1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.655 OF 2000
Rajendra @ Raju Netrapal Walmiki ..Appellant.(Org.Accd.no.1)
Convict Prisoner No.C/11309
Yerwada Central Prison,
Pune- 411 006.
v.
The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent.
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.815 OF 2000
Rajveer @ Raju Karansingh Walmiki
ig ...Appellant.(Org.accd.no.3)
Convict Prisoner No.C/11311
Yerwada Central Prison,
Pune- 411 006.
v.
The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.917 OF 2000
Pradeep Dhondiram Salvi ...Appellants(Org. Accused no.4)
Convict Prisoner No.C/11310
Yerwada Central Prison,
Pune- 411 006
v.
The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent.
(Org. Complt.)
Mr.Arfan A. Sait Advocate Appointed For the Appellants.
Smt.R.V.Newton, APP For the Respondent/State.
CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J.
DATED : 2nd December , 2009
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:22:07 :::
2
ORAL JUDGMENT:
1 All these three appeals arise out of the judgment in Sessions Case
No.965/97 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bombay.
Said appeals are filed by the original accused nos.1,3 and 4 respectively
against the sentences awarded to them.
2 Present appellants, i.e., the accused nos.1,3 and 4 and the accused
no.2, were convicted of the offences punishable under Sections 120-B
and were sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.
1,000/- each. Accused Nos.1 and 2 were convicted for the offences
punishable under Sections 450, 397 and 398 of the I.P.C. and under
Sections 37(1-b) read with Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act and
awarded sentence of imprisonment for varying periods. Accused no.2
was also convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under
Section 394 and 307 of the I.P.C. Accused no.2 had preferred an appeal
which was dismissed long back. Therefore, now we are concerned with
these 3 appeals filed by the accused nos.1,3 and 4 only.
3 Prosecution case in brief is that P.W.1 Mrs. Beryl , her
husband P.W.2 David and their daughter P.W.3 Dr. Naomi used to reside
in flat no.1, ground floor at Jackson House, BPT Colony, Colaba,
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:22:07 :::
3
Mumbai-5. On 21.5.97 at about 5.45 a.m. the door bell of the house
rang. Presuming her maid servant Sudha at the door, P.W.1 Beryl opend
the door. At that time, a person entered into the house and showed a
piece of paper to P.W.1 Beryl and asked whether she had placed an order.
She replied in negative but at the same time said person put a knife on
her throat and knocked her down. Meanwhile 5 or 6 persons armed with
different weapons followed that person and closed the door. She shouted
for help and her husband and daughter woke up and came. One of the
culprits demanded keys of the cupboard from her husband, who refused
to give. On that, said person assaulted David with a chopper on his head
and other parts. Their daughter Naomi intervened but she was also
assaulted and several injuries were caused on her head, neck and her two
fingers, which were cut. At that stage, Mrs. Beryl ran towards the rear
door of the house and shouted for help. Due to this culprits ran away
from the front door of the house. P.W.2 David and P.W.3 Naomi were
taken to the hospital in serious injured condition. After getting
telephonic information about the incident P.W.16 PSI Pramod
Makeshwar rushed to the spot and then went to the hospital where David
was admitted. He recorded F.I.R (Exhibit 10) of Mrs.Beryl (P.W.1). On
the spot of the incident besides broken pieces of glass and broken pieces
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:22:07 :::
4
earthern pots, he also found a letter or note, Exhibit 11. That letter was
allegedly given by P.W.1 Beryl to their servant accused no.3 Rajveer @
Raju Karansingh Valmiki so that by showing that letter to the security
guard he could get entry in the house. Accused nos.1,4 and 5 were
arrested on 3.6.97; accused no.3 was arrested on 6.6.97 and accused no.2
was arrested on 8.6.1997. Three more persons, who were allegedly
involved in the said incident, could not be arrested. During the
investigation a knife was recovered on the basis of information given by
the accused no.1 Rajendra @ Raju Netrapal Valmiki and on the basis of
information given by the accused no.2 Govind, a chopper was
recovered. Clothes of David and the weapons were referred to C.A.
C.A.Reports were received. After investigation, police filed chargesheet
against the accused nos.1 to 5 and 3 absconding accused persons.
4 On the basis of charge-sheet filed by the police, Sessions
Court charged accused nos.1 to 5 for the offences of conspiracy
punishable under Section 120-B. Accused nos.1 and 2 were also charged
for different offences for which they have been convicted. On behalf of
the prosecution, in all 17 witnesses were examined.
5 To prove the evidence, prosecution mainly relied on
evidence of P.W.1 Mrs.Beryl, P.W.2 David, their daughter P.W.3
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:22:07 :::
5
Dr.Naomi and also the evidence of P.W.4 Rohit Daniel who resides in the
same building. Evidence of these witnesses goes to show that P.W. 1 to 3
were residing in the flat no.4 in Jackson House BPT Quarters while P.W.
4 Rohit was residing in flat no.2 in the same building. Accused No.3
Rajveer @ Raju and accused no.4 Pradeep were previously working as
servants at the house of P.W.1 to 3. Accused No.4 Pradeep had left the
job 1 or 2 months prior to the incident. Accused no.3 Raju had left their
job only one day before the incident. On 21.5.1997 at about 5.45 a.m.
door bell of the house of P.W.1 Mrs.Beryl rang and, therefore,
presuming that it might be their maid servant Sudha, she opened the door
but abruptly one person, who was identified as accused no.1, entered into
the house and he was followed by 5 or 6 more persons . All of them were
armed with weapons. Accused no.1 who had entered the house first
showed a piece of paper to P.W.1 Mrs. Beryl and asked whether she had
placed an order. She denied. However, abruptly accused no.1 took out
knife and put on her neck and knocked her down. Hearing her shouts,
her husband and daughter also came there. One of the culprits, who was
identified as accused no.2, demanded keys of the cupboard and on
refusal to hand over the keys, said accused no.2 assaulted P.W.2 on his
head with the chopper. Their daughter P.W.3 Naomi intervened but she
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:22:07 :::
6
was also seriously injured with the chopper. Several injuries were
sustained by P.W.2 and 3. Evidence reveals that P.W.1 Mrs. Beryl went
to the backside door and shouted for help and many persons from the
same building came out. However, being alarmed, culprits escaped from
the front door of the house. P.W.4 Rohit claims to have heard shouts and
come to the spot. According to him, he had seen three persons running
away from the house of P.W.1.
6 After the said incident, P.W.2 David and P.W.3 Dr. Naomi
were taken to the hospital. P.W.7 Dr.Anil and P.W.10 Dr. Sanjay
Kalgutkar had examined P.W.3 Dr. Naomi and proved injuries which she
had suffered in the said incident. She had suffered number of incised and
cut wounds on her head, hands and two of her fingers. All these injuries
required suturing. P.W.11 Dr. Vijaykumar examined P.W.1 David and
proved injuries suffered by him. P.W.14 Madhavan Menon was clinical
assistant of Dr. Bhagwat in Bombay Hosptial. P.W.15 Dr. Rajkumar had
also attended P.W.1 David at Bombay Hospital. These three witnesses
proved several injuries, which were suffered by P.W.2 David in the said
incident. As per the evidence of these doctors injuries suffered by P.W.2
David and P.W.3 Naomi could be caused by sharp and cutting weapons
like knife and chopper. Evidence of these witnesses was not seriously
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:22:07 :::
7
challenged as far as the incident is concerned or about the injuries
suffered by P.W.2 and P.W.3.
7 From the evidence, it is established that 5 or 6 persons had
trespassed into the house of P.W.1 to 3 with intention to commit robbery
and they were armed with weapons and they had come prepared to cause
injuries to or death of inmates for the purpose of committing offence of
robbery. In that attempt atleast one of them had caused injuries to P.W.1
and 3 with sharp and cutting weapons. Therefore, it must be held that
the offences
punishable under Section 450, 394, 397, 398 and 307 of
the I.P.C. were committed. It is also established by the prosecution that
the Deputy Commissioner of Police had issued a Notification on 28th
April, 2007 published in the gazette on 2nd May, 1997 whereby he had
under Section 37(1) and (2) of the Bombay Police Act put a ban on
carrying of any arms, weapons, etc. from 3rd May to 2nd June, 1997. It is
also proved that besides publication in the Gazette, it was actually given
publicity and, therefore, that order under Section 37(1) and (2) was in
force when the incident of this case occurred on 21.5.1997. Thus, it is
proved that culprits had violated prohibition under Section 37(1-b)
punishable under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.
8 P.W.5 Manish Sawant, who was Special Executive Officer
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:22:07 :::
8
has proved that he had held test identification parade on 26.7.1997 for
identification of five suspects. For that purpose he divided those suspects
into two groups. Test Identification Parade was held within the premises
of Arthur Road Jail. According to him, firstly three suspects alongwith 13
dummies were put to test identification parade and in second lot two
suspects with different sets of dummies were put to test identification
parade. In the first lot P.Ws. 1, 2 , 3 and 4 identified the accused nos.3
and 4, who were standing at Sr.Nos. 10 and 13 alongwith the dummies.
In the second lot all these four witnesses identified the accused nos.1 and
2, who were standing at Sr.Nos.4 and 10. He clarified that after
identification by every witness, he had offered accused persons to change
their clothes or their location in the line alongwith dummies but the
suspects had refused to change either their clothes or the location. P.W.1
Mrs.Beryl, P.W.2 David, P.W.3 Dr. Naomi and P.W.4 Rohit also proved
these facts during their evidence before the Court. While P.W. 2, 3 and
4 identified the accused nos.1 to 4 , P.W.1 identified the accused nos.2 to
4. It is material to note that she claimed to have identified the accused
no.1 during the test identification parade but during the evidence before
the Court she pointed to accused no.5 as accused no.1. However, as per
the Memorandum of Test Identification Parade prepared by P.W.5
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:22:07 :::
9
Manish, she had identified the accused no.1 and not accused no.5 during
the test identification parade. Her evidence was recorded before the
Court two years after the incident and, therefore, there could be loss of
memory due to lapse of long time. Fact remains that P.W.2, 3 and 4
identified the accused nos.1 to 4 not only during the test identification
parade but also at the time of the recording of their evidence.
9 It is material to note that accused nos.3 and 4 were in the
employment of P.W.1 prior to the incident and, therefore, they were
known to them and, therefore, their identification at the time of test
identification parade or before the Court does not itself go to establish
that they had also participated in the said attempt to commit robbery or in
the assault. Infact, none of them deposed before the Court or the Special
Executive Magistrate at the time of test identification parade that the
accused nos.3 and 4 were present at the time of incident. If they would
have been present at the time of incident, these witnesses could have
easily given the names of those persons in the F.I.R. and the statements
recorded by the police. Fact remains that in the F.I.R. lodged by P.W.1
Mrs.Beryl and the statements made by other three witnesses before the
police they had stated that the culprits were unknown persons. It is not
the case of the prosecution that the accused nos.3 and 4 had actually
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:22:07 :::
10
participated in the incident. Test identification parade was held to link
them with this crime on the ground that there was conspiracy and
charge under Section 120-B was framed against all the five persons
including absconding accused. I will deal with charge under Section
120-B at the later stage. At this stage it may be noted that it has been
proved by the prosecution that the accused nos.1 and 2 were the persons,
who were involved in the actual incident and they were identified as such
not only during the test identification parade but also during the
evidence before the Court.
10 Investigating Officer, P.W.17 PSI Abdul Rauf Mohd. Ismail
and P.W.6 Narayan, who was a panch witness, proved that on the basis
of information given by the accused no.1, the knife, Article 3 was
recovered. In the first part of the panchanama Exhibit 23 circumstances
leading to recovery of knife were recorded and Exhibit 23A is the second
part of the panchanama whereunder knife article 3 was recovered and
seized. P.W.17 PSI Abdul Rauf Ismail and P.W.8 Mohammed proved
recovery of chopper article 2 on the basis of information given by the
accused no.2 as per the panchanama Exhibit 28 and 28A. Evidence of
these witnesses could not be shattered in the cross-examination on behalf
of the accused. As per the C.A. Reports, blood group of P.W.2 David
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:22:07 :::
11
and of P.W.3, Naomi was ‘B’ and blood of the ‘B’ group was also found
on the chopper. Chopper was recovered on the basis of information given
by the accused no.2. Presence of blood group ‘B’ which could be of
P.W.2 and 3, on the chopper provides corroboration to the prosecution
story that accused no.2 had actually assaulted P.W.2 and P.W.3 with the
chopper and caused serious injuries to them. It is proved that the
accused no.1 had participated in the incident and recovery of weapon
from him, also provides corroboration against him. In view of the
evidence on record, it must be held that charges under Sections 450, 397
and 398 of the I.P.C. and under Section 37(1-b) read with Section 135 of
the Bombay Police Act were proved against the accused nos.1 and 2. It
is not necessary to deal with specific charges only against the accused
no.2.
11 Now we are left with charge under Section 120-B for which
all the present appellants/accused nos.1,3 and 4 alongwith the accused
no.2 were convicted. It is settled position of law that charge of
conspiracy can be proved by direct as well as circumstantial evidence
and most of the times, direct evidence to prove the charge of conspiracy
is not available because conspiracy is generally hatched in secrecy and
executed in dark. However even when direct evidence to prove the
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:22:07 :::
12
charge of conspiracy is not available, it is necessary for the prosecution
to establish the charge beyond the reasonable doubt for which
prosecution may rely on the circumstantial evidence. When the
prosecution relies on the circumstantial evidence, chain of all the
circumstances must be complete to rule out any hypothesis of innocence.
In the present case, there is no direct evidence of conspiracy. Prosecution
relied only on a letter or note Exhibit 11 which was allegedly given by
P.W.1 Mrs. Beryl to the accused no.3 so that he could get entry in the
house. She deposed that she had given that letter or note on the letter-
head of her husband David to the accused no.3 so that he could show it
to the security guard for getting entry. Accused no.3 had left the job day
before the incident as per the evidence. However, immediately after the
incident, note Exhibit 11 was found at the scene of the offence and it was
recovered and seized under spot panchanama. According to the
prosecution, the presence of that note, Exhibit 11 on the spot of the
incident goes to show that there must have been some conspiracy
involving the accused nos.3 and 4, who were previous employees of the
P.W.1 and that the note Exhibit 11 was given by accused no.3 to the
actual culprits so that they could get entry into the house with the help of
that note. The learned trial Court convicted the accused nos.1 to 4 for the
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:22:07 :::
13
offence of conspiracy punishable under Section 120-B only on the basis
of recovery of that note, Exhibit 11 from the scene of the offence.
Though in the cross-examination on behalf of the accused no.3, it was
never suggested by the learned defence counsel that the said note
Exhibit 11 was not given to the accused no.3, he pointed out in the
cross-examination that on the said note, name of the person to whom it
was issued was not written. The learned counsel for the appellants
vehemently contended that as per the evidence of P.W.2 number of
persons had served at their house at different times and it is possible that
this note might have been given to any of them. However, it is material
to note that as per the evidence of P.W.1, she had given this note to the
accused no.3 and this was not denied specifically during the cross-
examination and therefore, it may be held that this note might have been
given to the accused no.3.
12 This much evidence, at the most, may lead to suspicion
against the accused no.3. The suspicion, howsoever strong it may be,
can not be a substitute for the evidence to prove the offence. In the
present case, except that, said note Exhibit 11 was previously given by
P.W.1 Mrs. Beryl to the accused no.3 and at the time of incident, this
note was found on the spot of the incident. There is no other evidence to
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:22:07 :::
14
prove conspiracy or participation of the accused no.3 in the offence. It is
material to note that in the statement recorded under Section 313
Cr.P.C., no question was put about the said note Exhibit 11 to any of the
accused persons and particularly, accused no.3. In question 2, which is
almost common in respect of every accused, complete prosecution story
is put and that question itself runs in one page. However, in that
question also, there is no reference with regard to the note, Exhibit 11.
The trial Court solely relied upon the note Exhibit 11 and on the basis of
that document alone, came to conclusion that conspiracy to commit
offence was established. It is well settled position of law that any
material or circumstance, which may be used against the accused should
be put to him in the statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. so that the
accused may get an opportunity to explain the circumstances and
material against him. It is also well settled that when any material or
circumstance is not put to the accused and opportunity is not given to
him to explain that material or the circumstance, that cannot be used
against him for the purpose of conviction. In the present case, the note
Exhibit 11 was not just one of the so many circumstances to establish the
fact, it was solitary circumstance on the basis of which prosecution
sought to prove the charge of conspiracy and, therefore, this document
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:22:07 :::
15
and the finding of that document on the scene of the offence was most
vital piece of evidence. It was absolutely necessary that to put the same
to the accused in the statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. so that
he could get opportunity to explain the same. The learned counsel for the
accused/appellants vehemently contended that there could be several
circumstances in which the note, presuming that it was previously in
possession of the accused no.3, could come to the hands of any other
person. According to him, once, the accused no.3 had left the job, this
note was of no use to him. It is possible that he might have thrown it
away and it might have been picked up by somebody else. It is also
possible that some person might have mislead him and taken possession
of that letter from him or somebody might have snatched away that letter
from him and misused the same. It is not that any of these
circumstances was infact available but when the possibility of such
circumstances can not be ruled out before the said document could be
used against the accused to prove the charge of conspiracy, it was
necessary to put the facts to him under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. so that
he could explain the circumstances in which document came in
possession of the culprit who had been to the spot of the incident. No
such opportunity was given to the accused and, therefore, in view of the
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:22:07 :::
16
settled position of law, this document and the circumstances in which it
was found at the scene of the offence could not be used against him to
prove the charge of conspiracy. For the same reasons, finding of this
document could also not be used against any other accused person
because none of them was given opportunity to explain the said
document or the circumstances. Once the document Exhibit 11 is kept
aside and is not taken into consideration, there is no of evidence to
prove the charge of conspiracy against any of the accused persons and,
therefore, charge under Section 120-B must fail.
13 It also needs to be noted that while the prosecution relied
upon said note Exhibit 11 to prove the charge and to implicate accused
no.3 in the offence, there was no evidence on record to connect accused
no.4 either with the said document or with the commission of the
offence. There is no direct or circumstantial evidence against the accused
no.4. It is difficult to understand on what basis the learned trial Court
came to conclusion that charge of the conspiracy is established against
the accused no.4. Taking into consideration the evidence on record, it
must be held that even if note Exhibit 11 is taken into consideration, still
there is no material or evidence to prove the charge against the accused
no.4.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:22:07 :::
17
14 In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it must be
held that prosecution has failed to prove the charge under Section 120-B
against any of the accused persons and, therefore, accused nos.1,3 and 4,
who are the appellants before this Court, are entitled to be acquitted of
that charge.
15 For the aforesaid reasons, Criminal Appeal No.655 of 2000
filed by the Accused/Appellant No.1 Rajendra @ Raju Netrapal Walmiki
is hereby partly allowed. While his conviction and the sentence awarded
for the offences punishable under Sections 450, 397 and 398 of the
Indian Penal Code as well as for the offence punishable under Section
37(1-b) read with Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act are hereby
confirmed, conviction and the sentence awarded for the offence
punishable under Section 120-B of the I.P.C. is hereby set aside.
16 Criminal Appeal No.815 of 2000 filed by the accused no.3
Rajveer @ Raju Karansingh Walmiki as well as Criminal Appeal No.
917 of 2000 filed by the accused no.4 Pradeep Dhondiram Salvi are
hereby allowed and the order of conviction and sentence under Section
120-B of the I.P.C. against them is hereby set aside.
17 As per the statement made by the learned APP on telephonic
instructions from Mr.Sorate from Yerwada Central Prison, Pune and
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:22:07 :::
18
Mr.Bohi from Kolhapur jail, taken by Jailor Patil, accused persons have
already been released after undergoing complete sentence. Hence, no
further order about their release.
(J.H. BHATIA,J.)
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:22:07 :::