{"id":83503,"date":"2010-10-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-09-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dinesh-son-of-ramraj-yadav-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-1-october-2010"},"modified":"2016-04-15T20:54:42","modified_gmt":"2016-04-15T15:24:42","slug":"dinesh-son-of-ramraj-yadav-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-1-october-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dinesh-son-of-ramraj-yadav-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-1-october-2010","title":{"rendered":"Dinesh Son Of Ramraj Yadav vs The State Of Maharashtra on 1 October, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Dinesh Son Of Ramraj Yadav vs The State Of Maharashtra on 1 October, 2010<\/div>\n
Bench: A. H. Joshi, Prasanna B. Varale<\/div>\n
                                  1\n            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n\n\n\n                                                                    \n                      NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR\n\n                 Criminal Appeal No.130 of 2004\n\n\n\n\n                                            \n                              With\n                 Criminal Appeal No.343 of 2004\n                              With\n                 Criminal Appeal No.403 of 2004\n\n\n\n\n                                           \n     [A} Criminal Appeal No.130 of 2004 :\n\n     Dinesh son of Ramraj Yadav,\n     aged about 19 years,\n\n\n\n\n                                \n     resident of Naik Nagar,\n     Nagpur.                                 ....           Appellant.\n                   ig        Versus\n                                                            [In Jail]\n                 \n     The State of Maharashtra,\n     through P.S.O.,\n     Sitabuldi, Nagpur.                      ....          Respondent.\n      \n\n\n                                 *****\n   \n\n\n\n     Mr. R.M. Daga, Adv., for the appellant.\n\n     Mr. V.A. Thakre,    Addl.     Public    Prosecutor            for      the\n     respondent.\n\n\n\n\n\n                             *****\n\n\n\n     [B} Criminal Appeal No.343 of 2004 :\n\n\n\n\n\n     Ajay alias Rajesh son of\n     Shivprasad Sakhare,\n     aged about 26 years,\n     resident of Chinchbhavan,\n     Nagpur.                                 ....           Appellant.\n                                                            [In Jail]\n\n                             Versus\n\n\n\n\n                                            ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 16:30:06 :::\n                                   2\n\n     The State of Maharashtra,\n\n\n\n\n                                                                     \n     through P.S.O.,\n     Sitabuldi, Nagpur.                       ....          Respondent.\n\n\n\n\n                                             \n                                 *****\n\n     Mr. R.M. Daga, Adv., for the appellant.\n\n\n\n\n                                            \n     Mr. V.A. Thakre,    Addl.     Public     Prosecutor            for      the\n     respondent.\n                             *****\n\n\n\n\n                                \n     [A} Criminal Appeal No.403 of 2004 :\n\n     The State of Maharashtra,\n                  \n     through Police Station\n     Officer, Police Station,\n     Sitabuldi,\n                 \n     Nagpur.                                  ....           Appellant.\n                                                             [In Jail]\n\n                             Versus\n      \n\n\n     Ajay alias Rajesh son of\n   \n\n\n\n     Shivprasad Sakhare,\n     aged about 26 years,\n     resident of Chinchbhavan,\n     Nagpur.                                  ....          Respondent.\n\n\n\n\n\n                                 *****\n\n     Mr. V.A. Thakre,    Addl.     Public     Prosecutor            for      the\n     Appellant.\n\n\n\n\n\n     Mr. R.M. Daga, Adv., for the respondent.\n\n                             *****\n\n                                 CORAM   :     A.H. JOSHI AND\n                                               P.B. VARALE,JJ.\n<\/pre>\n
                          Reserved on :         14th Sept. 2010.\n<\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:30:06 :::<\/span>
\n                                              3<\/span><\/p>\n
                                 Pronounced on :             01st October, 2010.\n<\/p>\n
     ORAL JUDGMENT [Per A.H. Joshi, J.]:\n<\/p>\n
     1.            Criminal Appeal Nos. 130 of 2004 and 343 of 2004<\/p>\n
     are filed by two different accused-appellants against the<\/p>\n
     order of conviction and sentence.\n<\/p>\n
                   Criminal Appeal No. 403 of 2004 is filed by the<\/p>\n
     State for enhancement of sentence awarded to accused                               Ajay<\/p>\n
     alias     Rajesh     Shivprasad       Sakhare        through        the      impugned<\/p>\n
     judgment.\n<\/p>\n
     2.            Ajay   and    Dinesh       are       Accused        Nos.1        and      2<\/span><\/p>\n
     respectively.           The Accused No.1             Ajay alias Rajesh was<\/p>\n
     charged for the murder of Rakesh Dattaji Chavan.\n<\/p>\n
                   Both   the    accused         were      further        charged         for<\/p>\n
     intentionally destroying the evidence of murder committed<\/p>\n
     by accused no.1 by disposing of the corpse of Rakesh after<\/p>\n
     cutting it into pieces, shoving those into the gunny bag<\/p>\n
     and     the   suitcase,    and    throwing      the      same     in    the     public<\/p>\n
     place.\n<\/p>\n
     3.            It is alleged that Accused No.1 murdered Rakesh<\/p>\n
     Dattaji       Chavan,    aged    30   years,    by     assaulting         him     by    a<\/p>\n
     wooden rafter, knife and              Sattoor        etc., and in order to<\/p>\n
     screen the evidence, cut the head from body, cut the body<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:30:06 :::<\/span>
\n                                         4<\/span>
\n     into pieces, shoved those into polythene bags and into a<\/p>\n
     gunny bag and disposed of the bags by throwing near Zansi<\/p>\n
     Rani Square, and destroyed or otherwise disposed of some of<\/p>\n
     the body parts, which could never be traced.\n<\/p>\n
     4.      Prosecution has examined in all 23 witnesses.\n<\/p>\n
     5.      PW 7      Sau. Pushpabai Mahadeorao Bilulkar is cited<\/p>\n
     as eye-witness.\n<\/p>\n
     6.<\/p>\n
             Classification of other witnesses is as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
              [a]      PW 1      Dattaji Ajabrao Chavan and PW 2
\n                       Ashabai      Dattaji    Chavan       are     the      father
\n                       and mother of deceased respectively.                      PW
\n                       2      Ashabai         Chavan      has      lodged       the<\/p>\n
                       complaint.      They    are     examined         to   prove<\/p>\n
                       that   deceased        had    disappeared          from     a
\n                       particular date.\n<\/p>\n
              [b]      PW 3        Warulu Wadku Kosare is examined<\/p>\n
                       to prove that he has sharpened                   Sattoor
\n                       and delivered to police                Sattoor         which
\n                       was brought back to him by the accused.\n<\/p>\n
              [c]      PW 4        Megha Chandrabhanji Shende, PW 5
\n                           Vinod    Krushnaji       Kangale       and     PW 6
\n                       Amol   Rameshrao        Umare      are     examined        to
\n                       prove the circumstance of their having
\n                       seen   the     accused       in     the     company        of
\n                       deceased         immediately               prior           to<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:30:06 :::<\/span>
\n                                 5<\/span>
\n            disappearance of the deceased.\n<\/p>\n
      [d]   PW 8 Mahesh Rasumal Lakhani and PW 9<\/p>\n
            Ajay        Vijayrao        Chakradhare           are      the
\n            shopkeepers who have sold polythene bag
\n            and     gunny      bags        respectively         to     the
\n            accused.\n<\/p>\n
      [e]   PW     10         Jayant       Vasantrao        Raich      has
\n            witnessed a quarrel between the accused
\n            and the deceased.\n<\/p>\n
      [f]
\n            PW 12        Premchand Suryadeo Chaudhari
\n            the auto rickshaw driver who took the
\n                                                                         is<\/p>\n
            gunny       bag    from     the    residence         of    the<\/p>\n
            accused to the place where it was thrown
\n            for disposal.\n<\/p>\n
      [g]   PW 13        Raju Sampat Patel, PW 18                    Abdul
\n            Rashid Mohd. Sujan Sheikh and PW 22<\/p>\n
            Madhao        Vithobaji           Kale       are         Panch
\n            witnesses         of    Spot    Panchanama,          Seizure
\n            Memorandum, Inquest etc.<\/p>\n
      [h]   PW    14          Ajabrao      Shriram       Fulzele       has
\n            registered the missing report.\n<\/p>\n
      [i]   PW 15        Dr. Suresh Shyamrao Dhakate                     is<\/p>\n
            the Radiologist who has given an opinion
\n            about the age of the deceased.\n<\/p>\n
      [j]   PW 23        Gulabrao Shriram Mahalle is the
\n            Investigating Officer.\n<\/p>\n
                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:30:07 :::<\/span>
\n                                            6<\/span><\/p>\n
               [k]      PW 16        Dr. Rajratna Tryambak Waghmare<\/p>\n
                        and PW 17          Dr. Pradeep Gangadhar Dixit
\n                        collected      sample    of     DNA     and     conducted<\/p>\n
                        Post-mortem respectively.\n<\/p>\n
     7.        Other witnesses are not significant.\n<\/p>\n
     8.        In the background of evidence of all this, the<\/p>\n
     learned Trial Judge found Accused No.1                    Ajay alias Rajesh<\/p>\n
     S. Sakhare guilty for offence punishable under Section :-\n<\/p>\n
               [a] 302 of Indian Penal             Code, and convicted
\n                     and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment
\n                     for   life      and   a   fine      of    Rs.1000\/-,          in<\/p>\n
                     default,      rigorous      imprisonment            for     one
\n                     year; and,<\/p>\n
               [b] 201 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal
\n                     Code,     and    convicted        and      sentenced          to<\/p>\n
                     undergo      Rigorous      Imprisonment            for    five
\n                     years and a fine of Rs.500\/-, in default,
\n                     Rigorous Imprisonment for six months.<\/p>\n
               As far as Accused No.2              Dinesh Ramraj Yadav is<\/p>\n
     concerned,   the   learned      Trial     Court    held      him     guilty        for<\/p>\n
     offence punishable under Section 201 read with Section 34<\/p>\n
     of Indian Penal Code, and convicted and sentenced him to<\/p>\n
     suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay a<\/p>\n
     fine Rs.500\/-, in default, Rigorous Imprisonment for six<\/p>\n
     months.\n<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:30:07 :::<\/span>
\n                                           7<\/span><\/p>\n
     9.       Heard learned Adv. Mr. R.M. Daga, Amicus Curiae,<\/p>\n
     for the appellants and learned APP Mr. V.A. Thakre for the<\/p>\n
     State.\n<\/p>\n
     10.      Learned      Adv.    Mr.   Daga       has     advanced        submissions,<\/p>\n
     stating that the evidence has to be separated into that of<\/p>\n
     eye-witnesses and circumstantial evidence.\n<\/p>\n
     11.<\/p>\n
     has   assailed<\/p>\n
              Criticizing<\/p>\n
                      the
\n                                   the<\/p>\n
                                testimony
\n                                         eye-witness,<\/p>\n
                                               of    eye-witness
\n                                                                 the     learned<\/p>\n
                                                                                   PW
\n                                                                                        Adv.,<\/p>\n
                                                                                        7<\/span><\/p>\n
     Pushpabai Bilulkar [Exh.31] on following grounds:-\n<\/p>\n
              (a)     PW 7 Pushpabai is not an eye-witness to
\n              act of assault resulting into taking away the<\/p>\n
              life of Rakesh Chavan, who is said to have been
\n              murdered.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              (b)     She       does     not        identify          the       person
\n              assaulted and killed to be Rakesh.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              (c)     Assault and killing is not proved.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              (d)     PW 7 Pushpabai claims that what she said
\n              is sound of         Khat-Khat     – cutting or beating.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              (e)     She saw that a human body was being cut
\n              into pieces.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              (f)     PW    7       Pushpabai        claims        that      she    has
\n              called her husband who too saw the incident.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:30:07 :::<\/span>
\n                                  8<\/span><\/p>\n
      (g)    She claims that she saw on the next day
\n      morning that the accused was washing the floor<\/p>\n
      of his room.\n<\/p>\n
      (h)    In the background that PW 7 Pushpabai,
\n      who claims to have seen Accused No.1 cutting<\/p>\n
      the body of a human being, she or her husband
\n      have    not   shown      the     natural       and      startling
\n      reaction.\n<\/p>\n
      (i)    PW 7       Pushpabai and her husband did not
\n      discuss ig about    what    they    have
\n      other person in the background that they admit
\n                                                     seen     with     any<\/p>\n
      that there were ten to eleven persons residing<\/p>\n
      nearby and the houses are located close by.\n<\/p>\n
      (j)    It is also admitted by the witness that<\/p>\n
      the house\/room of accused and that of PW                         7<\/span>
\n      Pushpabai      is common.          The behaviour is not<\/p>\n
      natural.\n<\/p>\n
      (k)    Admittedly,         the     room        where       accused<\/p>\n
      resides does not have electricity, and the PW 7
\n        Pushpabai       does   not     say    how     was     the     room
\n      illuminated and how was the incident visible.\n<\/p>\n
      (l)    PW 7 Pushpabai, who is an eye-witness,<\/p>\n
      was    actually    examined       by     the     Investigating
\n      Officer in the process of investigation after
\n      fifteen days of incident, which creates a doubt
\n      about her being a witness of incident.\n<\/p>\n
      (m)    It is not proved that PW 7 Pushpabai has<\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:30:07 :::<\/span>
\n                                          9<\/span>
\n              identified that one, who was being assaulted,<\/p>\n
              was deceased Rakesh.\n<\/p>\n
             (n)     Failure to examine husband of PW 7, who
\n              has   also   witnessed     the    incident,       brings      the
\n              very fact of PW 7           Pushpabai and her husband
\n              being witnesses under a grave suspicion.\n<\/p>\n
     12.     In so far as circumstantial evidence is concerned,<\/p>\n
     learned Adv. Mr. Daga has raised following points:-\n<\/p>\n
              [a]   All witnesses are stating that they have<\/p>\n
                    seen     the    accused     in    the
\n                    deceased Rakesh at various other places,
\n                                                               company        of<\/p>\n
                    however, there is no witness who claims<\/p>\n
                    that    he     had   seen   the    accused        in    the
\n                    company of the deceased at the place of
\n                    residence or at any place proximate to<\/p>\n
                    the place of residence of the accused no.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    1.<\/span><\/p>\n
              [b]   Assuming that one and all circumstances
\n                    relied       upon    by     the    prosecution            as<\/p>\n
                    circumstantial        evidence     to     connect       the
\n                    link between the offence and the accused
\n                    to be worthy and to have been proved, and
\n                    proof having remained unshattered, even
\n                    then, no live link between commission of<\/p>\n
                    offence and the accused is established.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              [c]   Considering that the clothes, which the
\n                    deceased was wearing, which were alleged
\n                    to have been identified , it is not clear
\n                    as to whether the human body, which was<\/p>\n
                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:30:07 :::<\/span>
\n                                   10<\/span>
\n            being cut, was naked, in the background<\/p>\n
            that the clothes are not having any cut
\n            marks,    and       prosecution          has      failed      to<\/p>\n
            prove     this        aspect        by     exploring          or
\n            eliciting any material in this regard in
\n            the Examination-in-Chief of this witness.
\n            Moreover, the defence had no reason to<\/p>\n
            ask questions on this point.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      [d]   In absence of proof of fact that Rakesh
\n            himself was killed, the accused cannot be<\/p>\n
            convicted      of     the    charge       framed     against<\/p>\n
            him.\n<\/p>\n
      [e]   Even if it is proved                 that the accused<\/p>\n
            person had killed some other human being,
\n            there     is     no        charge        framed     by     the
\n            prosecution         against         accused       Ajay     for<\/p>\n
            assaulting       an    unidentified            person    as    a
\n            primary charge or as an alternate charge<\/p>\n
            and, therefore, it is not open to base
\n            conviction on a charge of specific nature
\n            for murder of a person for which there is<\/p>\n
            no charge.\n<\/p>\n
      [f]   Even murder of unidentified person is not
\n            proved.\n<\/p>\n
      [g]   As there is no direct evidence, in order
\n            to     complete       the     chain       of     events       by
\n            circumstantial         evidence,          it    would      have
\n            been    necessary          for   the      prosecution         to
\n            prove the motive.                However, motive has
\n            not been proved or even suggested.\n<\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:30:07 :::<\/span>
\n                                     11<\/span><\/p>\n
              [h]   Though the blood samples reportedly drawn
\n                    from corpse were sent for DNA test, the<\/p>\n
                    report of DNA test is not proved.\n<\/p>\n
              [i]   No effort is made to prove by evidence,
\n                    whatsoever, that the corpse belonged to<\/p>\n
                    deceased   Rakesh    and     that       Rakesh       was
\n                    murdered by Accused no.1.\n<\/p>\n
              [j]   The charge pertains to assault and murder<\/p>\n
                    of Rakesh son of Dattaji Chavan, whose<\/p>\n
                    age is shown to be thirty years.\n<\/p>\n
              [k]   Radiological      opinion       cannot          be      a<\/p>\n
                    conclusive proof of age, particularly in
\n                    the light of ambiguity in the statements
\n                    of witnesses.\n<\/p>\n
              [l]   There is no direct or indirect evidence<\/p>\n
                    of involvement of Accused No.2 in any of
\n                    the acts which results in screening the
\n                    evidence of the offence.\n<\/p>\n
              [m]   The case   falls in the category               of      no
\n                    evidence whatsoever        as regards Accused
\n                    No.2.\n<\/p>\n
     13.     To substantiate    his   arguments,        learned       Adv.      Mr.<\/p>\n
     R.M. Daga placed reliance on following judgments:-\n<\/p>\n
     [a]     Kochu Maitheen Kannu Salim Vs. State of Kerala
\n             [1998 Cri. L.J. 2277].\n<\/p>\n
                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:30:07 :::<\/span>
\n                                           12<\/span><\/p>\n
           Proposition :\n<\/p>\n
                      When the eye-witness does not inform
\n           till   next    day        evening       that     the     victim       had
\n           disappeared, despite the fact that he had seen
\n           that the victim was accompanying the accused,<\/p>\n
           and claims to have witnessed the assault, this
\n           conduct being unnatural, raises a serious doubt
\n           that the witness has really seen the incident.\n<\/p>\n
     [b]   Kailas   Tukaram          Patil     &   another       Vs.    State      of<\/p>\n
           Maharashtra [2006 ALL MR (Cri) 86].\n<\/p>\n
           Proposition :\n<\/p>\n
                      In absence of proof of fact that the
\n           blood sample was drawn from the corpse, the<\/p>\n
           matching      of        the   blood     group       found      on     the
\n           clothes of the deceased with blood group of the<\/p>\n
           deceased, does not prove the fact that the said
\n           blood really was the blood of the deceased.\n<\/p>\n
     [c]   State of Maharashtra Vs. Bittu @ Gurumitsingh
\n           son of Sardar Singh Makan & ors. [2006 ALL MR
\n           (Cri) 1058].\n<\/p>\n
           Proposition :\n<\/p>\n
                      Finding            of    human      blood        does      not
\n           constitute         an     incriminating          circumstance           to
\n           convict the accused, unless it is proved that
\n           the blood so found matches with the blood group
\n           of the deceased,<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:30:07 :::<\/span>
\n                                           13<\/span><\/p>\n
     [d]        Shankarlal      Gyarasilal      Dixit        Vs.      State       of
\n                Maharashtra [AIR 1981 SC 765].\n<\/p>\n
                Proposition :\n<\/p>\n
                          In    a    case     based    on     circumstantial<\/p>\n
                evidence,      due   to     cumulative      effect       of     the
\n                circumstances, the guilt of the accused is to
\n                be   established     beyond     a   shadow       of    doubt      in
\n                contrast with direct evidence where the doubt<\/p>\n
                has to be reasonable.\n<\/p>\n
     14.        Learned APP has argued that the dead body, which<\/p>\n
     was constructed after arranging the parts in sequence,                            was<\/p>\n
     a beheaded corpse.        Considering the evidence in the form of<\/p>\n
     clothes,   and    chain    of   other     evidence       which      constitutes<\/p>\n
     circumstantial evidence read together with testimony of PW<\/p>\n
     7     Pushpabai, it is a case where the offence charged has<\/p>\n
     been proved.     The age of the corpse matches with the age of<\/p>\n
     the deceased Rakesh and, therefore, prosecution has proved<\/p>\n
     the charge which was framed against accused.                          It is not<\/p>\n
     necessary that in every case the corpse must be proved in<\/p>\n
     its integrity.\n<\/p>\n
     15.        Learned   Addl.      Public    Prosecutor        Mr.     Thakre        has<\/p>\n
     tried to support the judgment and appealed for enhancement<\/p>\n
     of the sentence, urging that :-\n<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:30:07 :::<\/span>
\n                                        14<\/span><\/p>\n
              [1]     The offnece is heinous.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                       \n              [2]     It is proved by eye-witness.\n              [3]     The commission of offence is brutal that\n\n\n\n\n                                               \n<\/pre>\n
                      the person has been killed and cut into
\n                      pieces.\n<\/p>\n
              [4]     The act of cutting into pieces the dead
\n                      body is not only brutal, but is aimed at<\/p>\n
                      destroying the evidence.\n<\/p>\n
     16.     Learned APP, therefore, urged for enhancement of<\/p>\n
     the punishment from that of life imprisonment to capital<\/p>\n
     punishment.\n<\/p>\n
     17.     To     support   his    submissions,   learned       APP     placed<\/p>\n
     reliance on following judgments:-\n<\/p>\n
     [a]     Annareddy Sambasiva Reddy & ors. Vs. State of<\/p>\n
             Andhra Pradesh [(2009) 12 SCC 546],<\/p>\n
             Proposition :\n<\/p>\n
                         Any defect in charge could not vitiate<\/p>\n
             the     sentence   if    ingredients   of     the     Section
\n             under which the accused is charged are obvious
\n             and implicit.\n<\/p>\n
     [b]     Ram Gulam Chaudhary & ors. Vs. State of Bihar
\n             [(2001) 8 SCC 311],<\/p>\n
             Proposition :\n<\/p>\n
                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:30:07 :::<\/span>
\n                                         15<\/span><\/p>\n
                       Even if corpus deliciti is not found,<\/p>\n
           and    if     there    is     direct        or     circumstantial
\n           evidence conclusively showing that the accused<\/p>\n
           had committed murder and the victim had died,
\n           the accused can be convicted.\n<\/p>\n
     [c]   Nathuni     Yadav     &     ors.    Vs.     State       of     Bihar     &<\/p>\n
           another [(1998) 9 SCC 238].\n<\/p>\n
           Proposition :\n<\/p>\n
                       Proof of motive cannot be expected in<\/p>\n
           the<\/p>\n
           every criminal case, since as to how mind of
\n                  accused        has     worked        in      a        particular
\n           situation may not be capable of proof by direct<\/p>\n
           evidence,      and    drawing        an    inference           in    that
\n           regard is permissible.\n<\/p>\n
     [d]   Ashok Kumar Chatterjee Vs. State of M.P. [1989<\/p>\n
           Supp (1) SCC 560].\n<\/p>\n
           Proposition :\n<\/p>\n
                       If the circumstantial evidence relied
\n           upon by the prosecution is cogent and it firmly
\n           establishes      the        charge        and    the     same        does
\n           unerringly      point       towards        the     guilt       of     the<\/p>\n
           accused,       and     if     the        circumstances              taken
\n           cumulatively         and    form     a     chain        of     complete
\n           events, a conclusion with human probabilities
\n           can be reached that the accused had committed
\n           offence. Thus, if the accused is well connected
\n           with    the     commission         of      offence       by      entire<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:30:07 :::<\/span>
\n                                         16<\/span>
\n           sequence       of     evidence       forming       circumstantial<\/p>\n
           evidence, it would be legal to base conviction
\n           solely on circumstantial evidence.\n<\/p>\n
     [e]   Ranbir & others Vs. State of Punjab [(1973) 2
\n           SCC 444].\n<\/p>\n
           Proposition :\n<\/p>\n
                         Delay    in    examination          of    a     witness,<\/p>\n
           unless put to Investigating Officer, and he is<\/p>\n
           offered an opportunity to explain, should not
\n           adversely affect the prosecution case as to its
\n           credibility,          though    it     would       indicate        some<\/p>\n
           unfairness in regard to mode of investigation.
\n           Such delayed examination would not by itself
\n           lead to a conclusion that the witness, subject-\n<\/p>\n
           matter, is a got up witness.\n<\/p>\n
     [f]   State    of     Maharashtra          Vs.     Shankar        Krisanrao
\n           Khade [2009 Cri. L.J. 73];\n<\/p>\n
                                          AND,<\/p>\n
     [g]   State    of    Maharashtra        Vs.      Rajendra         Pralhadrao
\n           Wasnik [2009 ALL MR (Cri) 1403].\n<\/p>\n
           Proposition :\n<\/p>\n
                         As in present case, when the accused
\n           has committed offence of murder by cutting the
\n           neck,    and    then        brutally       cut    the       body    into
\n           pieces        and     attempted         to       commit        murder,
\n           collective      effect       thereof       results       in    showing<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:30:07 :::<\/span>
\n                                          17<\/span>
\n                that the accused has no regard, whatsoever, for<\/p>\n
                human values, and has shown brutality, and in
\n                the result, conviction ought to follow capital<\/p>\n
                sentence, and the accused deserves no leniency.\n<\/p>\n
     18.        Now, this Court has to proceed to assess and re-\n<\/p>\n
     appreciate the evidence relied upon by the prosecution in<\/p>\n
     the light of law cited by both sides which this Court has<\/p>\n
     perused.\n<\/p>\n
     19.<\/p>\n
     witness,
\n                If<\/p>\n
                the
\n                      the  igcase   stands<\/p>\n
                          circumstantial
\n                                              well<\/p>\n
                                              evidence
\n                                                      on    testimony<\/p>\n
                                                            will    assume
\n                                                                              of    eye-\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                 lesser<\/p>\n
     significance, though discussion thereof would be necessary.\n<\/p>\n
     20.        The witness, who can be said to have                      last seen<\/p>\n
     the accused persons with the deceased, as well has seen the<\/p>\n
     act of accused of commission of offence, is practically PW<\/p>\n
     7     Pushpabai.         Her   husband    is    also    an    eye-witness          of<\/p>\n
     commission of offence, since            prior to PW 7            Pushpabai saw<\/p>\n
     the incident, he has seen it.\n<\/p>\n
     21.        Upon going through testimonies of other witnesses,<\/p>\n
     it is seen that no witnesses are identified who could prove<\/p>\n
     that they had seen the accused and the deceased together<\/p>\n
     immediately prior to the time and place of offence, or at<\/p>\n
     any   point     of    time   proximate     to   the     date     and     time      of<\/p>\n
     offence.\n<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:30:07 :::<\/span>
\n                                          18<\/span><\/p>\n
     22.        PW 1        Dattaji Ajabrao Chavan and PW 2               Ashabai<\/p>\n
     Dattaji Chavan are not relevant for the proof of charge, as<\/p>\n
     they do not prove any connection between the crime and the<\/p>\n
     accused.\n<\/p>\n
     23.        Husband of PW 7          Pushpabai was neither examined<\/p>\n
     by Police at the time of investigation, nor even before the<\/p>\n
     Court.\n<\/p>\n
     24.<\/p>\n
                Therefore, this Court has to discuss the testimony<\/p>\n
     of PW 7     Pushpabai, sole eye-witness of the incident.\n<\/p>\n
     25.        It would be useful to quote relevant statements of<\/p>\n
     PW 7       Pushpabai in her Examination-in-Chief and cross-\n<\/p>\n
     examination       ad    verbatim,   and   appreciate        its      effect.\n<\/p>\n
     Relevant text reads as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
                 2.      ………………………………..\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                ……….On the day of incident, deceased
\n                Rakesh came at the room of accused Ajay, at
\n                about 8.00 a.m. I saw him. Thereafter I left
\n                my house for my usual work. I returned to my
\n                home in the evening at about 7.00 p.m. When I
\n                returned to my house, I saw that deceased<\/p>\n
                Rakesh and accused Ajay both were sitting in
\n                front of the door of their room.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                         Thereafter, I saw that deceased Rakesh
\n                and Ajay both were proceeding towards the
\n                lodging house, perhaps to take their meals, but
\n                exactly where they went I am not aware of it
\n                but they went in my presence.     Thereafter we
\n                also took our meals and after observing the
\n                T.V. Programme for few times, we went asleep.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                         In the night at about 10.30 p.m. I<\/p>\n
                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:30:07 :::<\/span>
\n                          19<\/span>
\n      heard certain sound as Khat, Khat i.e., of
\n      beating or cutting something.\n<\/p>\n
               The sound was coming from the room of
\n      accused Ajay.\n<\/p>\n
               Because of the said sound, my husband<\/p>\n
      also woke up and he went outside the house to
\n      see of what the sound was.\n<\/p>\n
               Then my husband again came back in the
\n      house and from some portion of the window which
\n      is fixed in the wall in between my room and the<\/p>\n
      room of accused Ajay.\n<\/p>\n
               My husband saw that accused no.1 was
\n      cutting a human body.    There was a sattur in
\n      the hands of accused Ajay and with that sattur
\n      he was cutting the human body.\n<\/p>\n
               Thereafter from the same window I also<\/p>\n
      peeped into the room of accused Ajay and saw
\n      that accused Ajay was cutting one human body<\/p>\n
      with the aid of Sattoor.\n<\/p>\n
               Thereafter we went to sleep.    In the
\n      morning we saw that accused Ajay was washing
\n      the floor of his room.\n<\/p>\n
               Thereafter, at about 9.00 a.m., I went
\n      to my work.   Usually, I returned from my work
\n      in the evening.    When I came back I saw that
\n      accused Ajay and accused Dinesh were standing
\n      in front of their room.\n<\/p>\n
               They were having one gunny bag filled
\n      with   some   substance,   and   one  suitcase.
\n      Thereafter they hired one auto.\n<\/p>\n
               They kept the gunny bag and their
\n      suitcase in the auto and by sitting in the said
\n      auto both the accused went away.\n<\/p>\n
               Though I and my husband had seen the
\n      accused cutting human body in his room, we did<\/p>\n
      not make any report of it or did not inform it
\n      regarding it to anybody as we were afraid of
\n      its consequences and we were afraid of the
\n      accused. …..\n<\/p>\n
       3.      ………………………………..\n<\/p>\n
      ……….It is true that there was no electric
\n      connection in the room of accused Ajay. It is
\n      not true to say that there are no electric
\n      connection even in the adjacent houses.\n<\/p>\n
               It is not true to say that on the day
\n      of incident I did not see deceased Rakesh with
\n      accused Ajay.\n<\/p>\n
               It is true that the window in the wall
\n      in between my room and room of accused Ajay
\n      used to be always closed.\n<\/p>\n
                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:30:07 :::<\/span>
\n                          20<\/span><\/p>\n
               I was on talking terms with all 10 to
\n      12 persons who residing around my house. It is<\/p>\n
      true that though we heard the beating and
\n      cutting sound from the room of accused Ajay we
\n      did not inform regarding it to the persons<\/p>\n
      residing in the adjacent houses.\n<\/p>\n
               It is not true to say that on the day
\n      of incident even I did not see accused Ajay.
\n      It is further not true to say that at that
\n      time, accused had gone to his work.\n<\/p>\n
               I am unable to tell as to how many
\n      persons were there at the room of accused Ajay
\n      at the time of incident.   Ajay and two others
\n      total 3 persons were residing in the room of
\n      accused Ajay. …..\n<\/p>\n
                ……………………………….
\n      ……….It is true that when I used to reach<\/p>\n
      at my home, there used to be dark. It is true
\n      that as there was no electric connection in the
\n      room of accused Ajay, there was dark in front
\n      of room of accused Ajay.    It is true that as<\/p>\n
      there was dark in front of room of accused Ajay
\n      it was not clearly visible what was going on in
\n      front of door.\n<\/p>\n
               On the next day of the incident, one
\n      another boy was accompanying accused Ajay but I<\/p>\n
      was not knowing his name.\n<\/p>\n
               While    police   had    recorded   my
\n      statement, I did not give description of the<\/p>\n
      said boy to the police.\n<\/p>\n
               I am also unable to tell which clothes
\n      the said boy was wearing.    It is not true to
\n      say that on the second day except Ajay I have
\n      not seen any other person with him and hence I<\/p>\n
      am unable to tell his description.\n<\/p>\n
               I cannot tell who was the autowala. I
\n      even cannot give his description.\n<\/p>\n
               At that time, empty vacant auto-
\n      rickshaw was brought by the accused persons.\n<\/p>\n
               Nobody was occupying the said auto<\/p>\n
      when it was brought by the accused. I am not
\n      aware of the name of accused no.2. …..\n<\/p>\n
               ………………………………..
\n      ………On the second day, one person was
\n      accompanying accused Ajay when he went in auto-
\n      rickshaw with gunny bag and suitcase but who he
\n      was I am not aware of it.\n<\/p>\n
               It is not true to say that no such
\n      incident took place on second day.     After 15
\n      days of the incident, the police recorded my<\/p>\n
                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:30:07 :::<\/span>
\n                                                 21<\/span>
\n                statement. ……\n<\/p>\n
     [Sub-paragraphing is done for convenience of reading.
\n     Relevant and important portions are underlined to highlight<\/p>\n
     the same. Quoted from page nos. 85 to 90 of the appeal
\n     paper-book].\n<\/p>\n
     26.        The   summary        of    testimony       of     PW    7         Pushpabai<\/p>\n
     Bilulkar can be referred, in nutshell, as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
                            On the day of incident, she saw the
\n                accused and deceased together in the morning,<\/p>\n
                and    again    in        the     evening.      Thereafter,          her
\n                husband saw in the room of accused that the<\/p>\n
                accused persons were cutting a human body.                              PW
\n                7     Pushpabai too saw the same thing.                       She did<\/p>\n
                not disclose to anybody whatever she had seen.
\n                On    the   next      day       morning,      she      saw     accused
\n                carrying       one        gunny      bag   filled        with      some
\n                material, in an auto-rickshaw.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                Substance      of     the       cross-examination            of    PW     7<\/p>\n
     Pushpabai is:-\n<\/p>\n
                            There was no electricity supply, and
\n                she     also        tells         about      the       details          of
\n                neighbouring occupants etc.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
     27.        It would be useful to analyze the testimony of PW<\/p>\n
     7     Pushpabai, which is quoted by marking sub-paragraphs,<\/p>\n
     and is summarized in foregoing paras. This analysis would<\/p>\n
     help to know whether she proves the involvement of accused<\/p>\n
     persons.\n<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:30:07 :::<\/span>
\n                                        22<\/span><\/p>\n
     28.   PW 7    Pushpabai admits the following:-\n<\/p>\n
           [a]    Relevant time was 10.30 p.m.<\/p>\n
           [b]    It was dark.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           [c]    Her    husband       heard    the       sound       of    Khat-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  Khat . Soon thereafter, her husband went
\n                  outside the room. He came back and saw
\n                  through some space of the window between<\/p>\n
                  the room occupied by them and the room
\n                  where accused no.1 was residing.
\n                   ig           Her husband saw that the accused
\n                  was cutting a human body.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           [d]    Either PW 7            Pushpabai or her husband
\n                  do not identify the person being cut to
\n                  be live or dead, and it to be the body of<\/p>\n
                  the deceased.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           [e]    PW 7          Pushpabai cannot tell how many
\n                  persons were there in the room when the
\n                  accused was cutting the body into pieces.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           [f]    PW     7      Pushpabai           and         her        husband
\n                  peacefully went to sleep.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           [g]    They    did    not    disclose          the    incident       to
\n                  anybody either on that day, or the next
\n                  day morning.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           [h]    PW 7 Pushpabai cannot identify the auto-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  rickshaw      driver,        in   whose        vehicle      the<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:30:07 :::<\/span>
\n                                         23<\/span>
\n                      gunny bag etc., were taken away by the<\/p>\n
                      accused.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               [i]    She does not identify the accused no.2.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               [j]    She    claims         that     her     statement          was
\n                      recorded after fifteen days.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               [k]    It is seen that the statement of PW 7
\n                      Pushpabai       was    actually        recorded        after
\n                      one-and-half          month     from     the     date      of<\/p>\n
                      incident.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
     29.<\/p>\n
               Analysis of testimonies of various witnesses, who<\/p>\n
     are examined to prove chain of circumstances to prove that<\/p>\n
     the   accused   must    have    committed        the    offence,        which      is<\/p>\n
     referred to by this Court in foregoing para 6, can be done<\/p>\n
     as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
               [a]    PW 3          Warlu Wadku Kosare                a witness
\n                      from whom Ajay got the Sattoor sharpened.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                      Anyalysis        and         observation        of       this
\n                      Court :-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                    In absence of proof of fact, by
\n                      direct or circumstantial evidence, that
\n                      accused is the assailant,                  testimony of
\n                      this witness is insignificant.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               [b]    PW 4       Megha Shende, a witness of                    last<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:30:07 :::<\/span>
\n                                 24<\/span>
\n            seen    two days prior to the incident.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            Anyalysis          and     observation               of       this<\/p>\n
            Court :-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                         The    fact     if        this       witness      has
\n            seen the accused in company of deceased<\/p>\n
            two days before the incident carries no
\n            significance when PW 7                        Pushpabai has
\n            seen    the    accused           in       the     morning        of
\n            incident in company of the                      deceased.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      [c]
\n            PW 5      Vinod Kangale
\n            between accused and deceased five days
\n                                                   witness of quarrel<\/p>\n
            prior to the incident, and the accused<\/p>\n
            persons       carrying           a      gunny       bag       with
\n            something in it in the auto-rickshaw.\n<\/p>\n
            Anyalysis          and     observation               of       this
\n            Court :-\n<\/p>\n
                         Fact if this witness                     has seen
\n            the accused in company of deceased                            five<\/p>\n
            days    before       the     incident             carries        no
\n            significance when PW 7                        Pushpabai has
\n            seen    the    accused           in       the     morning        of
\n            incident with deceased.\n<\/p>\n
                         Until        Court        is       persuaded        to<\/p>\n
            believe that the accused had packed the
\n            parts   of    dead        body       in     the    gunny      bag,
\n            testimony of this witness barely proves
\n            that the accused had carried                      said      gunny
\n            bag in the         said    auto-rickshaw.\n<\/p>\n
                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:30:07 :::<\/span>
\n                               25<\/span><\/p>\n
      [d]   PW 6       Amol Umare             witness of having<\/p>\n
            seen the accused with a gunny bag in the
\n            auto-rickshaw.\n<\/p>\n
            Anyalysis        and      observation           of       this
\n            Court :-\n<\/p>\n
                          Until     Court     is       persuaded        to\n            believe that the accused had                   packed the\n            parts    of    dead     body    in     the    gunny      bag,\n<\/pre>\n
            testimony of this witness barely proves<\/p>\n
            that the accused had carried                 said      gunny<\/p>\n
            bag in the       said    auto-rickshaw.\n<\/p>\n
      [e]   PW 8       Mahesh Lakhani and PW 9                       Ajay<\/p>\n
            Chakradhare – witnesses of having sold to
\n            the accused polythene bags and a gunny
\n            bag respectively.\n<\/p>\n
            Anyalysis        and      observation           of       this<\/p>\n
            Court :-\n<\/p>\n
                          In absence of proof of fact, by<\/p>\n
            direct or circumstantial evidence, that
\n            accused is the assailant,               testimonies of
\n            these witnesses are insignificant.\n<\/p>\n
      [f]   PW 10      Jayant Raich              witness of having<\/p>\n
            seen the accused and deceased together at
\n            his    shop    and     that    the    accused        persons
\n            uttered that it is better that he [PW 10]
\n            would    meet    Rakesh,        as    he     may     not    be
\n            available henceforth.\n<\/p>\n
                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:30:07 :::<\/span>
\n                                 26<\/span><\/p>\n
            Anyalysis       and        observation           of       this<\/p>\n
            Court :-\n<\/p>\n
                         In absence of proof of fact, by
\n            direct or circumstantial evidence, that
\n            accused is the assailant,                     testimony of
\n            this witness is insignificant.\n<\/p>\n
      [g]   PW    12         Premchand          Chaudhari,            Auto-\n<\/p>\n
            rickshaw driver, who claims that he has
\n            seen both accused persons with a gunny<\/p>\n
            bag    disposing      the       same     at    Rani       Zansi<\/p>\n
            Square.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            Anyalysis       and        observation           of       this<\/p>\n
            Court :-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                         This witness can be useful if he<\/p>\n
            is    identified      to    be     the     auto-rickshaw
\n            driver who was called by accused and he<\/p>\n
            had identified the accused and also if it
\n            is    proved     that      accused        no.1       is     the
\n            assailant      by   primary        or    circumstantial<\/p>\n
            evidence.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                         Moreover,      he     admits       in    cross-
\n            examination      at      page    135     of    the    appeal
\n            paper-book that there was dark and it was<\/p>\n
            not possible for him to have a close look
\n            of    the     passengers         travelling          in    his
\n            vehicle.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      [h]   Other       witnesses      are      panch       witnesses,
\n            Police witnesses etc.,<\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:30:07 :::<\/span>
\n                                             27<\/span><\/p>\n
                       Anyalysis        and            observation           of       this
\n                       Court :-\n<\/p>\n
                                  In absence of proof of fact that
\n                       accused    is    the        assailant          by    direct       or
\n                       circumstantial            evidence,          testimonies          of<\/p>\n
                       these witnesses are insignificant, as in
\n                       themselves           or         in      isolation,           these
\n                       witnesses       do        not        prove    commission          of
\n                       offence.\n<\/p>\n
     30.<\/p>\n
              Admittedly, any Test Identification Parade has not<\/p>\n
     been conducted.\n<\/p>\n
     31.      It is also seen that the prosecution has failed to<\/p>\n
     prove that the blood group of the corpse is not proved and,<\/p>\n
     therefore, the prosecution is not able to prove that the<\/p>\n
     blood group found on the alleged weapon of assault belongs<\/p>\n
     to blood group of the deceased.                    Moreover, DNA test is not<\/p>\n
     proved   and the blood group is not proved to be that of the<\/p>\n
     deceased.\n<\/p>\n
     32.      It is not explained as to why the statement of<\/p>\n
     husband of PW 7 Pushpabai who had witnessed the incident,<\/p>\n
     was not recorded.\n<\/p>\n
     33.      Pertinently        enough,          statement            of     even      anyone<\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:30:07 :::<\/span>
\n                                            28<\/span>
\n     amongst the neighbours was not either recorded or anyone<\/p>\n
     from them has come forward.\n<\/p>\n
     34.      PW    23          Gulabrao      Shriram        Mahalle      admits        that<\/p>\n
     statement of PW 7 Pushpabai was recorded on 27th August,<\/p>\n
     2001 after the accused gave a statement.\n<\/p>\n
     35.      Therefore,        this     Court    has        to    record     a    finding<\/p>\n
     that:-\n<\/p>\n
              [a]
\n                      ig (i)        The solitary eye-witness – PW 7<\/p>\n
                         Pushpabai fails to prove that she is a
\n                         truthful        eye-witness         to     prove      charge
\n                         that corpse of person seen by her being
\n                         cut      into        pieces         was     of      Rakesh.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                         Considering totality of her version, her
\n                         conduct         of     keeping       silence       even      on<\/p>\n
                         seeing a brutal act of cutting a human
\n                         body    into     pieces        is    unnatural.            Her
\n                         conduct is unnatural all the more when<\/p>\n
                         her husband first saw it, later she saw
\n                         it, but in a thickly populated locality,
\n                         they do not disclose it to anyone and
\n                         peacefully sleep and go for work on the<\/p>\n
                         next    day,     and    keep    quiet      for one-and-
\n                         half-month till police come forward.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                         (ii)       She has not proved that Accused
\n                         No.2 was accompanying the Accused No.1
\n                         during whatever she had witnessed.                       PW 7
\n                           Pushpabai is, therefore, not an eye-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:30:07 :::<\/span>
\n                                           29<\/span><\/p>\n
                      witness,        nor       is    a     worthy           witness.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                      Facets        of     her       testimony          noted      in
\n                      Paragraph No. 28 render her status as an<\/p>\n
                      eye-witness totally doubtful.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                      (iii)         In    the     result,        the    charge     is
\n                      not proved by the eye-witness.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              [b]     Now, this Court has to decide as regards
\n                      the       weight    of    circumstantial           evidence,<\/p>\n
                      as the primary evidence in the form of<\/p>\n
                      eye-witness gets shreded.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                      (i)           Circumstantial           evidence            does<\/p>\n
                      not, in any manner, establish the link
\n                      between the accused and the crime with
\n                      consistent series of events, much less<\/p>\n
                      even with any staggered or interrupted
\n                      series of events.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                      (ii)          All     these     pieces       of        evidence
\n                      are broken link which do not match one<\/p>\n
                      another        in    sequence,        whatsoever,           and
\n                      connect the accused with homicidal death
\n                      of     the     victim       Rakesh     in        the     manner
\n                      whatsoever.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     36.     In     the    result,       appeal      of    the    accused-convicts<\/p>\n
     succeeds and of the State fails.                Appellants are acquitted<\/p>\n
     of the charge.\n<\/p>\n
             Accused       be     dealt     with      as     to        their     liberty<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:30:07 :::<\/span>
\n                                         30<\/span>
\n     according to law, since they are already in appeal before<\/p>\n
     this   Court   against   capital   punishment,     depending        on    the<\/p>\n
     Judgment as may be delivered in due course in Confirmation<\/p>\n
     Case No. 2 of 2009 with Criminal Appeal Nos. 58 and 275<\/p>\n
     both of 2010.\n<\/p>\n
            JUDGE                                             JUDGE\n\n\n\n\n                                   \n                                  -0-0-0-0-\n\n     |hedau|          \n                     \n      \n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n                                               ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 16:30:07 :::<\/span>\n            31<\/span>\n\n\n\n\n                                        \n                \n               \n          \n       \n      \n      \n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n                ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 16:30:07 :::<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Dinesh Son Of Ramraj Yadav vs The State Of Maharashtra on 1 October, 2010 Bench: A. H. Joshi, Prasanna B. Varale 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Criminal Appeal No.130 of 2004 With Criminal Appeal No.343 of 2004 With Criminal Appeal No.403 of 2004 [A} […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-83503","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nDinesh Son Of Ramraj Yadav vs The State Of Maharashtra on 1 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dinesh-son-of-ramraj-yadav-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-1-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dinesh Son Of Ramraj Yadav vs The State Of Maharashtra on 1 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dinesh-son-of-ramraj-yadav-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-1-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-09-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-15T15:24:42+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"26 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dinesh-son-of-ramraj-yadav-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-1-october-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dinesh-son-of-ramraj-yadav-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-1-october-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dinesh Son Of Ramraj Yadav vs The State Of Maharashtra on 1 October, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-15T15:24:42+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dinesh-son-of-ramraj-yadav-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-1-october-2010\"},\"wordCount\":5002,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dinesh-son-of-ramraj-yadav-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-1-october-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dinesh-son-of-ramraj-yadav-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-1-october-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dinesh-son-of-ramraj-yadav-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-1-october-2010\",\"name\":\"Dinesh Son Of Ramraj Yadav vs The State Of Maharashtra on 1 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-15T15:24:42+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dinesh-son-of-ramraj-yadav-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-1-october-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dinesh-son-of-ramraj-yadav-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-1-october-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dinesh-son-of-ramraj-yadav-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-1-october-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dinesh Son Of Ramraj Yadav vs The State Of Maharashtra on 1 October, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Dinesh Son Of Ramraj Yadav vs The State Of Maharashtra on 1 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dinesh-son-of-ramraj-yadav-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-1-october-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dinesh Son Of Ramraj Yadav vs The State Of Maharashtra on 1 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dinesh-son-of-ramraj-yadav-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-1-october-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-09-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-15T15:24:42+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"26 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dinesh-son-of-ramraj-yadav-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-1-october-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dinesh-son-of-ramraj-yadav-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-1-october-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dinesh Son Of Ramraj Yadav vs The State Of Maharashtra on 1 October, 2010","datePublished":"2010-09-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-15T15:24:42+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dinesh-son-of-ramraj-yadav-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-1-october-2010"},"wordCount":5002,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dinesh-son-of-ramraj-yadav-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-1-october-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dinesh-son-of-ramraj-yadav-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-1-october-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dinesh-son-of-ramraj-yadav-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-1-october-2010","name":"Dinesh Son Of Ramraj Yadav vs The State Of Maharashtra on 1 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-09-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-15T15:24:42+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dinesh-son-of-ramraj-yadav-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-1-october-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dinesh-son-of-ramraj-yadav-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-1-october-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dinesh-son-of-ramraj-yadav-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-1-october-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dinesh Son Of Ramraj Yadav vs The State Of Maharashtra on 1 October, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/83503","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=83503"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/83503\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=83503"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=83503"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=83503"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}