandare that on 2112007 at about . 1230 p.m. accused No.1 Purushottam Borate came to him for returningthecab.Atthattime,hereceivedcallfromWiproCompany formakinginquiryaboutpickupofJyotikumariatthelastnight.As accusedNo.1PurushottamBoratewasverymuchpresenttherewith P .W.10HiramanBhandare,thecellphonewashandedoverbyhimto accused No.1 Purushottam Borate. P W.10 Hiraman Bhandare has . stated that at that time, accused No.1 Purushottam Borate has telephonically informed the supervisor of the Wipro Company that Jyotikumari did not come to the office though he had been to her house.P .W.10HiramanBhandarefurtherdeposedthatuponmaking inquiry, accused No.1 Purushottam Borate told him that during last night,hisfriendnamedShankarwasaccompanyinghim.Thisinquiry wasmadebyP .W.10HiramanBhandareasP .W.11SagarBidkarhad informedhimthatduringhispickupbyaccusedNo.1Purushottam

(58)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

Borate, one person was accompanying accused No.1 Purushottam Borate.Nothingcameincrossexaminationofthiswitnesstodisbelieve thisportionofhisevidence. FromthisevidenceofP .W.10Hiraman Bhandare,conductsubsequenttocommissionofcrimebyaccusedNo.1 Purushottam Borate came on record. Here also accused No.1 PurushottamBoratehadgivenfalseinformationinhearingofP .W.10 HiramanBhandarethatJyotikumarididnotboardhiscabinthenight of 1112007. Accused No.1 Purushottam Borate gave further false informationthatthepersonaccompanyinghiminthecabinlastnight was Shankar, though it was accused No.2 Pradeep Kokade who accompanied him. This is a circumstance which goes a long way to establishguiltofboththeaccusedpersons. 52] Thusprosecution,bytrustworthyandreliableevidencehas

established that accused No.1 Purushottam Borate had given false explanationoflatepickupofP .W.11SagarBidkarandlatereachingat WiproCompanytoP .W.10HiramanBhandare,P .W.11SagarBidkar andP .W.17AmolMugadethathewaslateasthetyreofthecabgot punctured.HegavefalseinformationtoP .W.11SagarBidkarandtothe supervisor of the Wipro Company in hearing of P 10 Hiraman .W. Bhandarethatinthenightof1112007,Jyotikumarididnotboardthe cabandcameforattendingherduty.AccusedPurushottamBoratehad evenstatednameofaccusedNo.2PradeepKokadeasShankartothis employerP .W.10HiramanBhandare.Criminalintention ofaccused No.1PurushottamBoratecanbeinferredfromthisconductsubsequent tocommissionofoffenceanditdestroyspresumptionofhisinnocence. ThissubsequentconductofaccusedNo.1PurushottamBorateisclearly admissibleundersecondpartofSec.8oftheEvidenceActandisa

(59)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

relevant fact apart from being an incriminating circumstance. This subsequentconductofaccusedPurushottamBoratecanbeultilisedas furnishingfurtherproofofhisguilt. 53] Boththeaccusedpersonswerearrestedon3112007by

preparing arrestcumseizure panchnama which is at Exhibit 11. The prosecution is heavily relying on confessional statement of both the accused persons and resultant recovery of articles of deceased Jyotikumari on the basis of confessional statements of the accused. According to the prosecution, the information contained in the statementsofboththeaccusedpersonsmadewhileinpolicecustodyis confirmedbythefindingofarticleswhichsubsequentlyprovedtobe thatofdeceasedJyotikumariandhencesuchinformationprovidedby boththeaccusedasisdistinctlyconnectedwiththesaiddiscoveryis admissibleinevidenceandconstituteacircumstanceagainstthemas per provisions of Sec. 27 of the Evidence Act. The prosecution will, therefore,berequiredtoestablishfollowingconditionsforapplication ofSec.27oftheEvidenceAct. (1) Thatconsequenttothe information givenby accused persons, it led to the discovery of facts statedbythem; (2) Thefactsdiscoveredmustbeonewhichwas not within the knowledge of police and the knowledgeofthefactwasforthefirsttimederived fromtheinformationgivenbyaccusedpersons; (3) Information given by accused persons has resulted in discovery of a fact which is the direct outcomeofsuchinformation; (4) Thediscoveryofthefactwasinrelationtoa

(60)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

material object and even embraced within its fold thementalcondition,i.e.knowledgeoftheaccused oftheplacefromwheretheobjectswererecovered andtheknowledgethatthoseobjectswerethere; (5) Only such portion of information as is distinctly connected with the said recovery is admissible. 54] TheaccusedpersonsmadeconfessionalstatementsbeforeP .

W.21SheshraoSuryawanshi,Sr.P .I.ofChatushringiPoliceStationon 3112007inpresenceofpanchwitnessP .W.7VijayShirkeandco panchRavindraVichare.EvidenceofP .W.21Suryawanshi,Sr.P .I.and thatofP .W.7VijayShirkeiscongruous.Inunison,boththesewitnesses havestatedthaton3112007accusedNo.1PurushottamBoratemade confessionalstatementthathehadkeptwristwatch,afingerringand simcardconcealedathishouseandhewouldtakeoutthesame.Their evidenceshowsthatthisstatementwasrecordedandtheaccusedas well as both panch witnesses signed it. Admissible portion of this memorandum statement of accused No.1 Purushottam Borate is at Exhibit50. 55] Evidence of P W. 7 Shirke panch witness and that of .

P .W.21SheshraoSuryawanshi,Sr.P .I.furthershowsthatthenasper willingness of accused No.2 Pradeep Kokade, his confessional statementwasrecordedthereafterwhereinhehasstatedthathehad concealedearringsandNokiahandsetathishouse.Thisconfessional statementdulysignedbyaccusedNo.2PradeepKokadeandthepanch witnesses, excluding inadmissible portion, it is at Exhibit 51. These confessionalstatementsshowthatconfessionalstatementatExhibit50

(61)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

ofaccusedNo.1PurushottamBoratewasrecordedat715a.m.whereas thatofaccusedNo.2PradeepKokadewasrecordedat730a.m.. 56] EvidenceofP .W.7ShirkeandP .W.21Suryawanshishows

thatinpursuanttoconfessionalstatementofboththeaccusedpersons, theyandboththeaccusedpersonsproceededbyjeepinthedirection shownbyaccusedNo.1PurushottamBorate.Hetookthemtovillage Gahunjeandpointedouthishouse.Accordingtoversionofboththese witnesses, mother and sisterinlaw of accused No.1 Purushottam Boratewerepresentinthathouse.Frombehindofthephotoframesof Gods in the bed room of his house, accused Purushottam Borate producedgoldfingerring,wristwatchofTitanCompanyandsimcard ofAirtelCompany.Asperversionofboththesewitnesses,thenrecovery panchnamaatExhibit50/Awaspreparedandthosearticleswereseized andsealed. 57] P W. 7 Shirke and P W. 21 Suryawnashi have further . .

statedthatthenaccusedNo.2PradeepKokadetookthemtohishouse wherehismotherwaspresent.Asperversionofthesewitnesses,from the cupboard of bed room of his house, accused Pradeep Kokade producedearringsandmobilehandsetofNokiaCompanywhichwere seized by preparing recovery panchnama Exhibit 51/A on 3112007 itself. 58] FromcrossexaminationofP .W.21Suryawanshi,P .I.itwas

attempted to show that confessional statements and recovery panchnamas were recorded at Wipro Company itself. But P W. 21 . Suryawanshi,Sr.P .I.hascandidlydeniedsuchsuggestions.Inthesame

(62)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

manner,insearchingcrossexaminationofP .W.7Shirke,anattempt wasmadetoshowthathehadnotactuallywenttothespotfromwhere the articles were recovered. However, P W.2 Shirke in his cross . examination was able to give details of house of accused No. 1 Purushottam Borate by stating that it is the one floor house having threeroomsatgroundfloorandastaircase.Similarly,hewasableto clarifyinthecrossexaminationthathouseofaccusedNo.2Pradeep Kokadewasthreeroomhouseandbystandingonthethresholdofthat house,hehadseenaccusedPradeepKokadeproducingthearticles.In crossexamination,thispanchwitnessShirkewasabletogivecorrect time of reaching at the houses of the accused persons and the time takenforeffectingrecovery.Thus,carefulscrutinyofevidenceofP .W.7 Shirke and P W. 21 Suryawanshi, Sr. P I. goes to show that their . . evidenceistruthfulandconsistent.Noinfirmitiescouldbepointedout in evidence of both these witnesses. The articles seized by P W.21 . Sheshrao Suryawanshi, Sr. P I. at the instance of both the accused . personswerethenhandedoverinsealedconditionon3112007itself toTalegaonDabhadePoliceStation,wherethecrimeinquestionwas registered. 59] At this juncture, it is apposite to mention that as per

versionofP .W.12GaursundarandP .W.13Sudhakumari,whilegoing for her duty in night hours of 1112007, Jyotikumari was wearing fingerring,earrings,wristwatchofTitanCompanyandshewasalso havingmobilephoneofNokiaCompanywithher.Fromthisevidence, theprosecutionhasclearlyestablishedthatinformationgivenbyboth the accused persons has caused discovery of the fact and that information was related distinctly to the fact discovered. Both the

(63)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

accusedpersonsarefoundtobehavingknowledgeoftheplacefrom where theobjectsviz.goldornaments,simcardandmobile handset wererecovered. 60] EvidenceofP .W.6SunilBodke,panchwitnessshowsthat

on4112007,hewascalledatTalegaonDabhadePoliceStationwhere P .W.12GaursundarandP .W.13Sudhakumariwerepresent.Evidence of this witness and that of P .W.27 Rajendra Patil, P I. of Talegaon . Dabhade Police Station shows that on 4112007, sealed packets containingarticlesrecoveredattheinstanceofboththeaccusedpersons were opened in presence of P 12 Gaursundar and P W. 13 .W. . Sudhakumari. Those packets were containing gold finger ring, wrist watch,goldearrings,simcardandamobilephone.P .W.6SunilBodke andP .W.27Patil,P.I.havedeposedthatP .W.12GaursundarandP . W.13Sudhakumarihaveidentifiedthosearticlestobethatofdeceased Jyotikumari.Accordingly,panchnamaatExhibit48waspreparedand thosevaluablearticleswereresealed.Evidenceofboththesewitnessis fully corroborated by contemporaneous panchnama Exhibit 48. Their evidence gains further corroboration from evidence of P W.13 . Sudhakumariwhohascandidlystatedthaton4112007atTalegaon Dabhade Police Station, seized ear rings, finger ring, wrist watch, mobilehandsetandsimcardwereshowntoherandherhusbandand theyidentifiedthosearticlestobebelongingtodeceasedJyotikumari.P . W.12GaursundarandP .W.13Sudhakumarihaveidentifiedbeforethe Courtthesearticlesviz.articleNo.28earrings,articleNo.29mobile handset,articleNo.25fingerring,article No.26wristwatchand article No. 27 sim card as the articles belonging to deceased Jyotikumari.Itiscontendedbythedefencethatidentificationwasnot

(64)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

donebymixingthesearticleswithsimilararticlesand,therefore,this evidence is of no use to the prosecution. This submission cannot be acceptedasdeceasedJyotikumariwasresidingwithhernearrelatives, i.e. P W. 12 Gaursundar and P W. 13 Sudhakumari who had . opportunity to see her belongings daily. Even they had seen these articlesandcellphoneofthedeceasedwhenshelefthouseincompany ofboththeaccusedon1112007.Itiswellsettledthatincaseofthings whichareofdailyuse,identification canbemade evenwithoutany specialidentificationmarkonthosethings.In KundanlalVs.Stateof Maharashtra2001(5)Bom.C.R.897,identificationbyladywitness on reasoning that her mother used to wear those articles was held properidentificationandadmissibleinevidence.In MohanSinghVs. StateofPunjab1983Cri.L.J.NOC34(P&H),itisheldthat evidenceofidentificationcannotbediscardedonthegroundthatsuch articles are available in market. Uncanny sense of identifying their belongingsoftheladiesisrecognizedin Erabhadrappa Vs.Stateof Karnataka AIR 1983 SC 446. Hence, evidence of prosecution regarding identification of ornaments and mobile phone of deceased Jyotikumarirecoveredattheinstanceofboththeaccusedpersonsby hersisterP .W.13Sudhakumaricannotbedoubtedorfaulted.Inthe similarway,P .W.6SunilBodkeandP .W.27RajendraPatil,P .I.have alsoidentifiedthesearticlesbeforetheCourtasthearticleswhichwere showntoP .W.12GaursundarandP .W.13Sudhakumari.Byrelyingon rulinginKokiReddyVs.StateofA.P2007Cri.L.J.263,thelearned defence Advocate submitted that mere recovery of articles from the accusedareofnoassistancetotheprosecution.However,inthecaseat handrecoveryofarticlesofJyotikumarifromaccusedisnottheonly evidencetoincriminatethem.

(65)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

61]

It is, thus, clear that information provided by both the

accused persons has resulted in discovery of valuable articles which provedtobetheornamentsandcellphoneofdeceasedJyotikumari, whichwereonherpersonwhenshelefthomeincompanyofboththe accused persons. This discovery was direct outcome of information providedbytheaccusedpersonsintheirconfessionalstatements.Both theaccusedpersonswerehavingknowledgeoftheplacewherethese articles were kept. This discovery of the fact in pursuant to the information given by both the accused persons is related to the commission of offence of murder of Jyotikumari and subsequent misappropriationofherbelongings.Therefore,conditionsprescribedin Sec.27of the EvidenceActin unwrappingthe cover of ban against admissibilityofstatementofaccusedtothepolicehavebeensatisfied and this part of information provided by both the accused persons became admissible in evidence. As articles worn by deceased Jyotikumariwhensheleftthehouseincompanyofboththeaccused personswerediscoveredonthebasisofinformationprovidedbythe accused,thisevidenceincriminatesboththeaccusedpersonsincrimein question.Inadditiontothis,itneedstobenotedherethatdeadbody of Jyotikumari was found at 715 a.m. of 2112007 and the informationprovidedbyboththeaccusedpersonsinmorninghoursof 3112007hasresultedindiscoveryofarticlesofJyotikumarifromthe placeintheirhousewhichwaswithintheirknowledge.Thus,boththe accused persons were found to be in possession of valuable articles belongingtoJyotikumarisoonafterherhomicidaldeath.Thisfactleads to an inference that in all probabilities having regard to the normal courseofnaturaleventsandhumanconduct,thoseweretheaccused sitting in the dock who had committed the offences in respect of

(66)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

Jyotikumariallegedagainstthem. 62] Thenextcircumstancereliedbytheprosecutiontoprove

guilt of the accused persons in the offence alleged against them is recoveryofOdhaniattheinstanceofaccusedNo.1PurushottamBorate on4112007.Thisrecoverywasonthebasisofconfessionalstatement madebyaccusedNo.1PurushottamBoratetoP .W.27RajendraPatil, P I. in presence of panch witness P W. 15 Ankush Tumkar and . . copanchPappuYavale.EvidenceofP .W.15TumkarandP .W.27Patil, P I. shows that on 4112007 while in custody, accused No.1 . PurushottamBoratemadeastatementbeforethemthathewouldpoint outthespotwherehehadthrownOdhaniandpurse.Asperversionof thesewitnesses,confessionalstatementofaccusedPurushottamBorate wasrecordedandthesameisatExhibit96.Thenasperevidenceof boththesewitnesses,accusedPurushottamBorate,bothpanchasand P .W.27Patil,P .I.withpolicestaffproceededasperdirectionshownby theaccused.TheaccusedtookthemtoDharmrajMangalKaryalayaand fromthebushes,hetookoutanOdhani. Accordingtotheversionof boththesewitnesses,thatOdhaniwasseizedbywrappinginpaperand thatpacketwassealed.Versionofboththesewitnessesfurthershows thataccusedPurushottamBoratehadalsodisclosedtheplacewherehe hadthrownthepurse.Itwasunderthebridgeanddespitesearchingin thewater,thepursecouldnotbetracedout.Incrossexaminationof P .W.15Tumkar,itwasattemptedtoshowthatmuddemalarticleNo. 30Odhaniisnothavinganyembroideryasstatedbyhim.However,in evidenceofP .W.27Patil,P .I.itisclarifiedthatembroiderymeanspico donetobothendsofOdhani.Boththesewitnessesidentifiedmuddemal article No. 30 Odhani as the article recovered at the instance of

(67)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

accusedNo.1PurushottamBorate.ThisOdhaniasperversionofP .W. 27 Patil, P .I. was having reddish and white stains and this fact is reflectedincontemporaneousrecoverypanchnamawhichisatExhibit 96/A. This Odhani article No. 30 is identified as the Odhani of deceased Jyotikumari by P W. 13 Sudhakumari. The defence has . contendedthatOdhaniofthedeceasedisshowntoberecoveredfrom theopenspaceattheinstanceoftheaccusedandsuchrecoveryfrom theplaceaccessibletopublicatlargeisofnousetotheprosecution. Relianceisplacedon DurgavatiSharmaVs.StateofMaharashtra 2010ALLMR(Cri.)3405.Inthatmatteracquittaloftheaccusedwas confirmed by accepting reasons given by the learned Sessions Judge anditappearsthatrecoverymadethereinwasfromopenpublicplace accessibletothepublicatlarge.However,inthecaseathand,recovery ofOdhaniattheinstanceofaccusedPurushottamBoratewasfroma secludedplacenearDharmrajMangalKaryalaya. Evidenceregarding recovery of Odhani at the instance of accused is clinching and that OdhaniwasidentifiedtobeofJyotikumaribyP .W.13Sudhakumari whoissisterofdeceasedJyotikumari.Hence,nodoubtcanbeentertain inrespectofthisrecoveryattheinstanceofaccusedNo.1Purushottam Borate. It is thus clear that information provided by accused No.1 Purushottam Borate has resulted in recovery of Odhani of deceased Jyotikumariandhewasknowingtheplacewhereitwaskeptbyhim. 63] Accordingtotheprosecutioncase,clothesondeadbodyof

Jyotikumariwereseizedandthoseweresubjectedtochemicalanalysis. Atthe outsetitself,oneambiguityregardingcolourofthe clothesof deceasedneedstobeclarified.P .W.1HiramanBodke,PolicePatilhas lodged report regarding finding of dead body of a female which

(68)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

ultimately proved to be of Jyotikumari. He appears to be a rustic villagerwhocouldnotunderstandwhatismeantbySalwarandwhatis meanbyKurta.ThisfactisclearfromhisFIRatExhibit21whereinhe mentioned that dead body is having Salwar of yellow colour and at lowerportionsaffroncolouredKurtaisworn.Whathemeantoconvey wasclothonupperportionofdeadbodywasofyellowcolourandthat onlowerportionofthedeadbodywasofsaffroncolour.Thisgoesto showthatKurtaonthedeadbodywasofyellowcolourandSalwarwas ofsaffroncolour. ThisfactisclarifiedbyP .W.1HiramanBodkeby statingthathewasnotunderstandingdifferencebetweenSalwarand Kurta.EvenP .W.12GaursundarandP .W.13Sudhakumarihavestated that on 1112007 Jyotikumari was wearing yellow coloured Kurta, saffroncolouredSalwarandsaffroncolouredOdhani.P .W.23Kadam, PSIhaddispatchedthe deadbodyofJyotikumarithrough P .W.25 AdinathNagane,PoliceNaikforpostmortemtoPrimaryHealthCentre, TalegaonDabhade.Afterpostmortemexaminationofdeadbody,P .W.25 Adinath Nagane had produced clothes of that dead body before PSI Kadam.EvidenceofPSIKadamandthatofP .W.6SunilBodkepanch witnessshowsthaton2112007,clothesondeadbodyofJyotikumari producedbyP .W.25AdinathNaganewereseizedbypreparingseizure panchnama Exhibit 47. Evidence of both these witnesses shows that thoseclotheswereyellowcolouredKurtawhichwasstainedwithblood andwhitestains,saffroncolouredSalwarwhichwasstainedwithblood and white stains, a knicker, brassier and petticoat which was also stainedwithblood.EvidenceofpanchwitnessP .W.6SunilBodkeand thatofP .W.23RanjanKadam,PSIshowsthatclothesonthedeadbody wereseizedbysealingthem.Thisfactisalsofoundincontemporaneous document,i.e.seizurepanchnamaExhibit47whichdulycorroborates

(69)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

versionofboththesewitnesses.Theseseizedclothesondeadbodyof Jyotikumari were shown to P W. 12 Gaursundar and P W. 13 . . Sudhakumarion3112007byP .W.27RajendraPatil,P .I.byopening those sealed packetsin presence of panchwitnessesP .W. 5Shahaji Ghojage.EvidenceofthesewitnessesshowsthatP .W.12Gaursundar andP .W.13Sudhakumarihadidentifiedthoseclothesaswellassandal seizedfromthespotoftheincidentasbelongingtoJyotikumari.After identificationofthesearticlestobebelongingtodeceasedJyotikumari byP .W.12GaursundarandP .W.13Sudhakumari,P .W.27Rajendra Patil,P .I.preparedpanchnamaofthisfactwhichisatExhibit45.These articleswereagainseizedandsealedinpresenceofpanchwitnesses includingP .W.5ShahajiGhojage.EvidenceofP .W.5ShahajiGhojage andthatofP .W.27RajendraPatilrulesoutpossibilityoftampering thesearticlesinanymannerasthosewereimmediatelyresealedafter showingthemtotherelativesofdeceasedJyotikumari. 64] Theprosecutionisheavilyrelyingonforensicevidencein

ordertoestablishguiltofaccusedpersonsinthecrimeinquestion.P .W. 27 Rajendra Patil, P I. has deposed that on 13112007, alongwith . requestletteratExhibit116,hesentseizedarticlesinthiscrimefor chemical analysis in sealed condition through P W. 19 Dadasaheb . Sawane,PoliceConstable. PerusalofletteratExhibit116showsthat clothes seized from dead body of Jyotikumari including her Odhani seizedattheinstanceofaccusedPurushottamBorate,articlesseized fromthespotincludingbladeofSupermaxCompany,samplesofblood, pubichairandsamplesofsemenofboththeaccusedpersonsapartfrom theirclothesweresenttotheChemicalAnalyser.EvidenceofP .W.19 Sawane, carrier constable shows that he carried those articles which

(70)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

wereinsealedconditionanddepositedallthose23articlesinsealed condition with the Chemical Analyser on 13112007. He obtained acknowledgmentfromthatofficeintokenofreceivingthosearticles. Officecopyof the requestletter addressed tothe Chemical Analyser whichisatExhibit116doshowthatthereisacknowledgmentofthe RegionalForensicScienceLaboratory,Pune.CrossexaminationofP .W. 19Sawanelendsassurancetohistestimonyashehasconfirmedinhis crossexaminationthatthemuddemalwaswithMuddemalClerkofthe PoliceStationandhehasexperienceofcarryingmuddemaltotheoffice ofC.A..Thus,thisevidenceestablishesthefactthatall23muddemal articlesweredepositedinsealedconditionwiththeRegionalForensic ScienceLaboratory,Puneforthechemicalanalysis. 65] It is in evidence of P W.27 Rajendra Patil, P I. that on . .

2012008,videitsletteratExhibit169,ForensicLaboratoryinformed that blood samples of both the accused persons are unsuitable for analysisandrequestedtosendbloodsamplesofbothofthemagain. ThisappearstobecorrectpositionasC.A.reportatExhibit103and 145inrespectofbloodandsemenofboththeaccusedpersonsshows thatresultswereinconclusive.Hence,P .W.27Patil,P .I.hasrequested thelearnedJ.M.F.C.byhisapplicationdated10012008(Exhibit133) tohandovercustodyofboththeaccusedpersonsforextractingtheir bloodsamples. P .W.22ShahajiAthawale,PoliceHeadConstableof Taledgaon Dabhade Police Station submitted this application Exhibit 133andobtainedfavourableordersfromthelearnedJ.M.F.C,Vadgaon Maval.Itisseenthatboththeaccusedpersonswereagainreferredto P .W.16 Dr. Waghmare, Medical Officer of Primary Health Centre, Talegaon Dabhade with request letter dated 14012008 which is at

(71)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

Exhibit 170. By this letter, Dr. Waghmare was requested to extract bloodsamplesofboththeaccusedpersons.EvidenceofP .W.16Dr. Waghmare showsthat on 14012008, he collectedblood samplesof boththeaccusedpersonsforchemicalanalysisandsentthosesamples insealedcondition.ItisinevidenceofP .W.27RajendraPatil,P .I.that he received samples of blood of both the accused persons in sealed condition and on the very same day, i.e. on 14012008, alongwith request letter at Exhibit 171 he forwarded those samples in sealed condition to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical analysis.Thus,the prosecution hasestablishedthatarticlesseizedin thiscrimeNo.167/2007weredulysealedandwereinsealedcondition tilltheywereforwardedtotheChemicalAnalyser. 66] Thisevidenceoftheprosecutioniscriticisedbythelearned

defencecounselbyrelyingonrulingsinthematerofStateVs.Prabhu Gade1995Cri.L.J.1432andLalchandChhedilalVs.State2000 Mh.L.J.349bycontendingthatthereisnoevidencetoshowthatthe articleswerekeptinsealedconditiontilltheyweresenttothechemical analysis and when once the factum of sealing the articles become doubtful,possibilityofbloodbeingsmearedonitcannotberuledout. However,evidenceintheinstantcaseisotherwise.Thepoliceofficers seizing the articles and the panch witnesses in whose presence the articles were seized have categorically stated that the articles were sealedbypoliceatthetimeoftheirseizure.Thearticlesweredeposited withthemuddemalclerkandevidenceofP .W.27RajendraPatil,P .I. andP .W.19Sawane,constableshowsthattheyweresentanddeposited insealedconditionwiththeofficeoftheChemicalAnalyser.Relianceis placedonbythedefenceonrulinginthematterof KaramSinghVs.

(72)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

State1994Cri.L.J.3446. InthatmattertheInvestigatingOfficer whorecoveredthearticlesbelongingtothedeceasedbeforearresting the accused had not sent recovered articles for chemical analysis. Hence,itwasfoundthathisactioncreatesdoubtregardingrecoveryof thearticles.Suchisnotcaseathand.Allrequiredarticlesweresentfor chemicalanalysisbyP .W.27RajendraPatil,P .I.alongwithrequestletter atExhibit116.Hisevidenceshowsthatsubsequentlyon14012008, blood samples of both the accused were also sent to C.A. In sealed condition.EvenallC.A.reportsshowsthatthearticleswerereceivedby Forensic Laboratory in sealed condition. Hence, this ruling has no applicationtothefactsofthepresentcase.Sofarasearrings,finger ring,wristwatchandmobilephoneofdeceasedisconcerned,therewas no scope for chemical analysis of those articles. According to the learned defence counsel,the blade whichis shown tobe weapon of offenceisnotsentforchemicalanalysis.However,thiscontentionisnot inconsonance withrecord.Requestletter addressedtothe Chemical AnalyseratExhibit116doshowthatthebladeseizedfromthespotof the incident was sent for chemical analysis and in fact report of its chemicalanalysisisonrecord. 67] Once, it is held that the seized articles were sent for

chemicalanalysisinsealedcondition,letusnowseewhatistheresult ofthechemicalanalysisofthosearticles.TheC.A.ReportatExhibit100 and101showsthatbloodgroupofaccusedPradeepKokadeisOand that of accused Purushottam Borate is A. Blood group of deceased JyotikumariwasB.Itwouldbeapposite togiveresultofchemical analysisoftheseizedarticlesinatabularformasunder:

(73)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

ResultofChemicalAnalysisoftheseizedArticles
C.A.Report
Exh.99 Exh.99 Exh.99 Exh.99 Exh.100

DescriptionofArticles
P .M.BloodofJyotikumari Nailclippingsof Jyotikumari PubichairofJyotikumari Vaginalswabof Jyotikumari BloodSampleSealed phial (Receivedon14.1.2008) ofaccusedNo.2Pradeep Kokade BloodSampleSealed phial (Receivedon14.1.2008) ofaccusedNo.1 PurushottamBorate KurtaofJyotikumari KurtaofJyotikumari SalwalofJyotikumari Salwar of Jyotikumari Knicker of Jyotikumari Knicker of Jyotikumari Petticoat of Jyotikumari BrassiereofJyotikumari Cottonswab

Finding
BloodGroupB BloodGroupB Humansemen Humansemen BloodGroupO

Exh.101

BloodGroupA.

Exh.166 Exh.166 Exh.166 Exh.166 Exh.166 Exh.166 Exh.166 Exh.166 Exh.166 Exh.166

BloodGroupB HumansemenofA&O BloodGroupB HumansemenofA&O BloodGroupB HumansemenofO BloodGroupB BloodGroupB BloodInclusive

Bladeproducedbyaccused BloodGroupB No.1PurushottamBarate OdhniofJyotikumari BloodGroupB

Exh.166

(74)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

Exh.166

OdhaniofJyotikumari

HumansemenofA&O

Exh.222

Odhani (recovered at the Fiberdetectedon instance of accused No.1 scratchmaterialon PurushottamBorateu/s.27 ligaturemarkonneck ofEvidenceAct) ofJyotikumaritallies withfiberfromclothof Odhani. IndicaCar Stained with blood of GroupB

Exh.167

Perusal of C. A. reports shows that on Kurta as well as Salwar of deceased Jyotikumari, semen of blood group of both the accusedpersonswasfound.OnOdhaniwhichwasidentifiedtobeof Jyotikumari,semen of bloodgroup of both the accused personswas found.Onherknicker,semenofbloodgroupofaccusedNo.2Pradeep Kokade was found. Blood on the blade found on the spot of the incident was found to be of blood group B which is of deceased Jyotikumari.Thisfactinallprobabilityshowsthatitwasusedtoslash wristofJyotikumari.Herclothesaswellasnailclippingswerefoundto bestainedwithbloodofherowngroup.Odhaniwhichwasultimately identifiedtobeofdeceasedJyotikumariwhichwasrecoveredatthe instance of accused Purushottam Borate was subjected to chemical analysisforexaminationofitsfibersvisavisfibersfoundonligature mark on neck of dead body of Jyotikumari. Fibers of Odhani were compared with the scratch material on ligature mark on neck of Jyotikumari which was also sent for chemical analysis. In chemical analysis,itisfoundthatfibersdetectedonscratchmaterialonligature markonneckofJyotikumariweretalliedwithfibersfromclothonthat Odhani.Thus,C.A.reportsfullycorroborateversionofprosecutionand

(75)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

findingofsemenofbloodgroupofaccusedonclothesofJyotikumari, goesalongwaytoestablishthatinallhumanprobability,Jyotikumari wasravishedbythemandultimatelyshewasdonetodeath. 68] Accusedpersonsarechargedfortheoffenceofcommitting

gang rape on deceased Jyotikumari apart from her murder and misappropriationofherproperty.Therefore,letusexaminewhetherthe circumstantialevidenceonrecordindicatethatshewasrapedbythe accused persons and whether they were acting in concert while committingsuchoffence. DeadbodyofJyotikumariwasexaminedby P .W.16Dr.Waghmarewhileconductingautopsy.Hisevidencewhichis duly corroborated by contemporaneous record made by him, viz. postmortemreportatExhibit98showsthatthoughveryslightbutthere was bleeding from vagina. From crossexamination of P .W.16 Dr. Waghmare,ithascomeonrecordthathymenofJyotikumariwasnot intact. Circumstantial evidence as discussed in foregoing paras is establishing the fact that in the night hours of 1112007, both the accusedpersonshadtakenherintheagriculturalfieldofKisanBodke withinjurisdictionofvillageGahunjeonthepretextofreachingherto herworkplaceviz,WiproCompany.Bleedingfromvaginaofdeceased Jyotikumari coupled with the fact that her hymen was found to be rupturedbytheautopsysurgeon,showsthattherewaspenetrationof maleorganofaccusedinthevulvaofthedeceased.Medicalevidence doshowthattherewaspenetrationofthemaleorganofaccusedwithin thelabiaofthedeceasedandforensicevidencefurthercorroboratesthis evidence. The clothes seized from her dead body and particularly Salwar,KurtaandOdhaniaswellasknickerarefoundtobehaving stainsofsemenofbloodgroupoftheaccusedpersons.Herdeadbody

(76)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

wasfoundonstrawsofriceascameonrecordfromcrossexamination ofP .W.3RajuTikhe.Assuch,nonfindingofanyinjuryintheformof scratchmarkonherbackisofnoconsequence. Strawsofricemust haveactedascushionwhileshewasbeingraped.Byrelyingonruling inthematterof SureshNagdeveVs.State2008Cri.L.J.2943 and contendedthatasnoinjurieswerefoundonbacksideofdeadbodyof Jyotikumari,itcannotbesaidthatshewasraped. Inthatmatterof SureshNagdeve,allegationswerecommissionofrapebythreestrong built persons on the prosecutrix on 'dhura' i.e. bund in the field. However,inthecaseathand,theactofcommissionofrapemustbe oncushionofstrawsofriceintheagriculturalfieldandthisappearsto bethereasonfornonfindingofanyinjuryonbacksideofdeadbodyof Jyotikumari. Bleeding from vagina of the dead body coupled with ruptureofhymenunerringlypointsoutthatdeceasedJyotikumariwas subjectedtosexualviolence. Sexualviolencebyaccusedpersonson Jyotikumari is also seen from abrasion on her cheek and lower mandibularregionandnailmarksonherbody.P .W.16Dr.Waghmare opinedthatiftwopersonsrapeawoman,thentherecanbeinjuryto labia majora, but this cannot be a universally true proposition. Jyotikumariwastakentothesecludedplaceinnighthoursbyboththe accused persons and considering this situation, she must have surrenderedtheaccusedpersonsduetotheirterrorinsteadofoffering any resistance. Post mortem report shows that Jyotikumari had thin builtandassuchshewasnotexpectedtoofferresistancetoaccused who were two in number. Therefore, nonfinding of any injury on privatepartofdeadbodyofJyotikumariisofnoconsequencewhen evidenceonrecordispointingoutthatshewasravishedbyboththe accusedpersons.Boththeaccusedpersonswereimmediatelysubjected

(77)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

tomedicalexaminationandP .W.24Dr.Darshanehadconductedtheir medical examination on 3112007. In their medical examination, Dr.Darshanefoundthatsmegmawasabsentfromglanspenisofboth theaccusedpersons.Timeof24hoursisrequiredforaccumulationof smegma.Medicalexaminationofaccusedwasconductedat100p.m. of3112007andincidentofrapeonJyotikumarihadhappenedfrom 1100p.m.to1200O'clockinthemidnightof1112007. Thus,as accused were medically examined after 24 hours of the incident, absenceofsmegmalosesitsimportance.[SeeS.P .Kohlivs.HighCourt ofPunjabandHaryana(AIR1978SC1753)]. However,semen of accusedwasfoundonclothesofdeceasedJyotikumari.C.A.reportat Exhibit166showsthatseizedunderwearofaccusedPradeepKokade wasalsohavingstainsofsemen.Thelearneddefencecounselbyrelying on Rahim Baig Vs. State 1972 Cri. L. J. 1260 has contended that semencanexistonundergarmentofayoungmanbecauseofvarietyof reasonsandwouldnotnecessarilyconnecthimwiththeoffenceofrape. In the case at hand, totality of circumstances shows that both the accused persons have indulged in commission of rape on deceased Jyotikumariandcumulativeeffectofcircumstancesirresistiblyleadsto the guilt of the accused persons in the crime in question. Chemical analysisofvaginalswabandpubichairfromdeadbodyofJyotikumari isalsoreflectingthatshewassubjectedtosexualviolenceinasmuchas samplesofherpubichairandvaginalswabwerefoundtobecontaining semenstains.Therefore,itneedstobeheldthatdeceasedJyotikumari wassubjectedtogangrapebyboththeaccusedpersonspriortoher murderinthenightintervening1112007and2112007. 69] The defence has contended that conviction in rape case

(78)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

cannotbebasedmerelyonthe factthathymenofvictimwasfound ruptured. Reliance is placed by the defence on SureshYerawarVs. StateofMaharashtra2003(4)Mh.L.J.898.Itwasacaseofrape ondeaf,dumbandmentallyretardedgirlandtheHon'bleHighCourt hasheldthatitwouldbedangeroustopassaconvictionmerelyonthe factthatthehymenoftheprosecutrixwasfoundruptured.However,in the case at hand, as discussed, ruptured hymen is not the only circumstance on which the conclusion is being arrived. Hence, the rulingsocitedhasnoapplicationtothefactsofthepresentcase. 70] LearneddefenceAdvocatereliedon ManikJibhkateand

othersVs.TheStateofMaharashtra2011ALLMR(Cri.)2474and contendedthatexpertopinionastoresultofforensicexaminationisnot aconclusiveproofofcommissionofrape.However,itneedstomention herethatthestatementofproofincriminaltrialisproofbeyondall reasonabledoubtsandnottheconclusiveproof.Theyardstickofproof issatisfactionofaprudentman.Inthepresentcase,thecircumstantial evidence passes the test of satisfaction of a prudent man that Jyotikumariwasravishedbyaccusedpersonspriortocommissionofher murder. 71] ThedefencehastriedtomakecapitalofthefactthatFIRat

Exhibit21wassenttothelearnedJ.M.F.C.,VadgaonMavalbelatedly. However,thisaspectgetsexplanationfromevidenceofP .W.28Kailash Dhamale,PoliceConstable.Hisevidenceshowsthaton4112007,he receivedcopyofFIRofCrimeNo.167/2007andastherewasvacation totheCourtupto11112007andasthechargeoftheCourtofJ.M.F.C, Vadgaon Maval was with the learned J.M.F.C, Pimpri, he could not

(79)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

submit the FIR in the Court. His evidence is duly corroborated by certificateatExhibit187issuedbytheAssistantSuperintendentofthe Court.Therefore,nooverbearingimportancecanbegiventothisfact. That apart, submission of copy of FIR with promptitude to the concerned Magistrate is insisted so that there should not be any concoctionduringinvestigationandtheInvestigatingOfficershouldnot gettimetogiveshapeofhischoicetotheinvestigation.Inthecaseat hand,theFIRatExhibit21isagainstunidentifiedaccusedpersonsand, therefore, there cannot be any scope for concoction. As such, submission of copy of FIR to the Court of J.M.F.C. on its reopening cannotcreatedoubtintheprosecutioncase.Shri.Nikam,thelearned SpecialPublicProsecutorhasrightlyreliedonSunilkumarandothers Vs.StateofRajasthan2005SCC(Cri.)1230 and StateofJammu and Kashmir Vs. S.Mohan Singh and another (2006) 2 SCC (Cri.)484,whereinHon'bleApexCourthasheldthatitcannotbelaid downasaruleofuniversalapplicationthatwheneverthereissome delayinsendingtheFIRtotheMagistrateconcerned,theprosecution versionbecomesunreliable. 72] A faint attempt came to be made by the defence by

contending that accused persons had no opportunity to commit the crimeinquestionasthedeadbodywasfoundlyingneartheExpress Highway.FromcrossexaminationofP .W.8PankajBodke,itisbrought on record that dead body of Jyotikumari was visible from Express Highway and there is round the clock traffic and patrolling on that Express Highway. This situation by itself cannot cast doubt on prosecution casebecause,the incidenthappenedfrom 1100p.m.to 1200 O'clock in midnight. On Express Highway, the traffic is never

(80)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

slow. OnecannotexpectfromthetravellersontheExpressHighway andthattoointhenighthourstobevigilanttowatchwhatisgoingon outsideandparticularlyintheagriculturalfield.Moreover,therewasno source of light at the spot. Hence, no substance can be found in contentionofthelearneddefencecounselthataccusedpersonshadno opportunitytocommitcrimeadjacenttotheExpressHighway. 73] The learned defence counsel is also contending that the

prosecutionhasnotprovedmotiveinthiscasebasedoncircumstantial evidence and as such the accused deserves acquittal. The learned defencecounselreliedonMohanVs.StateofM.P .2005Cri.L.J.79, whereinHon'bleMadhyaPradeshHighCourthasheldthatifthecase isbasedoncircumstantialevidence,themotivehassomesignificance. Relianceisalsoplacedon RamshankarSahaneVs.State2009(2) Mh.L.J.(Cri.)249,whereinDivisionBenchofHon'bleBombayHigh Court has held that motive may not be relevant in a case where evidenceisoverwhelming,butitisapluspointfortheaccusedincases where the evidence is only circumstantial. In the case at hand, one cannot say that either the circumstantial evidence is weak or the prosecutionhasnotprovedmotive. Themotiveasreflectedfromthe provedfactsistoravishthevictimandtomisappropriateherbelongings aftereliminatingher.Withthismotive,theaccusedpersonshaveraped and eliminated deceased Jyotikumari and ultimately her valuable belongings were found in their houses on the basis of information provided by both the accused persons. Hence, the submission so advanceddeservestoberejected. 74] Intheresult,evidenceofprosecutionisfirmlyestablishing

(81)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

thecircumstancesonwhichtheprosecutioncaseisbased.Theseproved circumstancesareleadingtotheirresistibleandinescapableconclusion that it were both the accused persons who abducted Jyotikumari by adoptingdeceitfulmeansundertheguiseofreachinghertoherwork place,thencommittedrapeonherandbymurderingher;dishonestly misappropriatedherbelongingsincludingfingerring,earrings,wrist watchandmobilehandsentwithsimcard.Jyotikumariisseentobe assaulted brutally. She was strangulated by her Odhani from behind causingfractureofhyoidbonelarynx,trachea.Thenshewashit on head by big stone causing injuries to her head apart from fractured skull.Notsatisfiedwiththis,accusedslashedherwristventrallytwicein ordertoseethatshecouldnotsurvive.Thus,Jyotikumariwasdoneto deathbyboththeaccusedpersonsjointlywhileshewasintheircustody withrequisiteintentionandknowledgeofcausingherdeath,making theactpunishableunderSection302R/w120BoftheIndianPenal Code.However,forwantofevidence,itcannotbesaidthattheaccused persons have misappropriated her purse and cash amounting to Rs.330/. 75] Now let us examine whether the accused persons have

committedtheseoffencesbyactinginleagueandconcertbyagreeingto committheoffencesbyindulgingincriminalconspiracy.Section120A oftheIndianPenalCode,defines'criminalconspiracy'asunder: 120ADefinitionofcriminalconspiracy. When twoormorepersonsagreetodo,orcausetobedone, (1)anillegalact,or (2)anactwhichisnotillegalbyillegalmeans,such anagreementisdesignatedacriminalconspiracy: Providedthatnoagreementexceptanagreementto commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy

(82)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

unlesssomeactbesidestheagreementisdonebyoneor morepartiestosuchagreementinpursuancethereof. Explanation,Itisimmaterialwhethertheillegalact is the ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely incidentaltothatobject. To establish a charge of conspiracy, knowledge about indulgence in either an illegal act or legal act by illegal means is necessary.Commondesignoranagreementtocommitillegalactwith requisite knowledge is essential for establishing the charge of conspiracy. In the matter of Kehar Singh Vs. State (Delhi Administration) AIR 1998 S.C. 1883, ingredient of the offence of criminal conspiracy is explained by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the followingmanner: 271. Itwillbethusseenthatthemostimportantingredient oftheoffenceofconspiracyistheagreementbetweentwo ormorepersonstodoanillegalact.Theillegalactmayor maynotbedoneinpursuanceofagreement,butthevery agreementisanoffenceandispunishable.ReferencetoSs. 120A and 120B, IPC would make these aspects clear beyonddoubt.Enteringintoanagreementbytwoormore personstodoillegalactorlegalactbyillegalmeansisthe veryquintessenceoftheoffenceofconspiracy. 272. Generally,aconspiracyishatchedin secrecyandit maybedifficulttoadducedirectevidenceofthesame.The prosecutionwilloften relyonevidenceofactsofvarious partiestoinferthattheyweredonein referencetotheir commonintention. Theprosecutionwillalsomoreoften relyuponcircumstantialevidence. Theconspiracycanbe undoubtedly proved by such evidence direct or circumstantial. But the Court must enquire whether the twopersonsareindependentlypursuingthesameendor they have come together to the pursuit of the unlawful object.Theformerdoesnotrenderthemconspirators,but thelatterdoes.Itis,however,essentialthattheoffenceof conspiracyrequiredsomekindofphysicalmanifestationof

(83)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

agreement. Theexpressagreement,however,neednotbe proved. Nor actual meeting of two persons is necessary. Nor it is necessary to prove the actual words of communication. The evidence as to transmission of thoughts sharing the unlawful design may be sufficient. GeraldOrchardofUniversityofCanterbury,NewZealand (Criminal Law Review 1974, 297 at 299) explains the limitednatureofthisproposition: Althoughitisnotindoubtthattheoffencerequires somephysicalmanifestationofagreement,itisimportantto notethelimitednatureofthisproposition. Thelawdoes not require that the act of agreement take any particular formandthefactofagreementmaybecommunicatedby words or conduct. Thus, it has been said that it is unnecessary to prove that the parties actually came togetherandagreedintermstopursuetheunlawfulobject; thereneedneverhavebeenanexpressverbalagreement,it being sufficient that there was a tacit understanding betweenconspiratorsastowhatshouldbedone. 76] What constitutes an offence of criminal conspiracy is

further explained by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Tamil NaduVs.Nalini1999Cri.L.J.124anditisheldthus: The unlawful agreement which amounts to a conspiracy need not be formal or express, but may be inherentinandinferredfromthecircumstances,especially declarations, acts and conduct of conspirators. The agreementneednotbeenteredintobyallthepartiestoitat the same time, but may be reached by successive action evidencingtheirjoiningofconspiracy.Ithasbeensaidthat acriminalconspiracyisapartnershipincrimeandthereis in each conspiracy a joint or mutual agency for the prosecutionofacommonplan.Thus,iftwoormorepersons enter into a conspiracy any act done by any of them pursuanttotheagreementisincontemplationoflaw,theact of each of them and they are jointly responsible therefor. Thismeansthateverythingsaid,writtenordonebyanyof theconspiratorsinexecutionoffurtheranceofthecommon purposeisdeemedtohavebeensaid,doneorwritten by

(84)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

eachofthem.Andthisjointresponsibilityextendsnotonly towhatisdonebyanyoftheconspiratorspursuanttothe originalagreementbutalsotocollateralactsincidentalto andgrowingoutoftheoriginalpurpose. 77] (a) Thus,inordertoprovetheoffenceofcriminalconspiracy, Boththeaccusedwerehavingobjecttobeaccomplishviz. abductingJyotikumari,thenrapingherandsubsequently misappropriatingherbelongingsaftercommissionofher murder; Aplanorschemewasframedbyboththeaccusedpersons foraccomplishingthisobject; Therewasagreementorunderstandingbetweenboththe accused persons for accomplishment of theobjectby executingthesameinthemannerdecidedbythem. The prosecution as such will have to establish that in unlawful combination, accused persons had done unlawful act by actingundertacitagreementforaccomplishmentoftheirjointventure. Naturally, therecannotbeanydirectevidenceonthisaspect. Deep scrutinyofevidenceonrecorddoshowthatforaccomplishmentoftheir object,boththeaccusedpersonshavemeticulouslypreparedaplanand bycooperatingwitheachotherandactingin combination,theydid executeplanhatchedbythembyabductingJyotikumariatabout1030 p.m.on1112007,takinghertothesecludedfield,rapingherandthen misappropriatingherbelongingsaftermurderingher.Thefirststepin accomplishmentofthisobjectwaschoosingtherighttimeforabducting Jyotikumariunderthepretextoftakinghertoherworkplace.Asher employerhadprovidedfacilityofpickupanddroppingherafterthe work to her residence, Jyotikumari was regularly going to Wipro

theprosecutionwillhavetoestablishthat:

(b) (c)

(85)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

CompanybythecabsentbytheCompany.Duetothisroutinepractice, shehaddevelopedconfidenceinthesystemandassuchshewasfound to be a soft target by accused persons. Careful scrutiny of pick up rosters/sheetsatExhibit67to69goestoshowthatemployeesusedto bepickedupbyrotationand,therefore,orderofpickupwasusedto bechanged.Toquote,on29102007,firstpickupasperpickupsheet (Exhibit69)wasthatofMerlinPillaiandsecondwasthatofP .W.11 SagarBidkar. Onthatday,lastpickupwasofJyotikumari. Onnext two days, i.e. on 30102007 and 1112007, first pick up was of Jyotikumariand second pickup was of P .W.11 Sagar Bidkar.Thisis seenfrompickupsheetsatExhibitNos.67and68,respectively.Asseen fromevidenceofP .W.10HiramanBhandare,theCompanyusedto giveinformationaboutpickupinchartonedaypriortopickupand droppingoftheemployees.Thepickupanddropsheetswereusedto keptinconcernedcabitselfason3112007,thepickup/dropsheets wereseizedfromCabNo.535bypanchnama(Exhibit43)inpresenceof panch witness P 4 Hanumant Chavan. Therefore, accused No.1 .W. PurushottamBoratewhowasdriverofCabNo.535innightshift,was verywellawareofthefactthaton1112007,thefirstpickupwasthat of deceasedJyotikumariChaudhary. PickupsheetatExhibit67for 31102007showsthatJyotikumariChaudharyattendedworkonthat nightandhersignatureisthereonthispickupsheet.1112007was the last day of employment in Wipro Company of Jyotikumari Chaudharyasperiodof30daysnoticeofresignationtenderedbyher was expiring on 1112007. This fact is brought on record by the defence itself from crossexamination of P W. 12 Gaursundar. This . evidenceshowsthataccuseddriverPurushottamBoratewasverywell awareofthefactthatdeceasedJyotikumariChaudharywhoattended

(86)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

dutyon31102007willcertainlyattenddutyon1112007. Asper pick up sheetat Exhibit 68 which waswithin knowledge of accused Purushottam Borate, first pick up was that of Jyotikumari. This evidencecoupledwithsubsequentactandpreparationmadebyaccused Purushottam Borate goes to show that the offence in question is an outcomeofilldesignedplanofboththeaccused. 78] Now let us examine what was the rule and practice of

WiproCompanywhenfirstpickupinnighthourswasthatofafemale employee.ThisprocedurehascameonrecordfromevidenceofP .W.11 Sagar Bidkar, System Administrator in Wipro Company. According to versionofthiswitness,asperruleandpracticeofWiproCompany,the driverofthecabwassupposedtopickupmaleemployeesfirstandthen topickupafemaleemployee.Incaseifthefirstpickupwasofafemale employee,thedriverofthecabwasrequiredtotakethesecurityguard from the Company with him. This practice is further vouched and clarifiedbyP .W.10HiramanBhandareownerofCabNo.535,who himselfwasworkingasdriveronthatcab.Hisevidenceshowsthatas perruleofWiprocompany,ifafter900p.m.firstpickupwasoffemale employee, then the driver was required to take with him a security guard from the Company. His evidence further shows that this instructionwasgiven toall the driversof the cabs by the Company. Thereisnothingonrecordtodisbelieveversionofboththesewitnesses aboutruleandpracticeofWiproCompanyforsafeguardingitsfemale employeesduringnighthours. 79] Nowletusseewhatactuallyhappenedinnighthoursof

1112007,whenaccusedPurushottamBoratewassupposedtopickup

(87)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

Jyotikumariasfirstpickupofthatnight. Evidenceonrecordshows thatinexecutionoftheirobjectofcommittingthecrimeinquestion, accusedPurushottamBoratewenttoMurmadibyIndicacabNo.535at about800to830p.m.of1112007.EvidenceofP .W.9BashirShaikh makesitclearthatthereaccusedNo.2PradeepKokadejoinedaccused No.1PurushottamBorateandaccusedNo.2PradeepKokadethenleft byIndicacabNo.535.EvidenceofP .W.12Gaursundarmakesitclear that thereafter both the accused persons reached at the place of residenceofJyotikumariatabout1030p.m.on1112007inthatCab No.535.TheplacechosenforsittingbyaccusedNo.1PradeepKokade isveryrelevant. ThoughhewasnotanemployeeofWiproCompany butmerefriendofaccusedNo.1PurushottamBorate,stillhechoose rear seat of Indica car and satbehindthe driver's seat. This sitting arrangementinthecabapparentlymadebyboththeaccusedpersons doshowthattheywereactinginconcertforexecutingtheirobjectof commissionofcrime. Naturally,deceasedJyotikumarisatontherear seatbesideaccusedNo.2PradeepKokade.Thissituationautomatically gaveamplescopeandopportunitytoaccusedNo.2PradeepKokadeto overpower and silence Jyotikumari while committing the crime in question. The act andconduct of both the accusedpoints outtheir agreementforcommissionofthecrime. 80] The next circumstance from which criminal conspiracy

hatchedbyaccusedpersonscanbeinferredisdeliberateviolationof rule of Wipro Company by accused No.1 Purushottam Borate while picking up Jyotikumari on 1112007. This was certainly done in execution of accomplishment of goal of their joint venture. Though accused Purushottam Borate was duty bound to take with him a

(88)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

security guard in that night as first pick up in that night was of JyotikumariChaudharyandthetimewas1030p.m..Itisclearthat accuseddriverPurushottamhaddeliberatelynottakensecurityguard withhimforpickingupJyotikumariinthatnight.RatheraccusedNo.2 PradeepKokadewasaccompanyinghimbysittingintherearseatfor taking suitable opportunity for overpowering Jyotikumari. This was donewiththedesigntocommittheoffenceinquestion. 81] Joint venture of accused persons in commission of the

crimeis writ large from the fact that after taking up Jyotikumari at about 1030 p.m. on 1112007 though accused No.1 Purushottam Borate,beingthedriverofthecabwassupposedtotakeupP .W.11 SagarBidkar,hedeliberatelyavoidedtodoso.P .W.11SagarBidkar wasalsohavingdutyinthirdshiftcommencingfrom1100p.m.. He wascopassengerwithJyotikumariasperthepickuproster.Accused persons had intentionally avoided to pick up P W. 11 Sagar Bidkar . whenJyotikumariwasintheircab. Similarly,inpreplannedmanner, theyhaddecidedtogiveexcuseforlatepickingupofP .W.11Sagar Bidkar by informing that tyre of the cab was punctured. Similarly, accusedNo.1PurushottamBoratehadstatedfalselythatJyotikumari didnotcomeforworkon1112007.Withoutdesigningthescheme, thiswasnotpossible.Thesefactorspointoutthattheaccusedpersons hadindulgedincriminalconspiracyforcommissionoftheoffences. 82] Indica car in which both the accused persons had taken

Jyotikumari was subjected to chemical analysis after its seizure vide panchnama(Exhibit43)dated3112007. C.A.reportatExhibit167 showsthatsaidIndicacarwasstainedwithbloodofBgroupwhich

(89)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

wasthebloodgroupofdeceasedJyotikumari. Dyingdeclarationof JyotikumarimadetoP .W.14JeevanBaralshowsthatJyotikumariasked accusedNo.1PurushottamBorateastowhythecarwasstoppedin jungleandthensheshouted,pleasewhatyouaredoing? Thiswas followed by a loud noise and phone call was disconnected. This indicatesthatafterstoppingthecarinthefield,accusedNo.2Pradeep KokademusthaveoverpoweredJyotikumaricausinginjurytoherand therebystainingofIndicacarbyherblood. Thissequenceofevents goestoshowthatboththeaccusedpersonswereactinginpursuantto their agreement made for commission of crime. By no stretch of imagination,itcanbesaidthattheaccusedpersonswereindependently pursuingthesameend.Onthecontrary,thecircumstancesbroughton recorddoshowthataccusedpersonshavecometogetherinpursuitof theunlawfulobjectandtheycommittedthecrimeinpartnership. 83] Theanothercircumstancewhichpointsoutindulgenceof both the accused in criminal conspiracy is finding of valuables of Jyotikumari from the houses of both the accused persons as per information provided by them. It is clear that after eliminating Jyotikumariinthatfatefulnight,boththeaccusedpersonssharedthe booty. AccusedNo.1PurushottamBoratetookgoldring,Tatanwrist watchandsimcardofAirtelCompanyofJyotikumariwhereasaccused No.2 Pradeep Kokade took her ear rings and Nokia Mobile handset. Theseactsandconductofboththeaccusedpersonsshowsthatthey bothhadagreedtocommittheoffencejointlybyconspiringwitheach other.Assuch,theprosecutionhasestablishedtheoffencepunishjable underSection120BoftheIndianPenalCodeagainstboththeaccused persons.

(90)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

84]

ByrelyingonPralhadNaphadeVs.StateofMaharashtra

1978Cri.L.J.830,thelearneddefencecounselfinallycontendedthat when there are two parallel stories put forth by the parties, one in favourofdefencewillhavetobepreferredandtheaccusedinsuchcase becomesentitledforbenefitofdoubt.Inthecaseathand,Iamunable tofindanyotherparallel versionmuchlessequallyprobable.Onthe contrary, evidence of prosecution though circumstantial is forming a chainsocompletethatitexcludeanyotherhypothesisthantheguiltof theaccused.Hence,therulingsocitedhasnoapplicationtotheinstant case. 85] Intheresult,theprosecutionhasestablishedthatboththe

accusedpersonshadindulgedincriminalconspiracyandinpursuantto thatcriminalconspiracyforachievingthedesiredgoal,atabout1030 p.m.on1112007,theyabductedJyotikumarRamanandChaudhary, took her at the secluded place at the paddy field of Kisan Bodke at village Gahunje. The prosecution has further proved that acting in league, both the accused persons committed rape on Jyotikumari RamanandChaudharyandsubsequentlymurderedher.Theprosecution has further proved that after commission of her murder, both the accusedpersonshadmisappropriatedandconvertedfortheirownuse finger ring, ear rings, wrist watch, mobile phone which were in possessionofJyotikumariRamanandChaudharyatthattime. Hence, byansweringthepointNos.1to6inaffirmative, Itakeapause to hearthepartiesonquantumofsentence. 86] At this juncture, Shri. Nikam, the learned Special Public ProsecutorhasrightlyreliedonrulinginthematerofAllauddinMian andOthersSharifMianandAnother Vs.StateofBiharreportedin

(91)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

1989SupremeCourtCases(Cri.)490.RelevantportionofparaNo.10 ofthisjudgmentneedsreproductionanditreadsthus: Therequirementofhearingtheaccusedisintended to satisfy the rule of natural justice. It is a fundamental requirementoffairplaythattheaccusedwhowashitherto concentratingontheprosecutionevidenceonthequestion of guiltshould,on beingfoundguilty,beaskedif he has anythingtosayoranyevidencetotenderonthequestionof sentence.Thisisallthemorenecessarysincethecourtsare generallyrequiredtomakethechoicefromawiderangeof discretioninthematterofsentencing.Toassistthecourtin determining the correct sentence to be imposed the legislatureintroducedsubsection(2)toSection235. The saidprovisionthereforesatisfiesadualpurpose;itsatisfies theruleofnaturaljusticebyaccordingtothe accusedan opportunityofbeingheardonthequestionofsentenceand atthesametimehelpsthecourttochoosethesentenceto be awarded. Since the provision is intended to give the accused an opportunity to place before the court all the relevant material having a bearing on the question of sentencetherecanbenodoubtthattheprovisionissalutary andmustbestrictlyfollowed. Itisclearlymandatoryand shouldnotbetreatedasamereformality. Mr.Gargwas, therefore,justifiedinmakingagrievancethatthetrialcourt actuallytreateditasamereformalityasisevidentfromthe factthatitrecordedthefindingofguiltonMarch31,1987, on the same day before the accused could absorb and overcometheshockofconviction theywereaskedifthey had anything to say on the question of sentence and immediately thereafter the decision imposing the death penaltyonthetwoaccusedwaspronounced. Inacaseof life or death as stated earlier, the presiding officer must showahighdecreeofconcernforthestatutoryrightofthe accusedandshouldnottreatitasamereformalitytobe crossedbeforemakingthechoiceofsentence.Ifthechoice is made, as in this case, without giving the accused an effective and real opportunity to place his antecedents, social and economic background, mitigating and extenuatingcircumstances,etc.,beforethecourt,thecourt's decision on the sentence would be vulnerable. We need hardlymentionthatinmanycasesasentencingdecisionhas

(92)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

far more serious consequences on the offender and his familymembersthaninthecaseofapurelyadministrative decision;afortiori,therefore,theprincipleoffairplaymust applywithgratervigourinthecaseoftheformerthanthe latter.Anadministrativedecisionhavingcivilconsequences, iftakenwithoutgivingahearingisgenerallystruckdownas violativeoftheruleofnaturaljustice.Likewiseasentencing decision takenwithoutfollowingthe requirementsofsub section(2)ofSection235oftheCodeinletterandspirit wouldalsomeetasimilarfateandmayhavetobereplaced by an appropriate order. The sentencing court must approachthequestionseriouslyandmustendeavourtosee thatalltherelevantfactsandcircumstancesbearingonthe question of sentence are brought on record. Only after giving due weight to the mitigating as well as the aggravating circumstances placed before it, it must pronouncethesentence.Wethinkasageneralrulethetrial courts should after recording the conviction adjourn the mattertoafuturedateandcalluponboththeprosecution aswellasthedefencetoplacetherelevantmaterialbearing on the question of sentence before it and thereafter pronouncethesentencetobeimposedontheoffender. In thepresentcase,aspointedoutearlier,weareafraidthat thelearnedtrialJudgedidnotattachsufficientimportance tothemandatoryrequirementofsubsection(2)ofSection 235oftheCode.TheHighCourtalsohadbeforeitonlythe scanty material placed before the learned Sessions Judge whenitconfirmedthedeathpenalty.

FollowingthislawlaiddownbytheHon'bleSupremeCourt oftheland,atthisstageafterinformingtheaccusedpersonstheyare foundguiltyofthechargeslevelledagainstthem,Idefertohearthe partiesonquantumofsentence.Hence,thecasebepostedforhearing thepartiesonquantumofsentenceon19thMarch,2012. Sd/xxx Pune. Dated:17thMarch,2012. (A.M.BADAR) SessionsJudge,Pune

(93)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

87]

Heardthelearnedcounselsforboththepartiesatlength

apartfromhearingboththeaccusedonquantumofsentence.Inviewof mandateofSection354(3)oftheCodeofCriminalProcedure,1973, thedeathsentencecannotbeawardedsaveintherarestofratecases whenthealternativeoptionisunquestionablyforeclosed. Wordingof Section 354(3) of the Code reflects legislative command and the condition which needs to be satisfied prior to awarding the death sentence.Whileawardingsuchsentence,theCourtisrequiredtoweigh the mitigating and aggravating circumstances and principle of proportionalityofsentenceisalsorequiredtobekeptinmind.Whether casefallswithintherarestofratecaseornothastobeexaminedwith referencetothefactsandcircumstancesofeachcaseandonfindingthe casetoberarestofrare,theCourtisjustifiedinawardingdeathpenalty whichisontheStatuteBook.Asbackasintheyear1974,theHon'ble ApexCourtinthematterof EdigaAnammaVs.StateofA.P .AIR 1974SC799hasobservedthus: deterrencethroughthreatofdeathmaystillbeapromising strategyinsomefrightfulareasofmurderouscrime. Itisfurtherobservedthat Horrendous features of the crime and the hapless and helpless state of the victim steel the heart of law for the sternerscheme. 88] What is the rarest of rare case is a concept difficult to

defineandnostraightjacketformulacanbeappliedforenumerationof rarestofrarecase. However,theHon'bleApexCourtinthematterof BachanSinghVs. StateofPunjabAIR1980SC898,haslaiddown theguidelinesonthisaspectwhichcanbesummarisedthus: (a) Theextremepenaltyofdeathmaybeinflicted

(94)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

ingravestcasesofextremeculpability; (b) While imposing death sentence the circumstancesoftheoffenderarealsorequire tobetakenintoconsiderationalongwiththe circumstancesofthecrime; Death sentence be imposed only when life imprisonment appears to be an altogether inadequatepunishmenthavingregardtothe relevantcircumstancesofthecrime;and Extremepenaltycanbeimposedafterstriking the balance between aggravating and mitigatingcircumstancesfoundinthecase.

(c)

(d)

Aggravatingcircumstancesinclude: (a) If the murder has been committed after previous planing and involves extreme brutality;or Ifthemurderinvolvesexceptionaldepravity,

(b)

Mitigatingcircumstancesinclude: (a) That the offence was committed under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance; Theageoftheaccused.Iftheaccusedisyoung orold,heshallnotbesentencedtodeath; The probability that the accused would not commit criminal acts of violence as would constituteacontinuingthreattosociety; Theprobabilitythattheaccusedcanbe

(b)

(c)

(d)

(95)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

reformedandrehabilitated.TheStateshallby evidence prove that the accused does not satisfytheconditions(c)and(d)above; (e) Thatinthefactsandcircumstancesofthecase theaccusedbelievedthathewasmorejustified incommittingtheoffence; That the accused acted under the duressor dominationofanotherperson;and Thattheconditionoftheaccusedshowedthat hewasmentallydefectiveandthatthesaid defectimpairedhiscapacitytoappreciatethe criminalityofhisconduct.

(f) (g)

89]

Theseguidelineswerefollowedin MacchiSinghandOrs.

Vs. State of Punjab, 1983 S.C.957 by holding that death sentence could be imposed only in rarest of rare cases when the collective conscience of the community is so shocked that it would expect the holdersofjudicialpowertoinflictthedeathpenaltyirrespectiveoftheir personal opinion asregardsthe desirabilityorotherwise ofretaining death penalty as a sentencing option. The following are the circumstancesgivenbytheHon'bleApexCourtinthematterofMacchi Singh inwhichthecasecanbetreatedasrarestofrareforimposing capitalpunishmentbyentertainingsuchsentimentofthecommunity: (1) Whenthemurderiscommittedinextremely brutal,grotesque,diabolical,revoltingor dastardlymannersoastoarouseintenseand extremeindignationofthecommunity. Whenthemurderiscommittedforamotive whichevincestotaldepravityandmeanness; e.g.murderbyhiredassassinformoneyor reward;orcoldbloodedmurderforgainsofa

(2)

(96)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

personvisavis whomthemurdererisina dominating positionorinapositionoftrust; or murderis committedin the coursefor betrayalofthemotherland. (3) When murder ofa member ofScheduled Casteorminoritycommunityetc.,is committednotforpersonalreasonbutin circumstanceswhicharousesocialwrath;orin cases of bride burning or dowry deaths orwhenmurderiscommittedinorderto remarryforthesakeofextractingdowryonce againortomarryanotherwomanonaccount ofinfatuation. Whenthecrimeisenormousinproportion. Forinstancewhenmultiplemurders,sayofall oralmostallthemembersofafamilyor large numberofpersonsofaparticular caste,community,orlocality,arecommitted. Whenthevictimofmurderisaninnocent childorahelplesswomanoroldorinfirm personorapersonvisaviswhomthe murderer isin adominatingposition,ora publicfiguregenerallylovedandrespectedby thecommunity.

(4)

(5)

90]

Hon'ble Supreme Court has however cautioned that full

weightagemustbeaccordedtothemitigatingcircumstancesinacase andajustbalancehadtobestruckbetweenaggravatingandmitigating circumstances.

91]

Ratiooftherulingsinthemattersof DevenderPalSingh

Vs.StateofN.T.C.ofDelhiAIR2002SC1661andAtbirVs.Govtof NCTofDelhiAIR2010SC3477=JT2010(8)SC372 showsthat

(97)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

deathsentencemaybewarrantedwhenthemurderiscommittedinan extremebrutalmannerorforamotivewhichevincestotaldepravity and meanness. The Hon'ble Apex Court has also held that death sentencecanalsobejustifiedwhenthecrimeisenormousinproportion orwhenthevictimofmurderisaninnocentchildorahelplesswoman or old or infirm person or a person whom the murderer is in a dominatingposition,orapublicfiguregenerallylovedandrespectedby the community. Thus, the Court is required to follow the rule of proportionalityconsideringthecircumstancesofthecaseinproviding punishment according to the culpability of each kind of criminal conductkeepinginmindtheeffectofinadequatepunishmentonthe society.InthematterofAqueelAhmedVs.StateofU.P .AIR2009SC 1272.Hon'bleHighCourthasruledoutthateveninthecaseofsingle victim death sentence can be awarded taking into consideration the circumstancesofthecase.

92]

At this juncture, it is apt to quote observations of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shivaji @ Dadya Alhat Vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 2009 SC 56, (earlier referred in para No. 28) whereinitisheldthusinpara25,26,30and31: 25. The law regulates social interests, arbitrates conflicting claims and demands. Security of persons and property of the people is an essential function of the State. It could be achieved through instrumentality of criminal law. Undoubtedly, there is a crosscultural conflict where living law must find answer to the new challenges and the Courts are required to mould the sentencing system to meet

(98)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

the challenges. The contagion of lawlessness would underminesocialorderandlayitin ruins.Protection ofsocietyandstampingoutcriminalproclivitymustbe theobjectoflawwhichmustbeachievedbyimposing appropriatesentence.Therefore,lawasacornerstone of the edifice of order should meet the challenges confronting the society. Fridman in his Law in Changing Society stated that State of criminal law continuestobeasitshouldbeadecisivereflection of social consciousness of society. Therefore, in operatingthesentencingsystem,lawshouldadoptthe correctivemachineryorthedeterrencebasedonfactual matrix.Bydeftmodulationsentencingprocessbestern whereitshouldbe,andtamperedwithmercywhereit warrants to be. The facts and given circumstances in eachcase,thenatureofthecrime,themannerinwhich it was planned and committed, the motive for commissionofthecrime,the conductofthe accused, the nature of weapons used and all other attending circumstancesarerelevantfactswhichwouldenterinto the area of consideration. For instance a murder committed due to deepseated mutual and personal rivalry may not call for penalty of death. But an organisedcrimeormassmurdersof innocentpeople would call for imposition of death sentence as deterrence.InMaheshVs.StateofM.P .((1987)2SCR 710, this Court while refusing to reduce the death sentenceobservedthus:

(99)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

It will be a mockery of justice to permit the

accused to escape the extreme penalty of law when facedwithsuchevidenceandsuchcruelacts.Togive the lesser punishment for the accused would be to renderthejusticingsystemofthecountrysuspect.The commonmanwilllosefaithincourts.Insuchcases,he understandsandappreciatesthelanguageofdeterrence morethanthereformativejargaon. 26. Therefore,unduesympathytoimposeinadequate

sentencewoulddomoreharmtothejusticesystemto underminethepublicconfidenceintheefficacyoflaw andsocietywouldnotlongendureundersuchserious threats.Itis,therefore,thedutyofeverycourttoaward proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committedetc.Thispositionwasilluminatinglystated bythisCourtinSevakaPerumaletc.Vs.StateofTamil Nadu(AIR1991SC1463). 30. InJashubhaBharatsinhGohilVs.StateofGujarat

(1994(4)SCC353),ithasbeenheldbythisCourtthat inthematterofdeathsentence,theCourtsarerequired to answer new challenges and mould the sentencing systemtomeetthesechallenges.Theobjectshouldbe to protect the society and to deter the criminal in achieving the avowed object of law by imposing appropriate sentence. It is expected that the Courts would operate the sentencingsystem soasto impose such sentence which reflects the conscience of the

(100)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

societyandthesentencingprocesshastobesternwhere itshouldbe.Eventhoughtheprincipleswereindicated inthebackgroundofdeathsentenceandlifesentence, thelogicappliestoallcaseswhereappropriatesentence istheissue. 31. Imposition of sentence without considering its

effect on the social order in many cases may be in realityafutileexercise.Thesocialimpactofthecrime, e.g.whereitrelatestooffencesagainstwomen,dacoity, kidnapping,misappropriationofpublicmoney,treason andotheroffencesinvolvingmoralturpitudeormoral delinquency which have great impact on social order, andpublicinterest,cannotbelostsightofandperse require exemplary treatment. Any liberal attitude by imposing meager sentences or taking too sympathetic viewmerelyonaccountoflapseoftimeinrespectof suchoffenceswillberesultwisecounterproductivein thelongrunandagainstsocietalinterestwhichneeds tobecaredforandstrengthenedbystringofdeterrence inbuiltinthesentencingsystem.

93]

ItisthusclearthatdutyiscastupontheCourttorespectto

the society's cry for justice against the criminals by imposing punishment befitting the crime so that the Courts reflect public abhorrenceofthecrime.

94]

WhatshouldbetheviewoftheCourtsinthemattersof

(101)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

crimesagainstwomenispointedoutrecentlybytheHon'bleApexCourt inRajbir@RajuandAnotherVs.StateofHaryanaAIR2011SC568, para5ofthejudgmentinthatmatterneedsreproductionanditreads: 5. We have recently held in the case of Satya Narayan

Tiwari@JollyandAnotherVs.StateofU.P ..CriminalAppeal No.1168of2005decidedon28thOctober,2010(reportedin 2010AIRSCW7144)thatthisCourtisgoingtotakeaserious viewinthemattersofcrimesagainstwomenandgiveharsh punishment.

95]

Nowletusexaminewhetherthecaseathandfallsunder

thecategoryofrarestofrarecaseandiftheanswerisinaffirmative, whatarethespecialreasonsforawardingdeathsentence.Thepassing of the sentence of death must elicit the greatest concerned and solicitudeoftheJudgebecausethatisonesentencewhichcannotbe recalled.Itisalreadyheldthatboththeaccusedarefoundguiltyofthe offencespunishableunderSection120B,302R/w120B,376(2)R/w 120B and 404 R/w 120B of the Indian Penal Code for abducting, rapingandmurderingKu.JyotikumariChaudharyinthenighthoursof 1112007. Let us, therefore, draw balance sheet of aggravating and mitigatingcircumstancesofthecrime.

AGGRIVATINGCIRCUMSTANCES: 1) PreviousPlanning : Provedcircumstancesonrecordgoesto

showthatboththeaccusedpersonsmeticulouslychalkedoutaplanto committheoffenceanditwasexecutedinextremebrutality.Accused No.1 Purushottam Borate who was having pick up sheets/rosters

(102)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

Exhibit67to69wasknowingthaton31102007and1112007first pick up of the night was Jyotikumari. He was also aware that 1112007wasthe lastdayof employmentof Jyotikumariasher 30 days notice of resignation from employment of Wipro Company was expiring on 1112007 and therefore, Jyotikumari would certainly attenddutyinthatnight.Therefore,accusedNo.1PurushottamBorate conspiredwithaccusedNo.2PradeepKokadeandtheybothprepared theschemeforcommittingtheoffence.Inimplementingthatscheme, accusedNo.1PurushottamBoratehasdeliberatelybreachedtheruleof theWiproCompanyoftakingwithhimtheSecurityGuardasfirstpick upof1112007wasthatofJyotikumariandthattooat1030p.m.in night. Both the accused picked up Jyotikumari in that night and deliberatelyavoidedtopickupP .W.11SagarBidkarsoastoexecute their plan of commission of the crime. In pursuant to predesigned scheme, Jyotikumari was abducted, raped and murdered. After commissionofoffenceasconspired,accusedNo.1PurushottamBorate gavefalseexplanationtotheprosecutionwitnessthatJyotikumaridid notboardhiscabinthenightandhewaslateforpickupofP .W.11 Sagar Bidkar asthe cabwaspunctured. Provedcircumstancesshows thatwithagreatcareplantocommittheoffencewaschalkedoutby boththeaccusedpersons.

2)

MotiveofCrime:

Deceased Jyotikumari was unmarried

young lady of 23 to 24 years of age who after passing degree examination in Science had joined work in Information Technology SectoratPune.ShewasworkingasanAssociatewithWiproBusiness ProcessOutsourcingCompanyatHinjwadiareaofPune.AccusedNo.1 PurushottamBoratebeingthedriverofthecabwasknowingthisyoung

(103)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

and beautiful girl. Proved circumstances shows that motive for this crime was sheer lascivious lust. The crime was not committed in a suddenimpulseofsexbutinapredeterminedmannertosatisfytheir hungerforsexbyboththeaccusedpersonsbyactinginaleague.While satisfyinghishungerofsex,accusedNo.1PurushottamBorateeven forgotthatheisamarriedperson.Thismotiveevincestotaldepravity andmeannessofsexmaniacshavingpervertmind.Thequestionwhich needs to answer is whether we need such perverts and pests in our societywhowillinspireotherstocommitheinouscrime.Theobvious answerisno.

3)

PersonalityoftheVictim :

DeceasedJyotikumariwashelpless

innocentfemaleof22yearsagehavingathinbuiltasseenfromreport ofpostmortemexaminationofherdeadbody.Evidenceonrecordshows thatboththeaccusedpersonshave committedthecrimein question neither under duress nor on provocation and an innocent helpless younggirl'slifewassnuffedoutbyboththeaccusedpersonsbrutally aftercommittingrapeonherturnbyturn.DeceasedJyotikumaricould nothaveprovidedanyresistancetoaccused.Shewasahelplessvictim inahaplesssituationataplacewhichwastoofarfromherhouseinan isolatedagriculturalfield.

4)

BetrayalofTrustbyaccusedPurushottamBorate :

Being an

employee of Wipro Company, Jyotikumari was enjoying facility of transport from her residence to the work place. Accused No.1 PurushottamBoratewasdriverofthecabwhichwasentrustedwiththe workofhertransporttotheworkplaceandthentotheresidenceatthe relevant time. As such she had complete faith and trust on accused

(104)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

PurushottamBorate.DeceasedJyotikumarimeeklywentwithboththe accused persons in the night hours of 1112007 from her house reposingfullfaithandconfidenceonaccusedNo.1PurushottamBorate asadriverofthecabprovidedbyheremployer.AccusedPurushottam Boratewasknowntoherashehadpickedherupforreachingthework place since last two days. Accused not only blatantly betrayed the confidence reposed on them, but took advantage of loneliness of helplessvictimforsatisfactionoftheir carnal desire.Accusedpersons beingtwoinnumberwereindominatingpositionwhentheycommitted thecrimeinquestion.

5)

MannerofCommissionofCrime : Both the accused persons

committed the crime in question in extremely brutal, revolting and dastardlymanner.Theytookhelplessvictimwhowasconfidingthemto thesecludedplaceinthe fieldwithin jurisdictionofvillageGahunje. Theretheycommittedrapeonherturnbyturn.Thereafter,asseenfrom evidenceonrecord,byusingshavingblade,theyslashedrightwristof Jyotikumaritwice.Shewasstrangulatedwithgreatforcebyusingher Odhani. Then her head was smashed with a big stone. Report of postmortemexaminationofdeadbodyofJyotikumarishowsthatshe died violent death and assault on her was brutal. Because of strangulation, there was fracture of hyoid bone. Her ribs were also foundtobefractured.Therewerenailmarkstoherneckandmultiple abrasionsonhercheek,lowermandibleregion,leftclavicalandmid sternumthorasicregion,etc.Larynxandtracheaofthedeadbodywere foundtobefractured.Becauseofblowofthestone,therewasfracture of skull of Jyotikumari involving frontal parietal left temporal bone apartfromlacerationtothebrain.Thedeceasedwasfoundtobehaving

(105)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

injuriestoherhead.Thus,shewasdonetodeathinverycruelmanner byaccusedpersonsandtheyleftnostoneunturnedincommissionof hermurderinordertoseethatshemustdieverypainfuldeath.They adopted each and every mode and method of assault to see that Jyotikumarishouldnotsurviveandtheircrimeshouldnotbedetected.

6)

SubsequentConductofaccused : Even after commission of

crime in question in brutal manner, both the accused showed no remorse. TheyimmediatelywentforsecondpickupofP .W.11Sagar Bidkar.Thebehaviourofboththeaccusedaftercommissionofheinous crimewastoocool.Thisfactshowsthattheyhadnorepentancefor eliminating helpless young lady in a brutal manner. Accused No.1 PurushottamBorategavefalseinformationtoallconcernedforlatepick upofP .W.11SagarBidkarbystatingthattyreofthecabwaspunctured andthatJyotikumarididnotboardhiscab.HeeveninsistedP .W.17 AmolMugadetocreatefalserecordbyshowingthatthecabenteredin the premises of the Company at 1100 p.m.. Accused Purushottam BoratehadalsoobtainedendorsementofP .W.11SagarBidkaronpick upsheetthatthedelaywasduetopuncturedtyre. Theirpostevent conductshowsthattheyweretakingallprecautionstoseethattheir heinousactsshouldnotcometosurfaceandtheywerenothavingany regretforwhattheyhaddonewithJyotikumari.

7)

ImpactoftheCrimeonCommunity :

Both the accused

persons have murdered a young working woman who was reposing trust on accused Purushottam Borate for going to her work place in night hours. She was working in I.T. Sector in Business Process OutsourcingCompanywheretheworkisnormallycarriedoninnight

(106)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

hours.Thecrimewascommittedinextremebrutalandbeastlymanner demonstratingdeprivalcharacterofboththeaccusedpersons.Safetyof workingwomeninacitylikePunewhichisnearlyattendingstatusof metropolitancityandhubofI.T.Sectorcametojeopardyduetocrime ofsuchintensity,gravityandmagnitudecommittedbyaccused. The impact of criminal act of accused has virtually thrown safety and security of working women at Pune out of gear. Tempo of life of communityatPuneisaffectedduetocriminalactofboththeaccused persons and ultimately security of society is endangered. Nowadays, women are considered as backbone of any economy and they are important in shaping future of the country. Women of this era are participatingintheprocessofeconomicdevelopmentofthecountryon equalfootingwithmen.TheFactoriesAct,1948isnowbeingamended to allow women employeesto work in night shifts. Rapid growth of InformationTechnologySectorandincreasedemploymentofwomenin that Sector as well as round the clock working hours in this Sector contributesineconomicdevelopmentofthenation.Betterpaypackage anddemandofjobarethereasonforworkbywomeninnightshifts.In aResearchStudyConductedbyAssociatedChamberofCommerceand IndustriesofIndiasponsoredbyNationalCommissionforWomen,itis foundthatwomenworkingnightshiftsinBusinessProcessOutsourcing constitute 40% of total work force in Business Process Outsourcing. Sector in India. One assumption of their families is that despite the strange hours of work, their daughters will be safe because the Companywilltakecareofthem.ItwasfoundthatsituationofBusiness ProcessOutsourcingemployeesinBangaloreisfearfulbecauseofcase ofrapeandmurderofPratibha.ItwasacaseoftaxidriverShivaKumar rapingandmurderingPratibhaMurtyanemployeeofHewlettPackard

(107)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

atBangalore.Shewaspickedbytheaccusedthereinforthenightshift inthesaidCompany,butshewasrapedandmurderedbyhim.Inpara No.4.2.1ofthatStudy,itisobservedthattheBPOSectoristhemost promising Sector for women to work in night shifts. However, the presentcrimehasshockedtheconscienceofthecommunityandthisis nottheonlycaseofcrimeofsuchnatureatPune.Intheeraofequal opportunities, women can get respect in society if night shift jobs ensurestheirsafety. Suchtypeofcrimescreatesnegativeimpactand deter women from seeking employment in lucrative sector due to genderdiscriminationactofsexualoffences.Inthatsense,thecrimein questionhasnotonlyaffectedonefamilybutallworkingwomenand their families. Safety and security of the community and particularly thatofwomenisadverselyaffectedbysuchcrime.

96]

Asagainsttheseaggravatingcircumstancesofthecrime,let

us consider what may be the mitigating circumstances favouring the accusedpersonsinordertostrikethebalance.

1)

MitigatingCircumstances:

It was argued by the learned

counselfortheaccusedthatboththeaccusedpersonsareofyoungage and there is possibility of their reformation. However, they are not extremeyoungpersons.InthematterofJaiKumarVs.StateofM.P . 1999SCC(Cri)638,inasimilarcaseofrapeandmurderofaladywith her8yearsolddaughter,theHon'bleApexCourtinparaNo.21has heldthus: 21. In the matter in issue, however, we do notfindanybalancingfactorsoastostrikeabalance.

(108)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

As a matter of fact aggravating factors there are aplenty and galore without any mitigating circumstances as noticed above. The age of the accusedbeing22yearscannot,inthefactualmatrix of the matter under consideration, be said to be a mitigating factor. The accused is 22 years of age whilethevictimwasaged30yearsandatthetimeof the unfortunate death, she was under pregnancy between22to30weekstheothervictimwasan innocentgirlachildof8years;themurderswere coldbloodedwhilethetwovictimswereinahelpless andhaplesssituation.Noamountofperversitywould promptapersontobreakopenthedoorbyremoving thebricksfromthewallandcommitsuchgruesome murdersonfailuretosatisfythelustthehumanlust oughttoknowitslimits. Similarly, in Sevaka Perumal and Another Vs. State of TamilNadu1991SupremeCourtCases(Cri)724,Hon'bleApexCourt inparaNo.12hasheldthus: .... Itisfurthercontendedthattheappellantsare young men. They are the breadwinners of their familyeachconsistingofayoungwife,minorchild and aged parents and that, therefore, the death sentence may be converted into life. We find no force.Thesecompassionategroundswouldalwaysbe present in most cases and are not relevant for interference. Thus we find no infirmity in the sentence awarded by the Sessions Court and confirmedbytheHighCourtwarrantinginterference. Theappealsareaccordinglydismissed.

(109)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

Itwasthecaseofmurderofinnocentboyscommittedfor gainasameansofliving.Itisseenfromtheserulingsthatwhenthe murderiscoldbloodedandthatofahelplessfemalevictiminahapless situation,merefactthataccusedareofyoungageisnotabalancing factor.Inthecaseathand,Jyotikumariwasalsoayoungladyof23,24 years,butshewasdonetodeathin mostbrutalmannerbyaccused persons.Hence,merelybecausetheybotharealsoyoung,theycannot escapefromtheircriminalliability. 97] The offence was not committed by the accused under

influenceofextremementaloremotionaldisorder.Thereisnoquestion ofaccusedbelievingthattheyweremorallyjustifiedincommittingthe offenceonhelplessanddefencelessyoungunmarriedlady. 98] Accused No.1 Purushottam Borate is a driver by

occupation. He had abducted deceased Jyotikumari with help of accused No.2 Pradeep Kokade and they subsequently raped and murderedher.Theydidnotshowanyregret,sorroworrepentanceat any point of time. Rather they acted in a very normal manner after commission of crime. Accused No.2 Pradeep Kokade accompanied accusedNo.1PurushottamBorateforsecondpickupaftercommitting thecrimeinmostbrutalmanner.Healightedthecabpriortoreaching thegateoftheCompanyandthenaccusedNo.1PurushottamBorate attemptedtocreatefalserecordbyrequestingP .W.17AmolMugade, Security Supervisor. Thus, in every probability they have potency to commitsimilaroffenceinfuture.Consideringthefactthataccusedare perpetratorofthiscoldbloodedspinechillingcrimeofrapeandmurder ofayounggirl;whichwasmeticulouslyplanned,thereisnoprobability

(110)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

thataccusedcanbereformedorrehabilitated.Accusedwerenotunder theduressordominationofanyotherpersonbuttheiractswerejustfor satisfyingtheirlust. 99] Both the accused persons have submitted their written

statementonquantumofsentence,buttheavermentmadethereinare totally irrelevant so far as question of quantum of sentence is concerned. Both the accused persons have contended that if Shri. MahendraKawchalewhowasearlierrepresentingthemasanAdvocate wasallowedtocontinuetodefendthemaftersuspensionofhisSanad, then they could have secured acquittal. Circumstantial evidence adducedbythe prosecution isbogusanddocumentaryevidence and oral evidence is contradictory. Both the accused persons further contended that accused No.1 Purushottam Borate is having responsibilitytomaintainhisagedmother,wifeandsisterandaccused No.2PradeepKokadeisrequiredtomaintainhiswidowedmotherand youngersister.ItneedstomentionherethatShri.MahendraKawchale was found to have obtained Provisional Sanad on the basis of fake certificate.TheDivisionBenchoftheHon'bleBombayHighCourtbyits order dated 5092011 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 640/2011 had directedtheBarCounciltosentintimationstotheRegistrarsofallthe CourtsacrosstheStateofMaharashtraandStateofGoatonotentertain theVakalatnamaofShri.MahendraKawchaleorpermithimtoappear inanyproceedingsinanyCourt.ThisCourthadalsoreceivedaletter (Exhibit190)fromInchargeSecretaryofBarCouncilofMaharashtra and Goa informing that Sanad of Shri. Mahendra Kawchale is suspended. Applicationsmovedbyboththeaccusedpersonsseeking permission to allow Shri. Mahendra Kawchale to defend them were

(111)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

rejected by this Court with a reasoned order. Subsequently,both the accusedpersonshavechosentoengageanothercounseloftheirchoice whohadablydefendedthem.Allwitnesseswererecalledforfurther crossexamination.Hence,thecontentionraisedbytheaccusedpersons in their written statement regarding quantum of sentence is totally irrelevant. Thecontentionthattheaccusedpersonsarerequiredto maintaintheirfamilymemberscannottiltthebalanceintheirfavourby suppressingtheaggravatingcircumstances. 100] Atthisjuncture,itisappositetoreferrulinginDhananjoy

ChatterjeealiasDhanaVs.StateofW.B.1995AIRSCW510.Inthat matteraccusedDhananjoywas oneoftheSecurityGuarddeputedto guard the building where deceased Hetal, a girl aged 18 years was residing.BecauseofcomplaintofHetal,hewastransferredtotheother building.SubsequentlyHetalwasfoundtoberapedandmurderedin her flat by accused Dhananjoy. While dismissing his appeal and confirmingthedeathsentence,Hon'bleSupremeCourtinparaNo.16 hasheldthus: 16. Thesordidepisodeofthesecurityguard, whosesacreddutywastoensuretheprotectionand welfare of the inhabitants of the flats in the apartments, should have subjected the deceased, a resident of one of the flats, to gratify his lust and murder her in retaliation for his transfer on her complaint makes the crime even more heinous. Keepinginviewthemedicalevidenceandthestate inwhichthebodyofthedeceasedwasfounditis obvious that a most heinous type of barbaric rape

(112)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

and murder was committed on a helpless and defenceless schoolgoing girl of 18 years. If the security guards behave in this manner, who will guardtheguards?Thefaithofthesocietybysucha barbaricactoftheguard,getstotallyshakenandits cryfor justice becomesloudandclear,the offence was not only inhuman and barbaric but it was a totally ruthless crime of rape followed by, cold bloodedmurderandanaffronttothehumandignity ofthesociety. Thesavagenatureofthecrimehas shocked our judicial conscience. There are no extenuatingormitigatingcircumstanceswhatsoever in the case. We agree that a real and abiding concernforthedignityofhumanlifeisrequiredto bekeptinmindbythecourtswhileconsideringthe confirmation of the sentence of death but a cold blooded preplanned brutal murder without any provocation after committing rape on an innocent anddefencelessyounggirlof18yearsbythesecurity guardcertainlymakesthiscasearareoftherarest caseswhichcallsfornopunishmentotherthanthe capitalpunishmentandweaccordinglyconfirmthe sentenceddeathimposedupontheappellantforthe offence under Section 302, I.P The order of .C. sentence imposed on the appellant by the courts belowforoffencesunderSection376and380,I.P .C. arealsoconfirmedalongwiththedirectionsrelating thereto as in the event of the execution of the

(113)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

appellant, those sentences would only remain of academic interest. This appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. 101] Ifthestockofaggravatingandmitigatingcircumstancesis takenandtheoryofproportionalityiskeptinmind,thecaseathand needs to be held as rarest of rate cases. The balance of mitigating circumstancesisnottiltinginfavourofaccusedpersons.Thecrimehas beencommittedandexecutedinapreplannedmannerwhichshows determinationofboththeaccusedtocompletethecrimeandtakeaway lifeofJyotikumari.Thisincidenthadsentashockwaivesthroughout thecityofPuneandparticularlyintheI.T.Sectorwhichhasgained rootsatPune. 102] Onfacts,thecaseathandisalmostidenticalwiththecase

ofDhananjoyChatterjeealiasDhana(supra).Inpresentcase,accused driver alongwith coaccused committed rape and murder of helpless anddefencelessyounggirlwhowasreposingcompletefaithandtrust onthembycarefullyplanningthecrimeandexecutingitinbarbaric manner. Taking the verdict in the matter of Dhananjoy Chatterjee (supra)asyardstick,thereisnohesitationtoputonrecordthatthecase athandistherarestofrarecasewarrantingnothingelsebutthedeath penalty to accused persons. This Court is satisfied that the extreme depravitywithwhichtheoffenceswerecommittedandthemerciless mannerinwhichJyotikumariwasdonetodeathcoupledwiththeother factors including the position of trust held by accused No.1 Purushottam Borate, impact of the crime on the community and particularlywomenworkinginnightshiftsatthishubofInformation TechnologyCentrePune,bringsthecasewithinthecategoryofrarest

(114)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

ofrarecase,whichmeritsdeathpenaltyandnoneelse.Themitigating factors as pointed out in forgoing paras are absent. The collective conscienceofthecommunityissoshockedbythiscrimethatimposing alternate sentence, i.e. life imprisonment on the accused would not meet the ends of justice. Rather it would tempt other potential offenders to commit such crime and get away with such lesser punishment. Accusedwithoutshowinganyremorseorrepentancefor theiractionmadeafalsestorythatJyotikumarididnotboardthecab. Itisclearthatboththeaccusedpersonsprovedamenacetosocietyand they are incapable of rehabitation. Hence, by answering the points accordingly,Iproceedtopassfollowingorder: ORDER [i] AccusedNo.1 PurushottamDashrathBorateandaccused

No.2PradeepYashwantKokade,bothR/o.Sainagar,GajananSociety, Gahunje, Taluka Maval, District Pune are convicted under Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 of the offence punishableunderSection120BoftheIndianPenalCodeandtheyboth are sentenced to death and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/ (Rs. Five thousandonly),eachandindefaulttoundergorigorousimprisonment foroneyear.Theybothbehangedbynecktilltheyaredead. [ii] AccusedNos.1and2arefurtherconvictedoftheoffence

punishableunderSection302R/w120BoftheIndianPenalCodeand theybotharesentencedtodeathandtopayafineofRs.5000/(Rs. Fivethousandonly)each,indefaulttounderrigorousimprisonmentfor oneyear.Theybothbehangedbynecktilltheyaredead. [iii] AccusedNos.1and2arefurtherconvictedoftheoffence

(115)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

punishable under Section 376(2)(g) R/w 120B of the Indian Penal Codeandtheybotharesentencedtosufferimprisonmentforlifeandto payafineofRs.5000/(Rs.Fivethousandonly),eachandindefaultto undergorigorousimprisonmentforoneyear. [iv] AccusedNos.1and2arefurtherconvictedoftheoffence

punishableunderSection364R/w120BoftheIndianPenalCodeand theybotharesentencedtosuffer imprisonmentforlifeandtopaya fine of Rs.5000/ (Rs. Five thousand only) each and in default to undergorigorousimprisonmentforoneyear. [v] AccusedNos.1and2arefurtherconvictedoftheoffence

punishableunderSection404R/w120BoftheIndianPenalCodeand theyaresentencedtosufferrigorousimprisonmentfortwoyearsandto payafineofRs.1000/(Rs.Onethousandonly)each,andindefaultto undergorigorousimprisonmentforthreemonths. [vi] [vii] Substantivesentencestorunconcurrently. Seizedmuddemalproperty,i.e.ArticleNo.1stone,Article

No.2pairofsandal,ArticleNo.3bloodmixedearth, ArticleNo.4 simpleearth,ArticleNo.5BladeofSupermaxCompany,ArticleNo.6 yellowcolouredKurta,ArticleNo.7saffroncolouredSalwar,ArticleNo. 8 brown coloured knicker, Article No. 9 white coloured petticoat, ArticleNo.10whitecolouredbrassier,ArticleNo.12Identitycardof Wipro Company having a photograph on it, Article No. 13 black colouredjerkin,ArticleNo.14marooncolouredcap(Kantopi),Article No.15marooncolouredfullpant,ArticleNo.16whitecolouredhalf shirt,ArticleNo.17UnderwearofLuxCompany,ArticleNo.18Blue

(116)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

colouredjeanspant,ArticleNo.19halfTshirt,ArticleNo.22Under wearofLaxCompany,andArticleNo.24photocopiesofdocuments pertainingtoIndicacar,beingworthless,bedestroyedafterperiodof appealisover. [viii] Article No.11 Mobile handset and Article No. 20 two

mobilehandsetsrecoveredfromaccusedNo.2,beauctionedandsale proceedsbecreditedtoGovernment,ArticleNo.21cashamountingto Rs.1070/becreditedtoGovernment,afterappealperiodisover. [ix] ArticleNos.25Goldring,ArticleNo.26Wristwatchof TitanCompany,ArticleNo.27SimCardofAirtelCompany,ArticleNo. 28pairofearringsandArticleNo.29Mobilehandsetofdeceased JyotikumaribereturnedtoP .W.13Sudhakumari,afterappealperiodis over. [x] Muddemal Article No. 23 Indica Car V2 bearing

registrationNo.MH14/AH4560returnedtoitsregistered owner be retained by him on the same terms and conditions until the appeal periodisoverandthereaftertheSuperatnamabondexecutedbyhim shallstandcancelled. [xi] The proceeding shall be submitted to the Hon'ble High

Courtandsentenceofdeathshallnotbeexecuteduntilitisconfirmed bytheHon'bleHighCourt.

PUNE. Dated:20thMarch,2012.

Se/xxx (A.M.BADAR) SessionsJudge,Pune.

(117)

(Sessions Case No.284/2008)

"IaffirmthatthecontentsofthisP .D.F.fileJudgmentaresame wordforwordasperoriginalJudgment. NameofSteno :B.D.Wabale,PersonalAssistant. CourtName :SessionsJudgePune Date :22032012. Judgmentsignedbypresidingofficeron:20032012. Judgmentuploadedon:22032012.