PPD
1
APEAL.746-04
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.746 OF 2004
Raju Balaram Gujrathi, ]
Aged about 42 years ]
Hindu, residing at 29-E, ]
Singhania Bldg. Ground ]
floor, Balaram Street, ig ]
Mumbai 400 007. ]
[The appellant is undergoing ]
sentence imposed upon him ]
at Nasik Jail.) ] ..APPELLANT
[Orig.Accused]
Versus
State of Maharashtra ]
(at the instance of D.B. Marg ]
Police Station). ] ..RESPONDENT.
..........
Ms.Pooja Bhojne, Advocate for the Appellant.
Mrs.U.V. Kejariwal, A.P.P. for the State.
..........
CORAM : D. D. SINHA AND
A .R. JOSHI, JJ.
DATE OF RESERVING THE
ORDER : 24TH JUNE, 2011.
DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE
ORDER : 06th SEPTEMBER, 2011
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:42:05 :::
2
APEAL.746-04
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER A.R.JOSHI,J.) :
1. Present Criminal Appeal is preferred by the appellant/accused
challenging the order dated 2nd & 5th April, 2004 passed by the
Additional Sessions Judge of City Civil & Sessions Court in Sessions
Case No.308 of 2003. By the impugned judgment and order, present
appellant/accused was convicted for the offences punishable under
Sections 449, 392, 394, 397 & 302 of Indian Penal Code. For the
offence punishable under Section 449 of IPC, he was sentenced to
suffer R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to suffer
further R.I. for 1 year. For the offence punishable under Section 392
r/w. S.397 IPC he was sentenced to suffer R.I. for 7 years and to pay
fine Rs.1000, in default, to suffer further R.I. for 1 year. For the
offence punishable under Section 394 IPC, he was sentenced to suffer
R.I. for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs.1000, in default, further R.I. for
1 year. For the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, he was
sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-.
The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. Set-off
was given to the appellant/accused for the period he is in custody i.e.
since the date of his arrest on 20.2.2003.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:42:05 :::
3
APEAL.746-04
2. In order to appreciate the rival arguments, the case of the
prosecution, in nutshell, is narrated as under :-
On 26.1.2003 at about 8:00 a.m.in Singhania Building, B
Block, Grant Road (E), Mumbai -7, the deceased Smt.Manjula Shah
was found dead in her flat and was in pool of blood. The incident took
place between 7:30 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. on that morning and it was a
case of house-trespass by the assailant and robbery of valuables like
gold jewelery. During the said incident, there was assault on the
woman and in which she died.
3. On the fateful morning at about 8:15 a.m., the maid servant
(PW-10) who used to work in the flat of the deceased woman, found
that Smt.Manjulaben was lying in the flat in pool of blood and thus
sensing seriousness of the situation, she rushed to the house of one
Ramesh Shah – brother of the deceased. At the house of Ramesh Shah
she found Mehul Shah – son of Ramesh Shah. She informed him that
Manjulaben was lying in a pool of blood in her flat. The said Mehul
Shah (PW-1) informed his other relatives and went to the flat of his
aunt Manjulaben. After noticing the situation and seeing Manjulaben
in a pool of blood and finding that the cupboard was open and
various articles were ransacked, he went to the D.B. Marg police
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:42:05 :::
4
APEAL.746-04
station and informed the Officer on duty. His statement was recorded
by the police and it was treated as the First Information Report
(Exh.6). Offence was registered against the unknown assailants for
various offences of house-trespass, robbery etc. and also for the
offence of murder during commission of such robbery.
4. PW-8 PI Shri Shyam Laxman Dhanavade was on duty at D.B.
Marg Police Station on that morning. He accompanied the
complainant (PW-1) along with other police staff to the place of
offence. He called the local medical officer and ascertained that
Manjulaben was dead. He recorded the FIR as per the information of
complainant Mehul Shah (PW-1). Inquest-cum-spot panchnama was
conducted on the spot. Photographs of the situation were taken
showing that various articles were lying scattered and the cupboard
was open. Photographs of the dead body were also taken. During the
investigation, blood stained clothes of the deceased were taken
charge of. Also during investigation locks of hairs which were found
in both the fists of deceased Manjulaben were taken charge of.
Various other articles were also taken charge of. Other samples were
collected. Dead body was sent for postmortem and postmortem report
was subsequently obtained, which is Exhibit-14.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:42:05 :::
5
APEAL.746-04
5. During the investigation, fingerprint expert Shri Hemchandra
Bane (PW-7) was called. He took various chance prints and started his
work. Admittedly, till about 20th February, 2003 there was no trace of
the assailants though probably the investigation was going on.
According to the prosecution only on 19.2.2003 there was
breakthrough in the said case. This was by way of revelation made by
the present appellant/accused by way of his alleged extra-judicial
confession before one Ramesh Shah (PW-3) (brother of deceased).
According to PW-3, the present appellant/accused who was
admittedly working as servant with deceased Manjulaben, made
extra-judicial confession mentioning that he had done away with the
deceased for the purpose of getting money. Allegedly, the
appellant/accused confessed and gave all the detailed narration as to
how the event happened on the fateful morning and how he assaulted
and killed Manjulaben. Though, allegedly such revelation was made
by the present appellant/accused on 19.2.2003 before PW-3, PW-3
went to D.B. Marg police station on the very next date i.e. on
20.2.2003, but statement of said PW-3 was recorded only on
24.2.2003 and not earlier.
6. It is also case of the prosecution that on 20.2.2003 present
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:42:05 :::
6
APEAL.746-04
appellant/accused was put under arrest on the premise that he had
made extra-judicial confession before PW-3 on earlier date i.e. on
19.2.2003. In spite of such arrest on 20.2.2003, there was no further
progress in the investigation, moreover, there was no search of the
residence of the appellant who was residing in the vicinity of
residence of the deceased in fact at the back of the said building,
under the staircase.
7.
According to prosecution, on 24.2.2003 the appellant/accused
made a voluntary statement to produce the weapon of assault and
stolen articles. Accordingly, memorandum panchnama was drawn
calling the panch witnesses including PW-6 Adi Modi. Allegedly, in
furtherance of the said memorandum panchnama (Exh.18), the
appellant/accused led police party and panchas to his house in the
same Singhania building where the deceased was residing. From his
house, he produced the knife, his shirt and his pant. Those articles
were taken charge of by the police. Thereafter the appellant/accused
took the police party and panchas to the pump-house near his room.
He opened the door of pump-house by obtaining key from his brother
and after unscrewing the switch-board of electric supply, took out one
carry-bag and produced the jewelery items – apparently six items
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:42:05 :::
7
APEAL.746-04
made of gold and eight items of Bentex Brand and one small glass
made of Silver metal. Goldsmith was called and the articles were
valued. The value was taken as Rs.45,000/-. Said articles were taken
charge of under the panchnama (Exh.18-A).
8. It is also case of the prosecution that the accused showed one
shop from where he had purchased some articles by paying
Rs.2419/-. Accused also took the police party and panchas to two
persons mentioning that he had taken loan amount from the said
persons and had repaid the said loan. According to prosecution,
detailed panchnama was drawn and respective amounts were
recovered from the shopkeeper and two other persons. Allegedly, an
amount of Rs.2419/- was recovered from the shopkeeper and amount
of Rs.14,000/- & Rs.10,000/- was recovered from the said two
persons under the panchnama. According to the prosecution, the said
amount was from the cash amount robbed by the accused from the
house of the deceased.
9. During the investigation, statements of various witnesses were
recorded including statement of maid-servant (PW-10), her minor
daughter (PW-9), a milkman (PW-11) and on completion of
investigation chargesheet was filed and the matter was committed to
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:42:05 :::
8
APEAL.746-04
the Court of Sessions. Finding the circumstantial evidence alleged
against the accused, sufficient to bring home the guilt for the offences
charged, the accused was convicted by the Sessions Court and it is the
order which is challenged in the present Appeal. Admittedly, since the
date of arrest i.e. since 20.2.2003 till date the appellant/accused is in
custody.
10. Prior to discussing the rival arguments, certain admitted
position is mentioned as under :-
[i] The entire case of the prosecution is based on
circumstantial evidence. The circumstances being accused
producing the weapon of offence, his blood stained clothesand the stolen jewelery and cash amount.
[ii] There was alleged extra-judicial confession given by the
appellant/accused to PW-3 Ramesh Shah, made on
19.2.2003 and till that time there was no clue for theinvestigating agency regarding the assailants. In fact, there
was no suspicion raised about the appellant/accused by
anybody.
[iii] The appellant/accused was at times used to work as a
servant in the house of the deceased, though, was no
permanent servant. Admittedly, he was frequently visiting
the house of the deceased for some sundry work and was
well acquainted with the relatives of deceased including::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:42:05 :::
9
APEAL.746-04PWs-1, 2 & 3.
[iv] Admittedly, death of the deceased Manjulaben was
homicidal and due to the injury sustained mainly on her
neck and other parts of the body due to sharp edged
weapon.
11. Bearing in mind the above admitted position and considering
the case of the prosecution mainly based on the alleged extra-judicial
confession and circumstance as to recovery of weapon of assault and
stolen articles at the instance of appellant/accused, much is argued
on behalf of the appellant by learned Advocate Ms.Pooja Bhojne on
these aspects. The substantive evidence of PW-3, PW-6 recovery
panch, and PW-7 a Fingerprint Expert, is required to be construed
with care and caution. The substantive evidence of other witnesses is
not of much significance in the present case considering the admitted
position mentioned above. Said other witnesses are PW-1
complainant Mehul Shah, PW-2 another relative of the deceased Shri
Hasmukh Jain and PW-4 Dr.Agrawal, who performed the postmortem.
At this stage, it must be mentioned that the homicidal death of the
deceased is not in question, considering the evidence of PW-4
Dr.Agrawal, who found injuries on the dead body, which were ante-
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:42:05 :::
10
APEAL.746-04
mortem.
12. Other witnesses are PW-6 panch witness for scene of offence
and inquest panchnama, PW-8 Investigating Officer, PW-9 minor girl
Miss.Pratiksha Hate, PW-10 maid servant of Manjulaben, mother of
PW-9 and PW-11 a milk vendor. According to PW-9 Pratiksha Hate she
stayed at the house of the deceased on the earlier night and left the
house at 7:30 a.m.. According to PW-10 maid servant, when she
reached the house of the deceased in the morning at about 8:15 a.m.
she saw the dead body of victim Manjulaben lying in a pool of blood.
According to PW-11 milkman he was at the flat of the deceased at
about 8:00 a.m. and had knocked the door of the flat but nobody
opened it.
13. As mentioned above, the case is based only on circumstantial
evidence and said circumstances are as under :-
(i) alleged extra-judicial confession of the accused
made before PW-1;
(ii) recovery of weapon of assault, blood stained
clothes, stolen articles and cash amount at the
instance of the accused;
(iii) finding of chance print of the accused on the
cupboard in the flat of the deceased.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:42:05 :::
11
APEAL.746-04
14. At this juncture, from the substantive evidence of the
Investigating Officer (PW-8) it is an admitted position that there is
nothing brought on record as to what was the investigation from the
date of offence till arrest of the appellant/accused. It is also admitted
position that though allegedly the hair samples found in the fists of
the deceased and hair samples of deceased and accused were sent for
C.A., there was no report forthcoming. Moreover, though allegedly
said samples were sent for DNA test and also an amount of
Rs.10000/- was paid for such analysis, said DNA report is not
produced during the trial and there is nothing on record as to what
had happened to such DNA test. It is also an admitted position that
though allegedly the fingerprints of the appellant/accused were taken
for sending to the Fingerprint Expert for comparison with chance
prints, no panchnama was drawn. It is also an admitted position that
the jeweler, who was allegedly called for valuation of the ornaments
allegedly recovered at the instance of the appellant/accused, is not
examined nor his statement was recorded. It is also an admitted
position that two persons who allegedly gave loan to the
appellant/accused and from whom respective amounts of Rs.14000/-
& Rs.10000/- were recovered, were not examined; so also their
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:42:05 :::
12
APEAL.746-04
statements were not recorded. This factual position is emerging from
the substantive evidence of Investigating Officer (PW-8). It is to be
ascertained whether the case of the prosecution as to alleged extra-
judicial confession and recovery of the weapon of assault and
jewelery and cash, has been established by prosecution.
15. During the arguments, learned Advocate Ms.Pooja Bhojne for
the appellant/accused pointed out that the substantive evidence of
PW-3 do not in any way inspire confidence so as to place assurance on
the alleged extra-judicial confession made by the present
appellant/accused before him. It is also argued that identification of
the jewelery items by PW-3 as the jewelery items belonging to the
deceased, is also doubtful and cannot be accepted in as much as there
is no description of any of such items given by PW-3 while giving his
statement to the police. More so, when such statement was recorded
on 24.2.2003 and by that time the ornaments were already in
possession of the police. While analyzing this argument, the conduct
of PW-3 Ramesh Shah as spelt out from his substantive evidence is
significant, according to him only on 19.2.2003 in the evening the
appellant/accused confessed before him and narrated the details as to
how he entered the house of Manjulaben, how he had done away
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:42:05 :::
13
APEAL.746-04
with her and stolen the jewelery articles. On careful perusal of the
substantive evidence of PW-3, it is revealed that on such revelation
from the accused on 19.2.2003, immediately on the next day he went
to the police station. However, admittedly his statement was not
recorded. At the cost of repetition, it must be mentioned that
according to police, his statement was recorded on 24.2.2003 and on
that day he was shown the jewelery allegedly recovered at the
instance of the accused and which he identified as belonging to the
deceased. PW-3 is silent as to why he did not give his statement to
the police immediately after 19.2.2003. He did not state that he was
in shock due to revelation made by the accused. As against such
factual position, the substantive evidence of PW-8 Investigating
Officer is to the effect that PW-3 informed him regarding the extra-
judicial confession made by the accused and on knowing such
revelation on 20.2.2003, the accused was put under arrest. According
to the I.O. PW-8, PW-3 came and informed him regarding the
confessional statement of the accused and apparently on hearing such
extra-judicial confession, PW-3 became unconscious and admitted in
the hospital on 19.2.2003. This variance in the substantive evidence
of PW-3 & PW-8 is of much significance which leads us to doubt
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:42:05 :::
14
APEAL.746-04
whether there was any extra-judicial confession by the accused on
19.2.2003 and whether there was any hospitalization of PW-3 on
knowing such shocking revelation and as to whether it was the cause
for PW-3 not to immediately give his statement to the police earlier to
24.2.2003. In other words, it must be mentioned that such story
developed by the prosecution, definitely creates a doubt as to the
authenticity of theory of extra-judicial confession and further recovery
of the ornaments and cash amounts.
16. On the aspect of authenticity or otherwise of extra-judicial
confession, following authorities are cited on behalf of the
Appellant :-
[i] AIR 1982 SUPREME COURT 1595
[Heramba Brahma and another Vs. State of Assam]
[ii] 1999 SUPREME COURT CASES (Cri) 12
[Dwarkadas Gehanmal Vs. State of Gujarat.]
17. Coming to the second argument as to alleged recovery at the
instance of the appellant/accused which is in fact the most substantial
evidence which has been greatly relied upon by the trial Court, there
are various infirmities and improbabilities i.e. to say the conduct of
the appellant/accused in keeping the weapon of offence that also
blood stained and keeping his blood stained shirt & pant at his
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:42:05 :::
15
APEAL.746-04
residence appears to be improbable. Though, as argued on behalf of
the State, it can be stated that conduct of a particular person cannot
be predicted as to how he will react in given set of circumstances, still
considering that the said articles i.e. knife and blood stained clothes,
per se incriminating if such position is established, are the articles of
such a nature that any prudent man would try to get rid of them
much less keeping them at his own house. This aspect is to be viewed
in juxtaposition of the circumstances as to the jewelery items were
allegedly found in the pump-room and inside the electric box and
admittedly the pump room was accessible to other persons apart from
the appellant/accused. The recovery of the ornaments and also the
alleged cash amount is again required to be viewed in view of
the admitted position and attaining circumstance, such as,
non-examination of the jeweler who was allegedly called for
valuation and non-examination of two persons from whom allegedly
the cash amounts Rs.14000/- & Rs.10000/- were recovered.
18. Considering the effect of evidence of panch witness (PW-6) as
to alleged recovery at the instance of the appellant accused and the
evidence of PW-3 & PW-8, in our considered view the Sessions Court
had fallen in an error in accepting such recovery as proved, thereby
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:42:05 :::
16
APEAL.746-04
holding the accused guilty for the offence of robbery and murder.
19. On the point of circumstantial evidence by way of recovery of
articles, following authority is cited on behalf of the appellant :-
[i] (2008) 3 SUPREME COURT CASES 210
[Sattatiya alias Satish Rajanna Kartalla
Vs.
State of Maharashtra]
Pointing out the ratio propounded by the said authority, it is
submitted that in order to determine the genuineness of the recovered
articles, it is relevant to consider what is the nature of place from
which the articles are recovered. In our opinion, recovery in a
particular matter is to be considered whether acceptable or not, only
on the facts of the particular case. In that view of the matter,
considering the alleged recovery of knife and clothes of the appellant/
accused from his house that also after about a month and recovery of
the ornaments from the electric box situated inside the pump-room –
a public place, are the significant aspects creating a reasonable doubt
whether there was such recovery at the instance of the appellant. This
is more so when the jeweler who allegedly valued the recovered
articles and the two persons who had allegedly given loan to the
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:42:05 :::
17
APEAL.746-04
appellant, were not examined by the prosecution.
20. Lastly, it is argued on behalf of the appellant that another
circumstance as to finding of chance fingerprint of the appellant on
the cupboard is the evidence which is not beyond doubt. In other
words, it is submitted that though PW-7 – a fingerprint expert has
been examined on this count, still the fact remains that admittedly no
panchnama was drawn by the Investigating Officer while allegedly
taking the specimen fingerprints of the accused. This position has
been accepted by the Investigating Officer (PW-8). On this aspect as
to voluntariness of the accused for taking his fingerprints or his
handwriting, following authorities are cited before us :-
[i] AIR 1986 PUNJAB AND HARYANA 174
[Sheo Narain & Anr.. Vs. Rawat & Ors.]
[ii] AIR 1952 TRAVANCORE-COCHIN 482 [FB]
[State Vs. Parameswaran Pillai]
21. By pointing out the ratios of the above cited authorities, it is
submitted that the accused cannot be compelled to give evidence
against himself and consequently without there being anything on
record as to authorization from the Court, the procedure adopted by
the police of taking fingerprint specimen of the accused raises a
doubt. Considering the submission and the ratios propounded by the
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:42:05 :::
18
APEAL.746-04
above authorities, suffice it to say that in the present matter the
procedure, adopted by the Investigating Agency for establishing that
the fingerprint of the accused were found on the cupboard, do not
inspire confidence. Otherwise also considering the accepted position
that at times the appellant/accused was visiting the house of the
victim and was doing some sundry work as a servant by way of casual
help, the evidence of fingerprint, as alleged by the prosecution, will
not be of much significance so far as establishment of the guilt for the
offence of robbery and murder is concerned.
22. In view of the above discussion, it must be said that the
Sessions Court had fallen in an error in accepting the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused
for the offences charged. Consequently the impugned judgment and
order is required to be interfered and the same is set aside resulting in
acquittal of the appellant/accused. Hence, the order :-
:: O R D E R ::
i. Criminal Appeal No.746 of 2004 is allowed;
ii. Impugned judgment and order dated 2nd & 5th April, 2004
passed by the Additional Sessions Judge of City Civil & Sessions
Court, Bombay in Sessions Case No.308 of 2003 is set aside.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:42:05 :::
19
APEAL.746-04
iii. Appellant/accused be released from jail, if not required in any
other matter.
iv. If fine amount is already paid by the accused, the same shall be
refunded to him.
(D. D. SINHA, J.)
ig (A. R. JOSHI, J.)
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:42:05 :::
