Bombay High Court
Vinu Jankya Kadali vs State Of Maharashtra on 9 July, 2025
Author: Sarang V. Kotwal
Bench: Sarang V. Kotwal
2025:BHC-AS:27927-DB
WAKLE
MANOJ
JANARDHAN Manoj 903-APEAL-994-2018.doc
Digitally signed by
WAKLE MANOJ
JANARDHAN
Date: 2025.07.09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
19:29:50 +0530
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.994 OF 2018
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.4995 OF 2024
Vinu Janakya Kadali ...Appellant
V/s.
State of Maharashtra
Through Jawhar Pol. Station,
Tal. Jawhar, Dist. Palghar. ...Respondent
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1334 OF 2018
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.994 OF 2018
Vinu Janakya Kadali, Indian Citizen,
Aged- 45 years, Occ- Agriculturist,
Residing at Dabheripaiki, Holipada,
Taluka- Jawahar, Dist. Palghar, Maharashtra
At present serving sentence at
Amravati Central Prison. ...Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra
at the instance of Jawhar Police Station,
through Government Pleader, PWD Building
High Court, Bombay 400 032. ...Respondent
------
Mr. Samay Pawar, for the Appellant.
Mr. Vinit A. Kulkarni, APP for the Respondent-State.
------
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL &
SHYAM C. CHANDAK, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 01st JULY, 2025.
PRONOUNCED ON : 09th JULY, 2025.
1/25
::: Uploaded on - 09/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 09/07/2025 22:29:40 :::
Manoj 903-APEAL-994-2018.doc
JUDGMENT :
(PER SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.)
1) Present Appeal challenged the Judgment and Order dated
18/11/2017, in Session Case No.364 of 2015, passed by the Court of
learned District Judge-6th and Additional Sessions Judge, Thane.
Thereby the Appellant (“the accused”) has been convicted for
commission of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment
for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for six months, with a benefit of set off under
Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).
2) Heard Mr. Pawar, learned counsel for the accused and Mr.
Kulkarni, learned APP for the Respondent-State. Perused the record.
3) The prosecution story is that, first informant – Kalu Kadali
(PW-1), a native of Dabheripaiki, Holipada, Tal. Jawhar, Dist. Palghar,
was paternal uncle of the accused. Somi Kadali (“the deceased”) was
wife of the accused. The deceased, accused, PW-1 and others were
doing labour work at village Behadgaon, and there, they were
residing in a mango orchard, under Kumbheri (stack of grass/
makeshift hut), in the field of Mr.Gangaram Malgavi. The accused was
frequently quarreling with the deceased by suspecting her character.
2/25
::: Uploaded on – 09/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 09/07/2025 22:29:40 :::
Manoj 903-APEAL-994-2018.doc
On 16/04/2015, at 12:00 p.m., PW1, his wife Gulabi and
his brother-in-law PW4-Yashwant Pawar went to take bath in the
nearby river. At that time, they saw that the accused and the deceased
had stopped at their hut and a quarrel was going on between them.
They asked the accused and the deceased to join them, but they
refused. Therefore, PW-1 and the others went away. At about 1:30
p.m., PW-1 and others with him, returned to the place of their stay. At
that time, they found that the deceased was lying on the ground near
her hut and the accused was seated near the deceased, and possessed
a crowbar. The accused told them that he assaulted the deceased over
her both the ears (mandible region) by the crowbar and she was
dead. Therefore, PW-1 and others with him got frightened and ran
away. In the evening, at about 5 p.m. to 6 p.m., PW-1 went to the
village Sarpanch and informed him about the incident. Then, they
came at the place of their stay. At that time, they saw that the accused
had removed the body of the deceased to another place in the field.
The deceased had injuries on the mandible region. Blood was oozing
from her nose and mouth. She was dead. Meanwhile, police were
informed about the incident on the phone. Police arrived at the spot
and recorded the Report (Exh.7) of PW-1 wherein he narrated the
3/25
::: Uploaded on – 09/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 09/07/2025 22:29:40 :::
Manoj 903-APEAL-994-2018.doc
incident as above. PW-5 recorded the Occurrence Report (Exh.23).
PW-6 forwarded the Report (Exh.7) and the Occurrence Report to the
Police Station by hand with PW-5. The Report (Exh.7) was registered
at F.I.R. No.31 of 2015, under Section 302 of the I.P.C. Then PW-5
returned to the spot, carrying a torch. PW-6 recorded the Inquest
Panchnama (Exh.10) in the presence of panchas and referred the
body for postmortem. Then, in the morning, PW-6 recorded the Spot
Panchnama (Exh.11) The crowbar was lying at the spot. PW-6 seized
the same. The postmortem examination revealed that the deceased
had sustained following external and internal injuries :-
External Injuries
(i) Contusion on left cheek over mandibular area 8 cm x 1 cm.
(ii) Contusion on right cheek on mandibular area 6 cm x 1 cm.
(iii) Fracture ramus of left mandibular area.
Internal Injuries
(i) Fracture of ramus of left mandible.
(ii) Fracture at atlanto occipital joint on palpation seen, 1st and
2nd cervical vertebra fracture at body and transverse
process.
PW6 recorded the statements of witnesses and arrested
the accused on 17/04/2015. Investigation revealed that the accused
committed the murder of the deceased suspecting her character.
4/25
::: Uploaded on – 09/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 09/07/2025 22:29:40 :::
Manoj 903-APEAL-994-2018.doc
Accordingly, charge sheet was submitted before the Court of Judicial
Magistrate, First Class. In turn, the case was committed to the Court
of Sessions, at Thane.
4) To prove the charge, the prosecution examined following
witness:- PW1-Kalu Kadali, First Informant. PW2-Shantaram Budhar,
panch witness to the Inquest and Spot Panchnama. PW3-Dr.
Shashikant Awari, Medical Officer, Nashik Civil Hospital, who
conducted the postmortem examination. PW4-Yashwant Pawar, Uncle
of the accused. PW5-Bhimrao Badade, Police Head Constable, who
recorded the Occurrence Report. PW6-Dilip Thombre, the then PSI,
who conducted the investigation and filed the charge sheet.
5) The learned Judge of the Trial Court found the evidence
led by the prosecution as sufficient, cogent and reliable. Therefore,
convicted and sentenced the accused as noted above. Hence, this
Appeal.
6) With a view to appreciate the contentions that would
come from learned counsel for the accused and the learned APP, the
scrutiny of the prosecution evidence is necessary.
7) PW-1 deposed that, the accused was his cousin. The
deceased was wife of the accused. The hut of the accused was
situated at some distance from his residence. PW-1 deposed that, at
5/25
::: Uploaded on – 09/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 09/07/2025 22:29:40 :::
Manoj 903-APEAL-994-2018.doc
the time of the incident, he was going to the river to take a bath. The
accused and the deceased were waiting at the Kumbheri. The accused
had told them that on that day, he would not go to work along with
them. PW-1 deposed that, when they returned from the river, the
accused told them that he had killed the deceased. The accused was
having a crowbar. PW-1 deposed that the accused had assaulted the
deceased on her neck with the crowbar. There was bleeding from the
mouth and nose of the deceased. PW-1 deposed that, he informed the
Sarpanch about the incident. In turn, the Sarpanch informed the
incident to the police. Police visited the spot. Meanwhile, the accused
removed the body of the deceased in the agricultural land of
Mr.Malgavi. PW-1 deposed that, police recorded his Report (Exh.7).
PW-1 identified the seized crowbar used in the offence.
In the cross-examination, PW-1 admitted that on the day
of the incident, he had been to the river to take bath at about 8:00
a.m. They returned from the river at about 12:00 noon. He admitted
that, the deceased was lying at a distance of five minutes from the
village. He himself had not gone to the Sarpanch. He volunteered that
one village boy had phoned the Sarpanch. But, he admitted that he
did not state that fact in the Report (Exh.7). He admitted that,
6/25
::: Uploaded on – 09/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 09/07/2025 22:29:40 :::
Manoj 903-APEAL-994-2018.doc
immediately the Sarpanch phoned the police. He admitted that, there
was heavy bleeding from the mouth of the deceased and there were
blood stains on the ground. PW-1 denied that he falsely deposed that
the accused told him that he killed the deceased. He denied that, the
accused was not present at the spot of the incident. He denied that,
since the deceased was demanding her share in their house, he, his
wife and his wife’s brother killed the deceased and falsely implicated
the accused in this case.
8) PW-4 deposed that, Gulabi Kadali was his sister. PW-1 was
husband of Gulabi. The deceased was his niece and the accused was
his nephew. PW-4 deposed that, at the time of incident, he was doing
labour work at Bhelpada. The accused, the deceased, PW-1 and
Gulabi were also working with him. PW-4 deposed that, the accused
was suspecting the fidelity of the deceased. He deposed that, on the
day of incident, at about 1.30 p.m., he, PW-1 and Gulabi had been to
the river. At that time, they called the accused and the deceased. The
accused and the deceased were quarreling with each other under the
makeshift hut. He deposed that, the accused inflicted crowbar blows
on both the ears of the deceased and caused her injuries. The
deceased was lying on the ground and blood was oozing from her
7/25
::: Uploaded on – 09/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 09/07/2025 22:29:40 :::
Manoj 903-APEAL-994-2018.doc
nose. He deposed that, the accused was seated by the side of the
deceased. He deposed that, the accused told them that he killed the
deceased by means of the crowbar. He identified the said crowbar. He
deposed that, the accused threatened them with the crowbar.
Therefore, he, PW-1 and Gulabi ran away. He informed the incident to
the village Sarpanch. The police recorded his statement.
In the cross-examination, PW-4 admitted that he had not
personally witnessed the incident of assault on the deceased by means
of the crowbar. He could not assign any reason as to why the fact that
the accused threatened them with the crowbar is not mentioned in his
statement before the police. He admitted that, he has not stated
before the police as to in whose presence and at what time the
accused told them the said fact of the assault. He admitted that,
before they returned from the river, the village Sarpanch had
informed the incident to the Jawhar police station. He denied that, he
deposed false that the accused told them that he had assaulted the
deceased by means of the crowbar. He denied that, he, PW-1 and
Gulabi killed the deceased on account of a land dispute. He denied
that, as the accused questioned them about the same, therefore, they
deposed false against him.
8/25
::: Uploaded on – 09/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 09/07/2025 22:29:40 :::
Manoj 903-APEAL-994-2018.doc 9) PW-2 deposed that, on 17/04/2015 police had called him
at the spot, in the agricultural land of Mr. Malgavi, at Behadgaon. The
body of the deceased was lying at the spot with injuries over her neck
and ears. There, the police showed him the body. He deposed that,
the police recorded the Inquest Panchnama in his presence. He
deposed that, then the police visited at the spot. The crowbar was
lying at the spot. The police recorded the Spot Panchnama and seized
the crowbar in his presence. He deposed that, the Accused was
present at the spot at the time of the Panchnama.
In the cross-examination, PW-2 stated that, before signing
the Panchnama, he was readover the same. The Inquest Panchnama
was recorded between 2:00 a.m. to 2.45 a.m. and the Spot
Panchnama was recorded between 9.30 a.m. to 10.00 a.m. He stated
that, the accused was resident of the village Dabheripaiki – Holipada.
He admitted that, crowbar like the seized crowbar was available with
every farmer. He denied that, both the Panchnamas were prepared in
the Police Station and he signed the same, there.
10) PW-3 deposed that, on 17/04/2015, at about 11:00 a.m.,
the dead body of the deceased was brought to the hospital by ASI-
Thombre. He held the postmortem examination on the body of the
9/25
::: Uploaded on – 09/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 09/07/2025 22:29:40 :::
Manoj 903-APEAL-994-2018.doc
deceased and noted the aforesaid external and internal injuries on her
body. He deposed that, the cause of death of the deceased was
neurogenic shock due to injury to vital organ and spinal cord by a
hard and blunt object. Accordingly, he issued the postmortem report
(Exh.19). He deposed that, the said injuries were possible by the
seized crowbar.
In the cross-examination, PW-3 admitted that the
aforesaid injury to spinal cord was possible due to a fall on hard
surface of stone. He admitted that, the injuries mentioned in the
postmortem report were possible due to falling from a tree and that,
instant death is possible on account of the said injuries.
11) PW-5 deposed that, on 16/04/2015 he was working as
Police Naik and was present at Jawhar Police Station. He deposed
that, after receiving the information of the incident, he and other
police visited the spot in the agricultural land of Mr. Malgavi. The
accused was found seated at the side of the deceased. The spot of the
incident was at about 500 mtrs. distance from the river. He deposed
that, PW-6 recorded the Inquest Panchnama. He deposed that, he
prepared the Occurrence Report (Exh.23). Thereafter, the dead body
was handed over to Police Naik- Nandu Gaikwad for the postmortem
10/25
::: Uploaded on – 09/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 09/07/2025 22:29:40 :::
Manoj 903-APEAL-994-2018.doc
examination. He deposed that, then PW6 recorded the Spot
Panchnama.
In the cross-examination, PW-5 admitted that, on
16/04/2015, he was on duty for 24 hours from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.
of the next day. He admitted that, there is interpolation in the time
and date of the incident, mentioned in the Occurrence Report. He
stated that he was present at the time of the Inquest Panchnama and
the Spot Panchnama. He admitted that, at the time of the Spot
Panchnama, the accused was told to sit elsewhere, hence, it is not
mentioned therein that the accused was found seated near the
deceased. He denied that, he has deposed false that the spot of the
incident was at the distance of 500 mtrs. from the river. He denied
that, he has deposed false that accused was found seated at the side
of the deceased and he was having the crowbar.
12) PW-6 deposed that, on 16/04/2015, he was present on
duty in the Police Station. At that time, he received a telephonic
information of this incident from village Behadgaon. Thereafter, he
proceeded to the spot alongwith PW-5, Police Naik Mr. Patil and other
police staff. They reached at the spot at about 8.00 p.m. The spot was
situated in the agricultural land of Mr. Malgavi. The deceased was
11/25
::: Uploaded on – 09/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 09/07/2025 22:29:40 :::
Manoj 903-APEAL-994-2018.doc
lying there dead. The Accused was seated there. He deposed that, he
inquired with the relatives and there itself he recorded the Report
(Exh.7) of PW-1. Then he sent the Report to the Police Station
alongwith the forwarding letter (Exh.27) with PW-5. Accordingly, this
crime was registered. He deposed that, then PW-5 returned to the
spot carrying a torch. He deposed that he recorded the Inquest
Panchnama in the torch light and handed over the dead body to
Police Constable Mr.Gaikwad for the postmortem. He deposed that he
apprehended the accused on the spot, took him to the Police Station
and then arrested him under the Arrest Form (Exh.28). He deposed
that, thereafter he again visited the spot and recorded the Spot
Panchnama in the presence of two panchas. The crowbar was lying on
the spot. He seized the same. He deposed that, he recorded the
statements of the witnesses and collected the postmortem report. He
deposed that, the investigation revealed that the accused committed
the murder of the deceased as he was suspecting her character.
Hence, he submitted the charge sheet.
In the cross-examination, PW-6 admitted that he received
the phone call about the incident from the Sarpanch Budhar, at about
7:00 p.m. He admitted that he did not take entry of the said phone
12/25
::: Uploaded on – 09/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 09/07/2025 22:29:40 :::
Manoj 903-APEAL-994-2018.doc
call. He admitted that he did not record the names of the persons who
apprehended the accused on the spot. He admitted that, the accused
was not present at the spot at the time of the Spot Panchnama. He
admitted that, no blood stains were found at the spot of the incident.
He admitted that there were no blood stains on the crowbar. He did
not send the crowbar for C.A. He denied that, he recorded a false
Report (Exh.7). He denied that, he wrongly investigated this crime
and filed a false charge sheet against the accused.
13) Assailing the aforesaid evidence, Mr. Pawar, the learned
counsel for the accused submitted that there is a material
inconsistency in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. He
pointed out that as stated in the Report (Exh.7), PW-1 and others
went to the river at about 12.00 noon and returned at about 1.30
p.m. and at that time they saw the incident. However, as admitted by
PW-1, they had been to the river at about 8:00 a.m. and returned
from the river at about 12:00 noon. But PW-4 deposed that, he, PW-1
and Gulabi had been to the river at about 1:30 p.m. and at that time
they saw the incident. PW-1 did not depose that his wife Gulabi and
PW-4 were with him when he went to the river. He submitted that
PW-1 did not depose that he called the accused and the deceased and
13/25
::: Uploaded on – 09/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 09/07/2025 22:29:40 :::
Manoj 903-APEAL-994-2018.doc
that, they were quarreling with each other. He submitted that,
although PW-1 and PW-4 claimed that, they found the deceased dead
in the noon time and at that time, the accused had told them that he
killed the deceased, they did not immediately inform the said fact to
the village Sarpanch or any other responsible person. The Report is
silent as to the fact of threatening by the accused by showing the
crowbar. He submitted that, PW-1 admitted that immediately the
Sarpanch had phoned the police. PW-4 admitted that, before they
returned from the river, the village Sarpanch had informed the
incident to the Jawhar police station. But according to PW-6, he
received the said information at about 7.00 p.m. on 16/04/2015 and
thereafter he proceeded to the spot and arrived at the scene at about
8:00 p.m. He submitted that according to PW-1 and PW-4, blood was
oozing from the mouth and the nose of the deceased. But PW-6
admitted that no blood stains were found at the spot nor on the
crowbar, allegedly used to assault. He submitted that, the fact that the
accused was found seated near the dead body, is not recorded in the
Inquest Panchnama nor in the Spot Panchnama. Said fact is also
negated by the arrest of the accused on 17/04/2015, at about 7.15
a.m.
14/25
::: Uploaded on – 09/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 09/07/2025 22:29:40 :::
Manoj 903-APEAL-994-2018.doc
Therefore, Mr. Pawar, the learned counsel emphatically
submitted that the claim of PW-1 and PW-4 is doubtful that they saw
the accused and the deceased together; that, at that time the couple
was quarreling; that, when PW-1, PW-4 and Gulabi returned from the
river, they saw that the deceased was lying dead on the spot; that,
there were injuries on her body; and that, the accused was seated at
the side of the dead body. Thus, in short, Mr.Pawar urged that the
prosecution has failed to prove the chain of circumstances, leading to
the hypothesis that, except for the accused no other persons has
committed the murder.
14) In contrast, Mr.Kulkarni, the learned APP submitted that
when PW-1, his wife Gulabi and PW-4 went to the river to take bath,
they saw that the accused and the deceased were together and they
were engaged in a quarrel. Both were asked to come to the river but
they refused and soon thereafter, the witnesses saw the deceased
dead. This all occurred within a short duration. The accused was
seated near the body of the deceased and he was having the
crowbar. That apart, immediately, the accused confessed the crime
before PW-1 and PW-4 which is natural in such cases, as PW-1 and
PW-4 were related to the accused. Therefore, the conclusion is
15/25
::: Uploaded on – 09/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 09/07/2025 22:29:40 :::
Manoj 903-APEAL-994-2018.doc
inescapable that only the accused committed the murder of the
deceased as he was suspecting her character. As such, the conviction
and sentence is lawful.
15) We have considered the rival submission. Admittedly,
there is no direct evidence showing that the accused has committed
the murder of the deceased. Therefore, the prosecution has been
depending on circumstantial evidence to prove the murder.
16) As held in the case of Sujit Biswas vs. State Of Assam
reported in AIR 2013 SC 3817, “… In a criminal trial, suspicion no
matter how strong, cannot and must not be permitted to take the
place of proof. This is for the reason that the mental distance between
“may be” and “must be” is quite large, and divides vague conjectures
from sure conclusions. In a criminal case, the Court has a duty to
ensure that mere conjectures or suspicion do not take the place of
legal proof. The large distance between “may be” true and “must be”
true, must be covered by way of clear, cogent and unimpeachable
evidence produced by the prosecution, before an accused is
condemned as a convict, and the basic and golden rule must be
applied. In such cases, while keeping in mind the distance between
“may be” true and “must be” true, the Court must maintain the vital
16/25
::: Uploaded on – 09/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 09/07/2025 22:29:40 :::
Manoj 903-APEAL-994-2018.docdistance between mere conjectures and sure conclusions to be arrived
at, on the touchstone of dispassionate judicial scrutiny, based upon a
complete and comprehensive appreciation of all features of the case,
as well as the quality and credibility of the evidence brought on
record. The Court must ensure, that miscarriage of justice is avoided,
and if the facts and circumstances of a case so demand, then the
benefit of doubt must be given to the accused, keeping in mind that a
reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely probable
doubt, but a fair doubt that is based upon reason and common sense.”
It is further laid down that, “In a case of circumstantial
evidence, the Judgment remains essentially inferential. Inferences are
drawn from established facts, as the circumstances lead to particular
inferences. The Court must draw an inference with respect to whether
the chain of circumstances is complete, and when the circumstances
therein are collectively considered, the same must lead only to the
irresistible conclusion, that the accused alone is the perpetrator of the
crime in question. All the circumstances so established must be of a
conclusive nature, and consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt
of the accused.”
17) In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of 17/25 ::: Uploaded on - 09/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 09/07/2025 22:29:40 ::: Manoj 903-APEAL-994-2018.doc
Maharashtra reported in AIR 1984 SC 1622, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court held that, “Graver the crime, greater should be the standard of
proof”. In Kali Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in AIR
1973 SC 2773, the Hon’ble Supreme Court enunciated that , “Another
golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of
justice in criminal cases is that, if two views are possible on the
evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused
and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the
accused should be adopted. This principle has a special relevance in
cases wherein the guilt of the accused is sought to be established by
circumstantial evidence”.
18) Keeping in mind the aforesaid settled legal propositions,
we have considered the prosecution evidence in the case in hand. The
following circumstances emerged from the evidence, on the strength
of which the prosecution has claimed to have proved the charge :
i) The accused and deceased were last seen together.
ii) At that time they were quarreling with each other.
iii) Within short time thereafter, the deceased was found dead at
the spot, with the injuries on her body.
iv) The accused failed to explain the death of the deceased in his
custody.
v) The crowbar was seized from the spot.
18/25
::: Uploaded on - 09/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 09/07/2025 22:29:40 :::
Manoj 903-APEAL-994-2018.doc
vi) The medical evidence proved the injuries and its cause.
vii) Immediately after the incident, the accused confessed to have
assaulted the deceased with the crowbar and caused her death.
19) The internal and external injuries on the body of the
deceased clearly indicate that the said injuries were due to a violent
assault and intentionally inflicted to cause the death of the deceased.
PW-3 deposed that the said injuries were possible by the crowbar. The
deceased died due to the neurogenic shock produced by the said
injuries. Therefore, clearly the death of the deceased was homicidal.
20) The evidence of PW-1 and PW-4 is consistent that when
they were going to the river to take a bath, at that time, they saw that
the accused and the deceased were together present under the
makeshift hut. PW-4 specifically deposed that, at that time, they
called the accused and the deceased, but, they were quarreling with
each other. Further, the PW-1 and PW-4 consistently deposed that
when they returned from the river, they saw that the deceased was
lying dead on the ground and there were injuries on the body of the
deceased. PW-4 deposed that, the accused was found seated near the
body of the deceased and he possessed the crowbar. Further, PW-1
and PW4 deposed that when they arrived at the spot, the accused told
them that he killed the deceased with the crowbar. The aforesaid
19/25
::: Uploaded on – 09/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 09/07/2025 22:29:40 :::
Manoj 903-APEAL-994-2018.doc
evidence is corroborated with the Report (Exh.7), medical evidence of
PW-3 and the seizure of the crowbar from the spot. Nothing material
has emerged in the cross-examination of PW-1 and PW-4 to disbelieve
their said testimony. The accused has not explained as to why both
PW-1 and PW4 have deposed against him. Therefore, there is no
hurdle to accept the evidence of the said witnesses.
21) The deceased was last seen in the company of the accused
and thereafter, within short time, she was found dead in his company
and at the same place of their makeshift residence. It is not the
defence of the accused that, at the time of the incident, he was not
present at the spot or he was elsewhere. No other person had any
reason to commit the murder of the deceased. The evidence of PW-1
and PW-4 shows that the accused was found seated to the side of the
deceased. However, the accused has not explained as to how the
deceased sustained the said injuries, died shortly after they were last
seen together and why he had not informed the incident to police
immediately. As such, the accused has not discharged his burden
under Section 106 of the Evidence Act.
22) PW-4 has specifically deposed that the accused was
suspecting the fidelity of the deceased. This evidence went
20/25
::: Uploaded on – 09/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 09/07/2025 22:29:40 :::
Manoj 903-APEAL-994-2018.doc
undisputed in the cross-examination. The evidence does not show
that the accused caused the death of the deceased on account of a
grave and sudden provocation and in a fit of anger. On the contrary,
the accused assaulted a helpless woman, selectively, on the vital parts
of the body.
23) In the backdrop, we hold that the accused was doubting
the character of the deceased, and therefore, the accused only
committed the murder of the deceased by assaulting her with the
crowbar.
24) No doubt, there is some inconsistency in the evidence of
PW-1 and PW-4 as to the timings when the accused and the deceased
were last seen together. However, said inconsistency is natural looking
at their age above sixty years, as well as their social and economical
status. Secondly, the said inconsistency is not of such a magnitude so
as to cast doubt on the entire the prosecution story. Non-collection of
the blood from the spot is also much emphasized by Mr. Pawar, the
learned counsel, but looking at the entire evidence, said short coming
in the investigation is of no avail to the accused.
25) The links in the chain of the circumstances and the
sufficiency, cogency and reliability thereof is essential to prove the
21/25
::: Uploaded on – 09/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 09/07/2025 22:29:40 :::
Manoj 903-APEAL-994-2018.doc
charge. Herein, all the circumstances established by the prosecution
are of a conclusive nature, and consistent only with the hypothesis of
the guilt of the accused.
26) In the chain of the circumstances another important
circumstance that prosecution heavily relied upon is the extra-judicial
confession of the accused. Both PW-1 and PW-4 have deposed that the
accused confessed before them that he had killed the deceased with
the crowbar. Such confession can be accepted during criminal
proceedings if it is found to be of sterling quality and in line with the
chain of evidence produced before the Court. It is no more res integra
that an extra judicial confession must be accepted with great care and
caution. There should not be any shadow of doubt on the same as due
to the self-incriminating nature of such a confession, such a piece of
evidence is generally treated as a weak piece of evidence as has been
held in Gopal Sah vs. State of Bihar reported in (2008) 17 SCC 128
and Prabhatbhai Aatabhai Dabhi vs. State of Gujarat reported in
2023 INSC 1003.
27) In the case of Sahadevan & Anr. vs. State Of Tamil Nadu
reported in (2012) 6 SCC 403, the Apex Court culled out certain
principles regarding the reliability of an extra-judicial confession. Said
22/25
::: Uploaded on – 09/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 09/07/2025 22:29:40 :::
Manoj 903-APEAL-994-2018.doc
principles are as reproduced below :
“16. Upon a proper analysis of the abovereferred judgments
of this Court, it will be appropriate to state the principles
which would make an extra-judicial confession an
admissible piece of evidence capable of forming the basis of
conviction of an accused. These precepts would guide the
judicial mind while dealing with the veracity of cases where
the prosecution heavily relies upon an extra-judicial
confession alleged to have been made by the accused.
i) The extra-judicial confession is a weak evidence by itself.
It has to be examined by the court with greater care and
caution.
ii) It should be made voluntarily and should be truthful.
iii) It should inspire confidence.
iv) An extra-judicial confession attains greater credibility
and evidentiary value, if it is supported by a chain of cogent
circumstances and is further corroborated by other
prosecution evidence.
v) For an extra-judicial confession to be the basis of
conviction, it should not suffer from any material
discrepancies and inherent improbabilities.
vi) Such statement essentially has to be proved like any
other fact and in accordance with law.”
28) In the case in hand, we have noticed that, the accused has
not seriously denied or disputed his relationship with the PW-1 and
23/25
::: Uploaded on – 09/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 09/07/2025 22:29:40 :::
Manoj 903-APEAL-994-2018.doc
PW-4. There was no enmity between PW-1, PW-4 and the accused.
They all were neighbours and doing labour work together, at the
same place. Considering their close relations, it was not unnatural
that the accused would make the confession before PW-1 and PW-4.
The accused made the extra-judicial confession immediately after the
arrival of PW-1 and PW-4 on the scene of the crime. The confession is
supported with the medical evidence as in the opinion of PW-3, the
injuries of the deceased were possible by the seized crowbar. As such,
the extra-judicial confession of the accused is of sterling quality, is in
line with the other circumstances proving his crime and thus,
inspiring confidence. Therefore, we have no hesitation to rely upon
the said confession as reproduced by the witnesses.
29) The upshot of the above discussion that the impugned
Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial
Court against the accused is based on appreciating the prosecution
evidence in its correct perspective. There is no perversity of any kind.
Hence, in our opinion, the said Judgment and Order is proper and
does not call for an interference by this Court.
30) As a result, the Appeal is liable to be dismissed. The
Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
24/25
::: Uploaded on – 09/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 09/07/2025 22:29:40 :::
Manoj 903-APEAL-994-2018.doc
With the disposal of the Appeal, the pending Interim
Applications do not survive and hence, stand disposed of.
(SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.) (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) 25/25 ::: Uploaded on - 09/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 09/07/2025 22:29:40 :::
[ad_1]
Source link