THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA. vs. KRUSHNA RAMRAO RIDDE

cnfcase3.16
1
                                         
      IN  THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL CONFIRMATION CASE NO.3 OF 2016
The State of Maharashtra
                                 ...APPELLANT 
       VERSUS             
1) Krushna s/o Ramrao Ridde
2) Achyut @ Bappa 
   @ Babu s/o Kachru Chunche
   
                                 ...RESPONDENTS
                     ...
   Mr. M.M. Nerlikar, A.P.P. for  Appellant­State.
   Mr. S.G. Ladda Advocate for Respondent No.1.
   Mr. R.G. Hange Advocate for Respondent No.2. 
                     ...
                       WITH
           CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.527 OF 2016
Krishna s/o Ramrao Ridde,
Age­22 years, Occu:Business,
R/o­Choramba, Tq­Dharur,
Dist­Beed.
                                 ...APPELLANT 
       VERSUS             
The State of Maharashtra   
                                 ...RESPONDENT
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:40 :::

cnfcase3.16
2
                     ...
   Mr. S.G. Ladda Advocate for Appellant. 
   Mr. M.M. Nerlikar, A.P.P. for Respondent­State. 
                     ...
                     WITH
             CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.507 OF 2016
Achyut @ Bappa @ Babu
s/o Kachru Chunche,
Age­23 years, Occu:Agril.,
R/o­Choramba, Tq­Dharur,
Dist­Beed.
                                 ...APPELLANT 
       VERSUS             
The State of Maharashtra   
                                 ...RESPONDENT
                     ...
   Mr. R.G. Hange Advocate for Appellant. 
   Mr. M.M. Nerlikar, A.P.P. for Respondent­State. 
                     ...
 
 
              
CORAM:   S.S. SHINDE AND
                       K.K. SONAWANE, JJ.
     DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT  : 4TH APRIL, 2017.   
    DATE OF PRONOUNCING JUDGMENT: 14TH AUGUST, 2017.
                                 
JUDGMENT [PER S.S. SHINDE, J.]: 
1.   In   Special   Child   Case   No.11   of   2015, 
learned Special Judge, Majalgaon has awarded death 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:40 :::

cnfcase3.16
3
sentence   to   both   the   accused   therein,   the 
proceedings in the said case, have been therefore 
forwarded   to   this   Court   for   confirmation   under 
Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.  
2. Pursuant   to   Production   Warrant   issued 
during the course of hearing of the Appeals and 
Confirmation Case, both the accused were produced 
by the prosecution on each date of hearing, and 
throughout   the   hearing   they   were   present   in   the 
Court Hall.
3. Both   the   accused   have   also   preferred 
separate   Appeals,   which   were   admitted   by   this 
Court, and registered as Criminal Appeal No.527 of 
2016 and Criminal Appeal No.507 of 2016.  Criminal 
Appeal No.527 of 2016 is filed by Accused No.1 ­ 
Krishna   s/o   Ramrao   Ridde,   and   Criminal   Appeal 
No.507 of 2016 is filed by Accused No.2 ­  Achyut 
@ Bappa @ Babu s/o Kachru Chunche challenging the 
Judgment and order dated 17th August, 2016, passed 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:40 :::

cnfcase3.16
4
by   learned   Special   Judge,   Majalgaon   in   Special 
Child   Case   No.11   of   2015.   The   Special   Judge, 
Majalgaon   convicted   Accused   No.1   Krishna   s/o 
Ramrao   Ridde   and   Accused   No.2   Achyut   @   Bappa   @ 
Babu s/o Kachru for the offence punishable under 
Section   449   read   with   Section   34   of   the   Indian 
Penal Code (for short "I.P. Code") and sentenced 
them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period 
of seven years and also to pay a fine of Rs.1000/­ 
each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment of 
two   months.   Accused   No.1   and   Accused   No.2   are 
further convicted for the offence punishable under 
Section 354(B) read with Section 34 of the I.P. 
Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment 
for a period of three years and also to pay fine. 
Accused Nos.1 and 2 are further convicted for the 
offence   punishable   under   Section   376(2)(i)   read 
with   Section   34   of   the   I.P.   Code   and   sentenced 
them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and 
also to pay fine. Accused Nos.1 and 2 are further 
convicted   for   the   offence   punishable   under 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:40 :::

cnfcase3.16
5
Section   4   of   the   Protection   of   Children   from 
Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and sentenced them to 
suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten 
years and also to pay fine. Accused No.1 ­ Krishna 
s/o Ramrao Ridde and accused No.2 ­ Achyut @ Bappa 
@ Babu s/o Kachru are further convicted for the 
offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 
of the I.P. Code and they are sentenced to death. 
The   above   all   sentences   of   imprisonment   are 
directed to be run concurrently. 
4. As all the matters are arising out of one 
and the same Judgment, the arguments in all the 
matters   are   simultaneously   heard   and   we   find   it 
expedient   to   decide   all   the   three   matters   by 
common   reasoning.   However,   since   the   very 
conviction   has   been   challenged   by   the   convicts, 
the only proper course would be to first decide 
the Criminal Appeals so filed by   Accused Nos.1 
and 2, for the reason that, only if the order of 
conviction   is   maintained   by   this   Court,   the 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:40 :::

cnfcase3.16
6
further   question   will   arise   whether   or   not   the 
death   sentence   awarded   by   the   trial   Court   is 
sustainable and is to be confirmed or otherwise.
5. Heard   the   learned   A.P.P.   for   the   State 
and   the   learned   counsel   appearing   for   both   the 
accused.
6. The   factual   matrix   of   the   prosecution 
case is as under:
A) The   informant   Gulab   s/o   Ismail   Shaikh 
aged about 65 years resides at village Choramba, 
Tq­Dharur,   Dist­Beed.   He   has   two   real   brothers 
namely Chand aged about 80 years and Hasan aged 
about   50   years   as   well   as   he   has   three   step 
brothers namely Rasool aged about 45 years, Husain 
aged about 41 years and Papa aged about 38 years. 
Thus   they   are   in   all   six   brothers   and   they   are 
residing separately. His real brother Chand has in 
all   three   wives.   The   name   of   first   wife   of   his 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:40 :::

cnfcase3.16
7
brother   Chand   is   Ratanbai   and   said   Ratanbai   has 
one son namely Bashir. The name of second wife of 
Chand is Mansab and said Mansab has one son namely 
Rashed   and   two   daughters   namely   Vajira   and 
Shakira.   The   name   of   third   wife   of   Chand   is 
Noorjaha   and   the   said   Noorjaha   has   one   daughter 
namely Parveen aged about 14 years. The third wife 
of   Chand,   brother   of   informant,   namely   Noorjaha 
was residing with her husband Chand and daughter 
Parveen in the field adjacent Chardari road near 
village   Choramba   and   she   was   doing   illegal 
business of selling liquor. About seven days back 
Chand had gone to his sister at village Koregaon 
as his leg was fractured. 
B) It   is   further   the   case   of   prosecution 
that, on 28th May, 2015, at about 5.30 p.m. the 
informant   and   one   Gangabhishan   Gade   were   taking 
round   in   the   field   in   which   the   house   of   his 
brother   Chand   is   situate.   At   that   time   they 
noticed that the door of house of Chand was closed 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:40 :::

cnfcase3.16
8
from   outside   latches.   At   that   time   Gangabhishan 
said   the   informant   that   he   is   thirsty.   Then 
informant   Gulab   told   Gangabhishan   that,   as   the 
house of Chand is closed by outside latches, he 
can   open   the   door   of   the   house   and   drink   the 
water.   Then   Gangabhishan   opened   the   door   of   the 
house of Chand and noticed that the wife of Chand 
namely Noorjaha aged about 55 years and daughter 
Parveen   aged   about   14   years   were   lying   in   dead 
condition. Then said Gangabhishan closed the door 
by outside latches and he told the informant in 
that   regard.   Thereafter   the   informant   and 
Gangabhishan again opened the door and entered in 
the house and they inspected the house. At that 
time the informant also noticed that the wife of 
Chand namely Noorjaha and daughter Parveen lying 
in dead condition and the clothes on their person 
were torn. After minute inspection, they noticed 
that   the   blood   was   coming   out   from   the   nose   of 
Parveen,   and   her   mouth   was   not   in   shape. 
Thereafter   they   closed   the   door   by   outside 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:40 :::

cnfcase3.16
9
latches, and they informed in that regard to other 
persons in their village. Thereafter on next day 
i.e. on 29th May, 2015, the informant had been to 
police   station   Dharur,   and   lodged   report   to   API 
Shri R.S. Sanap. Accordingly, on the basis of his 
report, API Sanap registered a Crime No.45 of 2015 
under Section 302 of I.P. Code and investigation 
of said crime was handed over to P.I. Panpatte.
C) It is further the case of the prosecution 
that   before   filing   the   complaint   by   informant 
Gulab Ismail Shaikh on 28th May, 2015, A.D. No.16 
of 2015 under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal 
Procedure was registered by P.S.O. PHC B. No.398 
of police station Dharur on the basis of report 
lodged by one Shaikh Amin s/o Shaikh Rasool, the 
nephew of deceased Noorjaha and cousin of deceased 
Parveen, and inquiry of said A.D. was handed over 
to P.I. Panpatte. In his inquiry on the same day, 
P.I.   Panpatte   send   the   corpse   of   Noorjaha   and 
Parveen   along   with   letter   to   the   Head   of   the 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:41 :::

cnfcase3.16
10
Department of Forensic Science of SRTR Hospital at 
Ambajogai   through   PHC   B.No.79   namely   Rathod   for 
keeping it in corpse room. After registering the 
Crime   No.45   of   2015   on   29th   May,   2015,   the 
Investigating   Officer   P.I.   Panpatte   went   to 
postmortem   room   of   SRTR   Hospital   and   prepared 
inquest   panchnamas   of   Noorjaha   and   Parveen,   in 
presence of panchas in the said room.  
D) After   preparing   inquest   panchnamas   of 
Noorjaha   and   Parveen   on   the   same   day,   P.I. 
Panpatte referred the dead bodies of Noorjaha and 
Parveen   along   with   letter   and   inquest   papers   to 
Head   of   Department   of   Forensic   Science   of   Swami 
Ramanand   Teerth   Rural   (SRTR)   Hospital,   Ambajogai 
for   postmortem   examination.   Accordingly,   on   the 
same day Dr. V.G. Pawar and Dr. V.B. Gholve of the 
Department of Forensics Science of SRTR Hospital, 
Ambajogai conducted postmortem examination of the 
corpse   of   Noorjaha   and   Parveen   and   issued   their 
provisional   postmortem   reports   ­   cum­   death 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:41 :::

cnfcase3.16
11
certificates with provisional opinion as to cause 
of death. At the time of postmortem examination of 
Noorjaha, they preserved viscera and blood sample 
for sending it to chemical analysis, as well as at 
the time of postmortem examination of Parveen they 
preserved   her   viscera   with   blood,   blood   for 
grouping,   pubic   hairs   and   vaginal   swab   for 
chemical analysis. After completion of postmortem 
examination, on the same day P.I. Panpatte handed 
over the dead bodies of Noorjaha and Parveen to 
Usman alias Papamiya Ismail Shaikh for burial and 
obtained   acknowledgement   in   that   regard. 
Thereafter   on   the   same   day   P.I.   Panpatte   sent 
special   report   to   Sub­Divisional   Police   Officer, 
Kaij.
E) On   29th   May,   2015,   Additional 
Superintendent of Police, Beed issued one letter 
regarding the investigation of crime No.45 of 2015 
of police station, Dharur, be handed over to Shri 
Ganesh   Gawade,  Sub   Divisional   Police   Officer, 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:41 :::

cnfcase3.16
12
Beed.   Accordingly,   on   the   same   day   Shri   Gawade 
took the investigation of crime No.45 of 2015. In 
his   investigation   on   the   same   day   the 
investigating officer Gawade issued one order to 
P.I. of police station Dharur to hand over police 
station   office   seal   to   him   for   sealing   the 
muddemal on the place of occurrence. On the same 
day,   he   visited   the   spot   and   prepared   spot 
panchnama in presence of panchas on the spot. At 
the time of preparing spot panchnama, he had taken 
in all twelve photos of the place of occurrence 
through   photographer   Amol   Chavan   Chorambekar.   At 
the   time   of   preparing   spot   panchnama,   he   seized 
blood mixed soil on the place of occurrence and 
sealed   the   same   in   bottle.   He   also   seized   the 
simple soil on the place of occurrence and sealed 
the   same   in   one   plastic   bottle,   he   seized   one 
ladies nicker having red colour as well as having 
number of stains of semen and hairs on the place 
of   occurrence.   On   the   place   of   occurrence,   the 
investigating officer Mr. Gawade also seized the 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:41 :::

cnfcase3.16
13
hairs on nicker, he seized black hairs, one small 
tiny box of lime of Rajesh company having parrot­
green colour, one intact button of Fashion company 
having white colour  and one half button, he also 
seized   in   all   small   and   big   pieces   of   bangles 
having   faint   brown   colour   on   the   place   of 
occurrence, in presence of panchas.
F) On the same day the investigating officer 
Mr.   Gawade   seized   the   clothes   on   the   person   of 
deceased   Noorjaha   at   the   time   of   postmortem 
examination   i.e.   one   Saree,   one   Petticoat   and 
blouse which were produced by PHC B.No.859 namely 
Jadhavar   under   seizure   panchnama   in   presence   of 
panchas. On the same day he seized the clothes on 
the   person   of   deceased   Parveen   at   the   time   of 
postmortem   examination   i.e.   one   punjabi   top   and 
one   punjabi   pant   which   were   produced   by   PHC   B. 
No.859   Jadhavar   under   seizure   panchnama   in 
presence of panchas. On the same day, he issued 
one   letter   to   the   Court   of   Special   Judge, 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:41 :::

cnfcase3.16
14
Majalgaon   informing   that   Section   376(2)(1)(M), 
354, 354(B) of I.P. Code, and Sections 3, 4, 5(i) 
and 6 of POCSO Act are added in Crime  No.45 of 
2015,   initially   registered   under   Section   302   of 
I.P. Code, at police station, Dharur. On the same 
day, he recorded the statement of witnesses namely 
Mehrun   Usman   alias   Papa   Shaikh,   Jaitulbi   Husain 
Shaikh,   Anis   Husain   Shaikh,   Gangabhishan   Dagduba 
Gadekar, Dharma Bapurao Gandhle and Kunjan Ashruba 
Giri.
G) On   1st   June,   2015,   the   investigating 
officer   Gawade   recorded   statement   of   witness 
namely Haribhau Shrirang Sakhrudkar. On the same 
day, he directed to PHC B.No.859 Jadhavar to carry 
seized   Articles   in   Crime   to   Chemical   Analyzer, 
Aurangabad. On 2nd June, 2015, he issued letter to 
Gramsevak   of   Grampanchayat   Office,   Choramba, 
Tq.   Dharur   for   obtaining   birth   certificate   of 
deceased minor girl Parveen. On the same day, he 
recorded   statement   of   witness   namely   Baliram 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:41 :::

cnfcase3.16
15
Mahadeo Irmale. On the same day, he recorded the 
supplementary statement of witnesses namely Mehrun 
Usman alias Papa Shaikh, Jaitulbee Husain Shaikh, 
Anis Husain Shaikh, Gangabhishan Dagduba Gadekar, 
Dharma Bapurao Gandhle and Kunjan Asruba Giri. On 
the same day, he recorded statement of witnesses 
namely   Gulab   Ismail   Shaikh,   Ramchandra   Pandurang 
Sakhrudkar and Vachisht Bhanudas Mule.
H) On   2nd   June,   2015,   the   investigating 
officer Mr. Gawade arrested both the accused. On 
the   same   day,   he   sent   seized   Articles   i.e.   the 
clothes   on   the   person   of   both   the   deceased   and 
seized   Articles   on   the   place   of   occurrence   to 
C.A.,   Aurangabad   through   PHC   B.No.859   Ganpat 
Jadhavar   along   with   his   two   letters   dated   1st 
June,   2015.   Accordingly,   on   the   same   day   PHC 
Jadhavar   carried   the   said   Articles   to   C.A., 
Aurangabad and submitted it in the said office and 
obtained   acknowledgement   in   that   regard   on   the 
copies   of   letters   issued   by   the   investigating 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:41 :::

cnfcase3.16
16
officer   Mr.   Gawade.   On   the   same   day,   the 
investigating officer Mr. Gawade referred accused 
No.1   along   with   requisition   letter   for   medical 
examination   to   medical   officer   of   Government 
Hospital at Dharur. Accordingly, on the same day, 
medical   officer   Dr.   Balasaheb   Solanke   examined 
Accused   No.1   as   per   requisition   letter.   At   the 
time   of   medical   examination   of   Accused   No.1,   he 
had   taken   the   sample   of   pubic   hairs,   sample   of 
scalp hairs, nail cutting and sample of blood of 
Accused No.1 and the same were sealed and handed 
over to police for sending to chemical analysis. 
Accordingly, he issued medical examination report 
of Accused No.1.
I) On   2nd   June,   2015,   the   investigating 
officer   Mr.   Gawade   referred   Accused   No.2   along 
with requisition letter for medical examination to 
medical officer of Government Hospital at Dharur. 
Accordingly, on the same day medical officer Dr. 
Balasaheb   Solanke   examined   Accused   No.2.   At   the 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:41 :::

cnfcase3.16
17
time   of   medical   examination   of   Accused   No.2,   he 
has   taken   the   sample   of   pubic   hairs,   sample   of 
scalp   hairs,   nail   cutting   and   blood   sample   of 
Accused No.2 and same were sealed and handed over 
to   police   for   sending   to   chemical   analysis. 
Accordingly, he issued medical examination report 
of Accused No.2.
J) On 3rd June, 2015, Investigating Officer 
issued   letter   to   the   Court   of   Special   Judge, 
Majalgaon   regarding   insertion   of   Section   376(D), 
452   of   I.P.   Code   in   Crime   No.45   of   2015   under 
Section 302, 376(2)(1)(M), 354, 354(B) of the I.P. 
Code and Sections 3, 4, 5(i), 6 of POCSO Act of 
police   station,   Dharur.   On   the   same   day,   he 
obtained birth certificate of deceased minor girl 
Parveen   from   the   Anganwadi   Sevika,   Choramba.   On 
4th   June,   2015,   he   issued   letter   to   Tahsildar, 
Dharur   for   preparing   the   map   of   the   place   of 
occurrence   through   Revenue   Circle   Inspector,   and 
to submit the same before him. On 5th June, 2015, 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:41 :::

cnfcase3.16
18
he   issued   one   letter   to   Tahsildar   Dharur   for 
obtaining   two   Government   panch   witnesses   for 
conducting panchnama. On the same day, he issued 
one order to P.I. of police station, Dharur for 
providing police station office seal for sealing 
the clothes on the person of Accused Nos.1 and 2 
at the time of incident.
K) On   5th   June,   2015,   the   investigating 
officer   Mr.   Gawade   recorded   memorandum   statement 
of   Accused   No.1   Krishna   in   presence   of   two 
Government panch witnesses regarding his readiness 
to produce the clothes i.e. shirt and pant, on his 
person allegedly wore at the time of incident, and 
thereafter the same have been concealed by him in 
his house. After recording memorandum statement of 
Accused   No.1,   on   the   same   day   the   investigating 
officer   Mr.   Gawade   recorded   the   memorandum 
statement   of   Accused   No.2   Achyut   in   presence   of 
two   Government   panch   witnesses,   regarding   his 
readiness   to   produce   the   clothes   i.e.   shirt   and 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:41 :::

cnfcase3.16
19
pant, on his person allegedly wore at the time of 
incident,   and   thereafter   the   same   have   been 
concealed by him in his house. 
L) After recording the memorandum statements 
of both the Accused on the same day, as per the 
say   of   both   the   Accused,   Police   staff   and   two 
panchas   along   with   both   the   Accused,   the 
investigating officer Mr. Gawade went to village 
Choramba   by   Government   Jeep   No.MH­23/AF­0094   and 
Government   Jeep   No.MH­23/AF­0085.   After   they 
reached at village Choramba,  firstly they went to 
the house of Accused No.1. Then they entered in 
the house of Accused No.1 along with him and then 
Accused   No.1   produced   the   clothes   which   were   on 
his person at  the time of incident i.e. pant and 
shirt,   and   the   same   were   seized   by   the 
investigating   officer   Mr.   Gawade   under   seizure 
panchnama   in   presence   of   panchas   and   same   were 
also sealed in presence of panchas. Thereafter as 
per   the   directions   of   Accused   No.2,   along   with 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:41 :::

cnfcase3.16
20
him, they entered in the house of Accused No.2, 
and then he produced one pant and shirt which were 
on   his   person   at   the   time   of   incident,   and   the 
same were seized by the investigating officer Mr. 
Gawade under the seizure panchnama, in presence of 
panchas.  
M) On 6th June, 2015, the investigating officer 
Mr.   Gawade,   directed   to   witness   namely   Baliram 
Mahadeo Irmale to remain present before Judicial 
Magistrate   First   Class   Court   at   Dharur,   for 
recording his statement under Section 164 of the 
Code of Criminal Procedure. On the same day he has 
also issued request letter to J.M.F.C. Dharur for 
recording   statement   of   witness   Baliram   Irmale 
under   Section   164   of   the   Code   of   Criminal 
Procedure. Accordingly, on the same day J.M.F.C. 
Dharur   recorded   statement   of   witness   Baliram 
Mahadeo Irmale,   and same was sealed and handed 
over to police. On the same day the investigating 
officer   Mr.   Gawade   directed   to   Ganpat   Jadhavar 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:41 :::

cnfcase3.16
21
(PHC   B.No.859),   to   carry   the   seized   Articles   to 
C.A.,   Aurangabad   and   accordingly,   he   carried 
seized Articles on 8th June, 2015, and submitted 
the same in the office of C.A., Aurangabad. On the 
same day investigating officer Mr. Gawade recorded 
the   statement   of   carrier   of   seized   Articles   to 
C.A. namely PHC Ganpat Jadhavar. 
N) On   16th   June,   2015,   the   investigating 
officer Mr. Gawade collected the map of the place 
of occurrence from the Revenue Circle Inspector, 
Dharur. On 19th June, 2015 he collected the copy 
of   P.T.R.   extract   of   the   G.P.   House   No.438   of 
village   Choramba.   On   30th   June,   2015,   he   issued 
one request letter to the Court of Special Judge, 
Dharur   to   hand   over   both   the   Accused   to 
Probationary   PSI,   R.S.   Gadve   for   taking   their 
blood   sample   for   DNA   Test.   The   said   application 
was allowed and accordingly on 1st July, 2015, the 
Probationary   P.S.I.   Shri   Gadve   obtained   the 
custody   of   both   the   Accused   from   the   District 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:41 :::

cnfcase3.16
22
Prison Officer, Beed. Then on the same day, the 
investigating officer Mr. Gawade referred both the 
Accused to medical officer of Government Hospital, 
Beed, for taking blood samples for DNA Test along 
with letter. Accordingly, on the same day medical 
officer   had   taken   blood   samples   of   both   the 
Accused   for   DNA   Test   and   same   were   sealed   and 
handed   over   to   police.   On   2nd   July,   2015   the 
investigating   officer   sent   the   sealed   blood 
samples of both the Accused to Director, Forensic 
Science Laboratory, Kalina, Santacruz, Mumbai.
O) After collecting postmortem notes of both 
the deceased, medical examination reports of both 
the Accused, C.A. Reports and after completion of 
investigation,   the   investigating   officer   Mr. 
Gawade   found   sufficient   incriminating   evidence 
against   both   the   Accused   and   therefore   he 
submitted   charge­sheet   in   the   Court   of   Special 
Judge,   Majalgaon   alleging   that   both   the   Accused 
have   committed   an   offences   punishable   under 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:41 :::

cnfcase3.16
23
Sections   302,   376(d),   376(2)(1)(M),   354,   354­B, 
449, 34 of the I.P. Code and under Section 3, 4, 
5(i) of POCSO Act.
P) The learned Judge framed the charge. The 
contents   of   the   charge   were   read   over   and 
explained to the Accused. They denied the charge 
and   claimed   to   be   tried.   The   defence   of   the 
Accused as disclosed from the cross­examination of 
the witnesses and, from their own statements under 
Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is 
that of total denial and false implication.
7. After   recording   the   evidence   and 
conducting full fledged Trial, the Special Court, 
Majalgaon convicted and sentenced both the Accused 
in a manner stated in Para 3 herein above.
8. Learned   Additional   Public   Prosecutor 
appearing for the State invites our attention to 
the   evidence   of   the   prosecution   witnesses   and 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:41 :::

cnfcase3.16
24
submits   that   the   findings   recorded   by   the   trial 
Court are in consonance with the evidence brought 
on record by the prosecution. Learned Additional 
Public Prosecutor urged that, the prosecution has 
established   beyond   reasonable   doubt   that   the 
Accused   No.1   ­   Krushna   s/o   Ramrao   Ridde,   and 
Accused No.2 ­ Achyut @ Bappa @ Babu s/o Kachru 
Chunche,   have   committed   serious   offences 
punishable under Sections 376 and 302 of the I.P. 
Code, along with other offences. It is submitted 
that   prosecution   case   is   entirely   based   on 
circumstantial   evidence.   The   prosecution   has 
brought on record all relevant and incriminating 
circumstances   which   conclusively   prove   that   all 
links   in   the   chain   are   so   complete   and 
conclusively lead to the conclusion that, Accused 
Nos.1 and 2 committed house trespass by entering 
in the house of deceased Noorjaha, used criminal 
force   with   intent   to   disrobing   her,   sexually 
assaulted on deceased Parveen, forcibly committed 
sexual intercourse on deceased Parveen and caused 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:41 :::

cnfcase3.16
25
death   of   minor   girl   Parveen   and   her   mother 
Noorjaha.   It   is   submitted   that   PW­7   Ramchandra 
deposed   in   his   evidence   that   on   the   day   of 
incident at about mid­night when he woke up for 
answering   nature's   call   and   came   out   from   his 
house, at that time he noticed that Accused No.1 
was   hurriedly   going   towards   his   field.   It   is 
submitted that the prosecution has proved chain of 
evidence so complete and not left any reasonable 
ground   for   the   conclusion   with   the   innocence   of 
Accused Nos.1 and 2, and accordingly prosecution 
has proved that in all human probability the act 
must   have   been   done   by   Accused   Nos.1   and   2.   He 
invites our attention to the medical evidence and 
submits   that   prosecution   has   convincingly   proved 
that death of Noorjaha and Parveen was homicidal. 
He   invites   our   attention   to   Para   193   of   the 
Judgment of the trial Court and submits that the 
trial   Court   upon   appreciation   of   the   entire 
evidence on record found that Accused Nos.1 and 2 
committed heinous crime of rape and murder in a 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:41 :::

cnfcase3.16
26
brutal   and   barbaric   manner.   They   committed   the 
offence   in   order   to   satisfy   their   lust   and 
forcibly raped 14 years old defence­less girl. He 
submits   that   the   modus   operandi   to   commit   the 
crime   by   resorting   to   diabolical   method   exhibit 
depravity,   degradation   and   un­commonality   of   the 
crime which had shocked the collective conscience 
of   the   community.   He   further   submits   that, 
considering the nature of offence, manner in which 
it   is   committed   and   upon   evaluating   the 
aggravating   and   mitigating   circumstances,   the 
trial Court thought it fit to award death sentence 
to   Accused   Nos.1   and   2.   Therefore   the   learned 
Additional   Public   Prosecutor   submits   that,   the 
reference   deserves   to   be   answered   in   the 
affirmative and the Appeals filed by Accused Nos.1 
and 2 deserve to be dismissed.
9 . Learned   A.P.P.   appearing   for   the   State 
in   support   of   his   submissions   made   during   the 
course of hearing placed reliance on the following 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:41 :::

cnfcase3.16
27
reported   Judgments,   in   the   cases   of   Dharam   Deo 
1
Yadav   V.   State   of   U.P. ,   Anil   alias   Anthony 
2
Arikswamy Joseph V. State of Maharashtra , Bhagwan 
3
Das   and   another   V.   State   of   Rajasthan ,   State 
4
[through   C.B.I.]   V.   Santosh   Kumar   Singh ,   Munna 
Kumar Upadhyaya alias Munna Upadhyaya V. State of 
5
A.P. ,   Hanuman   Govind,   Nargundkar   and   another   V. 
6
State of M.P. , Darga Ram alias Gunga V. State of 
7 8
Rajasthan , Narendra V. State of Karnataka , Kanda 
9
Padayachi V. State of T.N. , Shivaji alias Dadya 
10
Shankar Alhat V. State of Maharashtra , Dhananjoy 
11
Chatterjee alias Dhana V. State of W.B. , Laxman 
12
Naik V. State of Orissa   and Dasu and others V. 
13
State of Maharashtra . 
1 2014 Cri.L.J. 2371
2 AIR 2014 SC [Supp] 1160
3 AIR 1957 SC 589
4 2007 Cri.L.J. 964
5 AIR 2012 SC 2470
6 AIR 1952 SC 343
7 AIR 2015 SC 1016
8 2009 [6] SCC 61
9 AIR 1972 SC 66
10 [2008] 15 SCC 269
11 [1994] 2 SCC 220
12 [1994] 3 SCC 381
13 1985 Cri.L.J. 1933
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:41 :::

cnfcase3.16
28
10 . On   the   other   hand,   Mr.   S.G.   Ladda, 
learned   counsel   appearing   for   Appellant   in 
Criminal   Appeal   No.527   of   2016   i.e.   filed   by 
accused No.1 Krishna Ramrao Ridde, submitted that, 
the   entire   prosecution   case   rests   upon 
circumstantial   evidence   and   unless   there   is 
complete   chain   of   circumstances,   which   firmly 
establishes   each   of   the   circumstance   separately 
and   all   collectively,   no   conviction   can   be 
maintained. It is submitted that, the  prosecution 
is   required   to   prove   each   circumstance   in   the 
chain of the circumstances firmly and there should 
not   be   any   room   for   suspicion   or   doubt.   It   is 
submitted that, the evidence of last seen together 
in the present case is lacking. It is submitted 
that, even if the evidence of PW­7 Ramchandra is 
taken as it is, at the most, it can be said that, 
he   noticed   that   Accused   No.1,   on   the   day   of 
incident at about mid­night, was hurriedly going 
towards   his   field.   However,   the   same   is   not 
sufficient evidence to connect Accused No.1 or to 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:41 :::

cnfcase3.16
29
blame   him   and   hold   responsible   for   death   of 
deceased persons. He submits that after carefully 
perusing postmortem reports of both the deceased, 
it is clear that there was no evidence to suggest 
that the deaths occurred due to strangulation and 
therefore it was wrong on the part of the learned 
trial Court to hold that deaths were homicidal. He 
submits that there were no marks or injury which 
could suggest conclusive aspect of any violence on 
the dead bodies. Admittedly, no rope or any other 
string or cloth was found either at the spot or 
otherwise   collected   during   investigation.   The 
deaths   did   not   occur   due   to   throttling   or 
smothering or due to impact, injuring vital organs 
of any of the deceased. 
11. It is further submitted that the deceased 
Noorjaha and her daughter Parveen were residing in 
a   tenement   in   agricultural   land   alongwith   one 
Shaikh   Chand   who   is   the   husband   of   deceased 
Noorjaha   and   father   of   deceased   Parveen.     There 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:42 :::

cnfcase3.16
30
was none except their family resided adjacent or 
nearby   to   the   said   tenement.   Even   according   to 
prosecution,   Noorjaha   was   indulged   in   illegal 
activities.   She   was   selling   spurious   liquor 
illegally. As such, it is clear that except both 
the   deceased   and   Shaikh   Chand   no   other   persons 
were   residing   in   the   said   tenement.   It   is 
submitted that there is absolutely no evidence to 
connect   accused   No.1   or   to   blame   him   to   be 
responsible for the death of the deceased persons. 
12. It   is   submitted   that   according   to   the 
prosecution the bodies in question had undergone a 
long   process   of   decomposition.   The   postmortem 
report Exhibit­63 of deceased Noorjaha as well as 
that of Parveen Exhibit­64, both would show that 
their bodies had greenish, discoloration all over 
the body with marbling of skin. In both the bodies 
PM   lividity   were   absent.   The   eyes   thereof   were 
closed. There was no biting of the tongue. There 
were   no   marks   of   strangulation.   There   was   no 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:42 :::

cnfcase3.16
31
fracture to the thyroid cartilages. There were no 
marks   of   any   ligature.   Their   bodies   were   black. 
There was no mark of any contusion resembling to 
have covered the circumference of their necks. No 
marks of any knots were found either on the nape 
or at any part of the neck. As such there was no 
evidence to suggest that the deaths occurred due 
to   strangulation.   The   testimony   of   the   autopsy 
surgeon PW­12 does not disclose any base on the 
basis   of   which   he   formed   opinion   that   both   the 
deceased   died   due   to   manual   strangulation. 
Therefore, it was wrong on the part of the Judge 
of   the   trial   Court   to   say   that   deaths   were 
homicidal. Since the dead body parts were swollen 
therefore an endeavor was necessary to be made to 
rule   out   possibility   of   bite   by   any   reptile   or 
insect.   Not   only   this   but   the   samples   of   blood 
from the bodies had to be specifically sent for 
the   purposes   of   ascertaining   if   it   exhibits   any 
traces of reptile or insect poison.   Because due 
to   swelling   and   petrification   and   decomposition 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:42 :::

cnfcase3.16
32
the   bite   marks   were   possible   to   be   missed. 
Therefore, the Judge of the trial Court ought to 
have   been   circumspective   before   accepting   and 
ultimately relying upon the opinion of the doctor 
PW­12,   as   regards   the   manner   of   death.   It   is 
submitted that there were no marks or injury which 
could suggest conclusive aspect of any violence on 
the dead bodies. Admittedly, no rope or any other 
string or cloth was found either at the spot or 
otherwise   collected   during   the   investigation.   So 
also, it should not have been forgotten that the 
deaths   did   not   occur   due   to   throttling   or 
smothering or due to impact, injuring vital organs 
of   any   of   the   deceased.   Not   only   this   but   the 
important   aspect   which   is   prominent   in   cases   of 
death occurring due to hanging or strangulation, 
there   is   compression   of   wind   pipe,   injury   to 
epiglottis   always   occurs.   In   the   present   case, 
there   was   no   such   evidence.   The   Doctor   did   not 
whisper in any manner that he found injuries to 
the internal parts of neck.   There was no injury 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:42 :::

cnfcase3.16
33
to hyoid bone. The trial Court therefore ought not 
to   have   forgotten   that   in   all   cases   medical 
opinion has to be tested on the basis of the other 
evidence.   That   is   the   reason   as   to   why   various 
High Courts and the Supreme Court time and again 
reminded   that   the   medical   opinion   should   not   be 
accepted as a gospel truth and further that the 
medical   evidence   shall   not   be   taken   to   be 
prevailing   if   the   other   evidence   tendered   in   a 
given   case   does   not   corroborate   the   medical 
evidence. Therefore, in a trial the Judge has to 
form his independent finding on the basis of the 
entire   evidence.     Barring   the   so   called   autopsy 
reports, there is no other material to term the 
deaths to be homicidal.                
13. It   is   further   submitted   that   a   bare 
glance at both the postmortem reports would show 
that most of the contents of both these reports 
are   verbatim   as   regards   maximum   aspects   except 
injury Nos.7 and 8 in Exhibit­64 the PM reports 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:42 :::

cnfcase3.16
34
concerning   deceased   Parveen.   The   opinion   as 
regards   the   deceased   Parveen   as   spelt   in 
Exhibit­64, about the sexual intercourse was not 
to   be   accepted   at   all   for   variety   of   reasons. 
There was no semen or smegma traces or blood found 
in the vaginal cavity / canal of deceased Parveen. 
There is no finding that rupture to the hymen was 
fresh or that on touch the ruptured edges of such 
torn hymen shown any active bleeding or the edges 
were seen to be showing infiltration staining of 
blood. Admittedly, the Doctor did not spell or say 
that   the   edges   were   inverted.   There   was   no 
dissection carried to the labial folds. Swelling 
over   labial   folds   always   occurs   essentially   in 
each case of petrification. Therefore, the Doctor 
must   dissect   such   parts   to   find   traces   of   any 
injury   to   the   underneath   tissues.   There   is   no 
evidence to such an effect in the present case. It 
is   submitted   that   since   the   body   shown   marbling 
appearance and it was swollen due to decomposition 
and had become blackish all over, it was unsafe to 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:42 :::

cnfcase3.16
35
accept   the   contention   of   the   Doctor   that   there 
were   contusions   over   the   thighs   and   more 
particularly   in   absence   of   examining   underneath 
tissue of such parts. The C.A. reports concerning 
the pubic hairs, vaginal swabs would show that no 
semen   was   detected.   Even   no   blood   is   detected. 
None of the clothes which were found on the person 
of Parveen had any semen. No blood was found on 
any of the clothes of the accused No.1 matching to 
be   that   of   with   of   blood   Group­B.   There   was   no 
injury to the labia minora or clitoris or fourchet 
or the junction abridging the labial part and the 
anal part.   In view of this, and all above said 
the opinion expressed by the autopsy surgeon that 
there was forceful intercourse with Parveen had no 
base   at   all.   Thus   the   Judge   of   the   trial   Court 
fallen in error.        
         
14. It   is   further   submitted   that   the   spot 
panchnama Exhibit­38 would falsify and contradict 
the column No.7 of P.M. reports Exhibit­63 and 64. 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:42 :::

cnfcase3.16
36
If   these   documents   are   minutely   examined, 
remembering the text of spot panchnama Exhibit­38, 
it would appear that there was no pant / Salwar on 
the body of said Parveen.   There is no evidence 
that police or anyone put the said pant and tied 
its   string   any   time   after   the   spot   panchnama. 
Neither   any   panch   nor   the   Investigation   Officer 
PW­13 speaks to this effect. In the spot panchnama 
the Salwar is found lying at some distance from 
door however it is not that it was found to be 
torn at the genital region. The question therefore 
is whether any answer is given about this mystery 
by the prosecution through evidence. The answer is 
in negative.  Yet the Doctor finds a Salwar on the 
dead   body   and   spells   its   condition   that   it   was 
torn at the genital region.  Thus a serious doubt 
arises not only about the conduct of investigation 
Officer   and   also   about   the   autopsy   surgeon.   Yet 
another   mystery   is   there.   In   the   spot   panchnama 
Exhibit­38 a nicker was found lying in the room of 
the spot. Initially, when this nicker was sent to 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:42 :::

cnfcase3.16
37
C.A., the prosecution claimed the same to be of 
the deceased Noorjaha. Admittedly, the prosecution 
does not say that Noorjaha was subjected to sexual 
intercourse.   However,   without   there   being   any 
other   contrary   evidence,   the   Judge   of   the   trial 
Court took it to be that of Parveen.  In the spot 
panchnama Exhibit­38, at the place of occurrence 
which is only of one room no any other nicker was 
found.     The   real   question   in   view   of   all   above 
said, would be that if according to the Doctor the 
deceased Parveen wore a Salwar and it was on her 
person then how unless the Salwar is removed the 
nicker   could   be   taken   away   from   the   body.     The 
another compartment of the mystery and it is if 
the nicker and the Salwar were removed and thrown 
away in the room, in that eventuality there could 
be no traces of semen on the nicker.  This nicker 
as per C.A. report had stain of semen.  The fourth 
compartment   of   mystery   is   still   there.     If   the 
Salwar was made to tear and through that torn part 
rape   is   committed,   then   there   must   be   stain   of 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:42 :::

cnfcase3.16
38
semen   on   such   Salwar.     However,   no   semen   is 
detected.    
       
15. It is further submitted that no injuries 
were found on the person of the accused or their 
genital   parts.   No   injury   to   their   foreskin   or 
glance penis was found.  In view of all above, it 
was clear that there was no satisfactory evidence 
to establish rape.   No articles in the room were 
found to have been scattered suggesting that any 
altercation or defensive / forcible act committed 
there.  There is no evidence of acceptable quality 
as regards to collection of blood or semen samples 
of the accused.   There is no evidence of drawing 
or   sealing   the   samples.   The   prosecution   had   not 
led any evidence to assure that the articles were 
sealed at the spot or that those were given and 
preserved   in   the   custody   of   Muddemal   Mohrir   / 
clerk of the police station.  There is no paper on 
the entire file of the record showing any seal or 
stamp of such Muddemal clerk.  Exhibit­38 does not 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:42 :::

cnfcase3.16
39
disclose   the   manner   and   mode   of   the   alleged 
seizure and sealing. It does not bear any seals 
specimen.  If as per Exhibit­38 the yellow Salwar 
was   seized   and   sealed   at   the   spot   and   taken   in 
custody by the police and if ultimately given to 
the custody of Muddemal Mohrir / clerk, in that 
event   the   Doctor   could   not   find   Salwar   on   the 
person.  Admittedly, there is no any second Salwar 
in this case.   Considering this, it should have 
been   held   that   the   prosecution   was   absolutely 
unfair and rather played game of hide and seek. 
16. It   is   further   submitted   that   the 
prosecution   deliberately   omitted   to   examine   the 
initial   Investigation   Officer   PSI   Panpatte   who 
visited the spot first from the police department. 
PW­1 is a panch of inquest panchnama Exhibit­25 of 
deceased   Noorjaha   the   claim   of   this   witness   is 
absolutely false and is controverted inter­se by 
the   PM   report.     Similar   is   the   case   as   regards 
PW­2 Vitthal, who is panch of inquest of deceased 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:42 :::

cnfcase3.16
40
Parveen Exhibit­27.   PW­3 is a panch to the memo 
Exhibit­30   of   the   appellant/   accused   No.1   and 
alleged another memo of Article­2 at Exhibit­31. 
The   same   panchas   were   of   recovery   panchnamas 
Exhibit­32 and 33 regarding   seizure of clothes. 
The   alleged   memorandums   under   Section   27   of   the 
Evidence   Act   are   unbelievable   for   variety   of 
reasons. That apart there are no traces of blood 
on   the   clothes   of   the   appellant/   accused   No.1. 
Except   only   one   semen   stain   of   0.5   c.m.   in 
diameter on his full pant near the zip. It would 
be interesting to see that no blood on his pant is 
found,   no   other   clothes   viz.   under­pant   of   an 
accused   was   collected   and   /   or   sent   for   C.A. 
examination.     Therefore   it   is   submitted   that 
unless   the   underwear   is   removed   no   intercourse 
would be possible.  Even if it is presumed that it 
was   committed   after   unzipping   the   pant   in   that 
event   there   must   be   blood   stains,   in   case   the 
victim Parveen sustained genital injuries due to 
the alleged act.  Admittedly, no semen samples of 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:42 :::

cnfcase3.16
41
any   of   the   accused   is   collected.   There   is   no 
evidence of this either tendered by PW­3 or even 
on Exhibit­32 and 33 about sealing of the articles 
clothes.   There   is   no   seal   specimen   on   the   said 
Exhibits. A careful perusal of Exhibit­32 and 33 
would   show   that   writing   about   sealing   is 
subsequently inserted in the document and the same 
is   in   different   hand­writing.   Thus   there   is   no 
reliable evidence about sealing.              
17. It is further submitted that the copies 
of   muddemal   registers   show   that   none   of   the 
alleged   seized   articles   were   deposited   with   the 
Muddemal   clerk.     The   said   copies   do   not   bear 
signature of Muddemal clerk of the Police Station. 
Therefore, where the articles were lying till the 
same   were   sent,   remained   in   mystery.   It   is 
unconceivable   that   the   accused   would   make   the 
alleged   disclosures   to   the   persons   who   were   not 
known to them or were not of acquaintance.   The 
clothes allegedly seized from the house as claimed 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:42 :::

cnfcase3.16
42
by the prosecution, the said houses were open when 
police   reached.   It   means   that   there   were   other 
persons residing in the said houses.   No inquiry 
during   investigation   was   made   with   any   of   the 
inmates of the said houses as to exactly whom the 
clothes   belonged.   Therefore,   there   is   no   link 
between the seized clothes and the accused.   Not 
only this, but whether the clothes comfortably fit 
on the text of the body of any of the accused is 
not   ascertained   either   by   the   Investigation 
Officer or even by the trial Court before relying 
on the evidence. The accused have stated that the 
clothes   do   not   belong   to   any   of   them.   PW­4   is 
seizure panch to the panchnamas Exhibit­35 and 36, 
the panchnamas of seizure of clothes of deceased 
Noorjaha and Parveen.  Again there is no evidence 
of   seizure   and   /   or   sealing   of   any   of   these 
clothse.   Both   panchnamas   even   according   to 
prosecution were prepared in Police Station. The 
panch PW­4 is a puppet and habitual panch.  There 
is   no   evidence   as   to   whom   which   cloth   belongs. 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:42 :::

cnfcase3.16
43
There is no evidence as to who, how, when, and in 
what   manner   and   why   for   produced   said   clothes 
before Police.   Again there is no evidence that 
any of the clothes belonged to the deceased.  The 
person from whom the clothes are either received 
or produced to the police is not examined. Thus 
vital link is missing.  As such, no reliance ought 
to have been placed by the trial Court over the 
seizure.      
18. It is further submitted that PW­5 Shaikh 
Amin   is   close   relative   of   husband   of   deceased 
Noorjaha.   He is a panch to spot panchnama.   His 
evidence   would   show   that   the   police   were 
politically influenced.   This panch has resorted 
to   several   contradictory   versions.   The   nicker 
before   the   Court   is   of   red   colour.   It   is   at 
Article­3.  The spot panchnama Exhibit­38 does not 
show that any of the seized articles were sealed. 
The   other   clothes   also   did   not   bear   any   chit 
bearing signature of the witness or any other one. 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:42 :::

cnfcase3.16
44
No evidence of sealing is also adduced.   None of 
these   seized   articles   were   delivered   to   the 
custody of Muddemal clerk of Police Station.   No 
evidence where these articles were lying till they 
were   dispatched   for   C.A.   Reports.   There   is   no 
blood found on Exhibit­6.  Again having regard to 
the   fact   that   if   really   the   nicker   belonged   to 
deceased Parveen, in that eventuality there ought 
to   have   been   blood   thereon.   Rest   of   the   other 
articles   and   particularly   clothes   of   bodies   did 
not bear any semen.  As such there is no evidence 
to accept that nicker belonged to deceased Parveen 
is there. As per the spot panchnama Exhibit­38, a 
red colour nicker is seized and since then it was 
in   custody   of   police.     The   prosecution   claimed 
this nicker to be that of Parveen as is appearing 
from   Exhibit­49.   The   PM   report   Exhibit­64   would 
show that there were clothes on the dead body of 
deceased Parveen and there was yellow under­wear 
on   the   person   of   deceased   Parveen.   Said   clothes 
are   produced   before   the   Court.   PW­5   spot   panch 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:42 :::

cnfcase3.16
45
disclosed   that   he   is   totally   unaware   of   such 
clothes.  If this is curiously looked further, it 
would   appear   that   the   prosecution   has   painted 
Article no.3 red nicker foisting it to be belonged 
to deceased Parveen. This Article no.3 according 
to prosecution was lying away from the dead body 
and it has semen stains.  This is the Article no.3 
about   which   the   DNA   report   is   there.   The 
legitimate question therefore would arise if there 
was nicker on the person of Parveen till she was 
subjected to autopsy, then the Article no.3 cannot 
be of her.   According to prosecution, there were 
no   blood   or   semen   stains   on   this   yellow   nicker 
which   was   on   the   person   of   Parveen,   where   this 
yellow nicker had gone is in mystery. Thus it is 
clear that the trial Court did not consider this 
valid   submission   of   defence   about   vital   aspect, 
which goes to the root of the matter.  Barring the 
DNA report of nicker Article­3, there is no other 
material of whatsoever nature. Thus the conviction 
is absolutely illegal.  
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:42 :::

cnfcase3.16
46
      
19. It is further submitted that PW­6 Gulab 
Shaikh   is   a   real   brother   of   Shaikh   Chand,   the 
husband   of   deceased   Noorjaha   and   father   of 
deceased   Parveen.     PW­6   claimed   that   he   had 
noticed the dead bodies on 28th May, 2015 at about 
5.00   p.m.     He   did   not   lodge   any   report,   nor 
whisper about the same to anyone.   He lodged the 
FIR on the next day i.e. on 29th May, 2015.  The 
record would show that A.D. report Exhibit­39 was 
lodged by PW­5 Shaikh Amin, who is a nephew.  This 
A.D. report bearing No.16/2015 was lodged at about 
10.15   p.m.   In   the   said   report,   there   is   no 
allegation   against   anybody,   although   PW­5   had 
visited the place of occurrence before lodging the 
report.  In the report, there is no mention about 
any injuries or clothes, more particularly nicker 
at the place of occurrence.  After registration of 
A.D.,   no   inquest   was   conducted   at   the   spot   but 
Exhibit­25   and   27   both   were   conducted   at   the 
Government   Hospital.     Perusal   of   these   inquest 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:42 :::

cnfcase3.16
47
reports   would   show   that   those   were   conducted 
during   6.30   a.m.   upto   8.50   a.m.     The   spot 
panchnama   Exhibit­38   was   conducted   on   29th   May, 
2015 between 8.15 a.m. to 9.45 a.m.   This shows 
that   when   the   spot   panchnama   was   conducted     no 
dead bodies were lying there. Therefore, who, how 
and when shifted the dead bodies, has remained in 
dilemma   and   no   evidence   is   adduced.   The 
Investigation   Officer   Mr.Panpatte   who   was 
conducting   inquiry   in   the   A.D.   is   not   at   all 
examined by the prosecution. It is submitted that 
right from 5.00 p.m. of 28th May, 2015 till the 
morning   of   8.15   a.m.   of   29th   May,   2015   several 
persons had access to the spot even before arrival 
of   police   and   also   subsequent   to   it   prior   to 
conducting spot panchnama. Admittedly, there is no 
evidence of deputing any police guard. In view of 
this and also the fact of belated FIR, it is clear 
that a story was cooked up and plantation of the 
things cannot be ruled out.   
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:42 :::

cnfcase3.16
48
20. It   is   further   submitted   that   the 
testimony   of   PW­6   Gulab   Shaikh   is   not   at   all 
helpful   to   the   prosecution.   The   statement   of 
Shaikh Chand, the husband and father of deceased 
persons, was not recorded. He was not interrogated 
and examined.  Even according to the prosecution, 
he had decamped from the village close to the date 
of incident. According to PW­6, Shaikh Chand had 
gone to Koregaon at the house of his sister.   No 
investigation   in   that   direction   was   made   to 
ascertain   the   correctness   or   otherwise   of   this 
aspect.   There is also no record on the file of 
Court that the said Shaikh Chand had suffered or 
not   any   injury   or   ailment.     The   answer   to   the 
query given by PW­13 on this issue is totally non 
satisfactory, rather flirting. This has all been 
resorted   to   malignantly   prosecuting   the   accused. 
The testimony of PW­6 would show that on 28th May, 
2015 Shaikh Chand had come to village Choramba in 
the afternoon.  The legitimate question arises as 
to   what   was   the   conduct   of   this   Shaikh   Chand? 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:43 :::

cnfcase3.16
49
What was his reaction? Why he did not visit the 
place   of   occurrence?   Why   he   did   not   go   to   the 
place?   All these questions remained unanswered. 
According to PW­6, Shaikh Chand and deceased women 
were residing together in the field i.e. the place 
of occurrence.  The testimony of PW­6 thus carries 
the   case   of   prosecution   beneath   dark   clouds   of 
suspicion. Therefore, the present case being based 
on circumstantial material, the prosecution has to 
rule out all other hypothesis and possibilities. 
Unfortunately,   the   trial   Court   did   not   look   for 
the   same   and   proceeded   to   pass   the   impugned 
Judgment of conviction.  No blood or semen samples 
of Shaikh Chand were obtained.   His clothes were 
not   seized.   He   was   never   referred   to   medical 
examination.   Therefore,   possibility   of   his   semen 
on the alleged nicker also cannot be ruled out. 
Had this all been done probably the result would 
have   been   different.   No   investigation   was   ever 
directed   to   ascertain   about   the   nature   of 
relations   and   the   passion   between   said   Shaikh 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:43 :::

cnfcase3.16
50
Chand with the deceased women.  Admittedly, there 
were   no   neighbors   surrounding   the   place   of 
occurrence and that apart Noorjaha, even according 
to   prosecution   itself   indulged   in   illegal 
activities.    
21. It is further submitted that the evidence 
of   PW­7   Ramchandra   is   useless   for   variety   of 
reasons.     It   is   in   respect   of   his   noticing   the 
appellant/ accused No.1 going towards field. The 
distance between house of the witness and of the 
appellant/ accused No.1 is 300/400 meters.  Except 
this   there   is   nothing.     Thus   witness   PW­7   is 
friend of Papa Shaikh, the brother of Shaikh Chand 
and   resided   opposite   to   his   house.   Except 
allegedly seeing the appellant/ accused No.1 there 
is no other incriminating material. His statement 
was recorded after 6 days of the incident.   His 
evidence   does   not   show   that   there   was   either 
street light or moonlight.   He does not give any 
timing.     There   is   no   data   as   to   whether   the 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:43 :::

cnfcase3.16
51
appellant/ accused No.1 proceeded to his field or 
otherwise.   As such, his testimony does not take 
the   case   at   any   point.   He   does   not   describe 
clothes   on   the   alleged   person   of   appellant/ 
accused No.1.  The evidence of PW­8 Ganpat Jadhwar 
is   regarding   carrying   articles   to   C.A.   PW­9 
Baliram   and   PW­10   Vachisht,   both   were   declared 
hostile by the prosecution.  As such, it does not 
take the case at any point at least against the 
accused.  PW­11 Dr.Balasaheb examined the accused. 
His   evidence   about   the   alleged   history   is 
inadmissible   because   it   was   made   while   the 
appellant/accused   No.1   was   in   the   custody   of 
police.   He does not say that he collected semen 
sample.   He did not find any nail scratch marks. 
The abrasions were old and healed abrasions. The 
appellant/   accused   No.1   being   an   agriculturist, 
the tiny abrasions as were found over his back, 
right arm and right forearm were bound to occur in 
routine   course.   The   age   of   those   abrasions 
according  to Doctor were 6 to 8 days old.   The 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:43 :::

cnfcase3.16
52
Doctor did not say that the said abrasions had any 
cricentic   shape.   Perusal   of   the   alleged   history 
would show that even according to prosecution the 
alleged   intercourse   was   10   days   prior   to   the 
incident.  Therefore, the semen found to be on the 
nicker loses the significance. Admittedly, age of 
semen   is   not   ascertained.   Thus   the   testimony   of 
the   Doctor   does   not,   in   any   way   help   the 
prosecution.  During cross­examination, the Doctor 
admitted that his opinion about the injuries has 
no base.     
22. It   is   further   submitted   that   the 
testimony   of   Investigation   Officer   is   fit   to   be 
rejected for variety of reasons.  Rather it would 
show his biased attitude and unfairness apart from 
unfruitful investigation. His evidence is contrary 
to evidence of PW­5 Gulab.   He gave lame excuses 
when pointed questions were put to him.   He has 
suppressed vital documents and statements from the 
Court.  He withheld statements of various persons 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:43 :::

cnfcase3.16
53
namely   Dhanraj   Mundhe,   Lakhan   Bhalerao,   Balu 
Ghadge, etc.  He has chosen selected panchas, who 
happened to be relatives of deceased, although the 
village   has   dense   population.   There   was   no 
evidence   to   show   that   deceased   Parveen   was   not 
major, but was either a minor or child. The age 
was not determined by conducting an inquiry.   No 
compliance with Section 34[2] of the POSCO Act was 
done.   There was even otherwise no proof laid by 
the   prosecution   to   establish   that   Parveen   was   a 
minor.     No   ossification   test   was   done   and   /   or 
proved.     No   document   or   evidence   concerning   her 
date of birth was produced.   The entire evidence 
whatsoever   on   record   adduced   by   the   prosecution 
was hopelessly insufficient to hold that Parveen 
was   a   minor.     In   view   of   this   convicting   the 
appellant/   accused   No.1   under   POSCO   Act   is 
absolutely   illegal.     The   presumption   under   the 
POSCO   Act   in   the   circumstances   of   the   case   is 
unavailable   for   the   prosecution.   The   A.P.P.   who 
conducted the prosecution before the trial Court, 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:43 :::

cnfcase3.16
54
was not appointed under the POSCO Act to conduct 
the   trial.   There   is   no   gazette   notification 
approving his appointment.  Thus the entire trial 
vitiates. The case laws cited by the defence have 
not at all been considered in proper perspectives. 
The trial Judge allowed the passion to creep in 
and the same has resulted in serious miscarriage 
of justice.  
23. It is further submitted that the entire 
Judgment and sentence is not merely harsh but is 
unsustainable.  The case is not rare of the rarest 
one to impose capital punishment. The observations 
and findings on the issue recorded by Judge of the 
Court   below   are   incorrect,   injudicious   and 
therefore   fit   to   be   disturbed   and   set   aside. 
There were several other possibilities which all 
have not been ruled out and as such there being no 
evidence to show that the accused were the only 
perpetrator of the crime has not been established. 
In   view   of   this,   they   both   ought   to   have   been 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:43 :::

cnfcase3.16
55
acquitted.     It   was   clear   on   the   face   of   record 
that the prosecution case suffered with plenty of 
laches   and   has   failed   to   adduce   clinching   and 
satisfactory evidence.  The Court below apparently 
forgotten the basic rule envisaged by the criminal 
jurisprudence   that   graver   the   charge   stricter 
should be the degree of proof. Thus the questioned 
Judgment of conviction being perverse is fit to be 
quashed and set aside by acquitting the appellant/ 
accused No.1 and the confirmation case deserves to 
be   rejected.   There   is   no   admissible   evidence   as 
regards alleged rape and alleged murders.
24. In support of his submissions, Mr. S.G. 
Ladda, learned counsel appearing for the accused 
No.1 placed reliance on the reported Judgments in 
the cases   of   Goutam Kundu V. State of W.B. and 
14 15
another , The State V. Motia and other , Jarnail 
16
Singh   V.   State   of   Haryana ,   Sharad   Biridhichand 
14 AIR 1993 SC 2295
15 AIR 1955 Raj.82
16 2013 Cri.L.J. 3976
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:43 :::

cnfcase3.16
56
17
Sarda   V.   State   of   Maharashtra ,   Shankarlal 
18
Gyarasilal Dixit V. State of Maharashtra , Behram 
19
Sheriar Irani V. Emperor ,  Satbir Singh V. State 
20 21
of   Haryana ,   Kishore   Chand   V.   State   of   H.P. , 
22
Paramhansa Jadab and another V. The State , Mohan 
23
V.   The   State   of   Rajasthan ,   Hanuman   Govind, 
Nargundkar   [supra],   Pratap   Misra   and   others   V. 
24
State of Orissa , Shaikh Farid Hussinsab V. State 
25
of Maharashtra  and Premjibhai Bachubai Khasiya V. 
26
State of Gujarat & another .  
25. Mr. Hange, learned counsel appearing for 
accused   No.2   Achyut   @   Bappa   @   Babu   s/o   Kachru 
Chunche adopted the arguments advanced by learned 
counsel   Mr.   Ladda.   In   addition   to   that,   it   is 
submitted   that   accused   No.2   Achyut   has   been 
falsely implicated in this case. There is no iota 
17 AIR 1984 SC 1622
18 1981 Cri.L.J. 325
19 AIR 1944 Bom. 321
20 1995 Cri.L.J. 739
21 AIR 1990 SC 2140
22 AIR 1964 Orissa 144
23 1985 Cr.L.R. [Raj.] 657
24 AIR 1977 SC 1307
25 1981 Mh.L.J. 345
26 2009 Cri.L.J. 2888
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:43 :::

cnfcase3.16
57
of evidence against accused No.2 Achyut. There is 
no substantive evidence against accused No.2 and 
alleged memorandum statement before the police and 
pursuant   to   said   memorandum   and   alleged 
disclosure,   no   conviction   can   be   based,   since 
statement   given   before   the   police   is   not 
admissible.
26. We   have   heard   the   learned   A.P.P. 
appearing for the State, learned counsel appearing 
for accused at greater length. Now we would like 
to discuss the evidence of prosecution witnesses n 
detail. Vishwajeet Govindrao Pawar ( PW­12),   was 
serving   as   Associate   Professor   of   Forensic 
Medicine in STRT Hospital and Medical College at 
Ambajogai. During his evidence, he has stated that 
on the same day i.e. on 29th May, 2015, along with 
Dr.Vishal   Gholve   firstly   he   conducted   the 
postmortem   examination   of   Shaikh   Noorjaha   and 
found   face   cyanosed   and   swollen   conjunctival 
heamorrhage present. Tongue outside the mouth and 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:43 :::

cnfcase3.16
58
tongue   tie   present.   Mouth   partially   opened.   No 
salivary   stains   seen,   reddish­blackish   colored 
blood   like   fluid   oozing   from   mouth,   nostrils, 
ears.   Nail   beds   and   lips   cyanosed.   The   above 
external   examination   have   been   shown   by   them   in 
column Nos.13 and 14 in postmortem notes. At the 
time   of   postmortem   examination,   they   found   no 
evidence of any injury to the external genitals. 
Evidence   of   purging   of   stool   present   and   found 
external   injuries   over   the   body.   The   above 
external examination have shown by them in column 
No.15   in   postmortem   notes.   At   the   time   of 
postmortem   examination   of   Shaikh   Noorjaha,   they 
found following external injuries on her person:
"1] Contusion present over the right side 
of the neck 3 x 2 cm in size, horizontal 
in   direction   3   cm   above   to   Manubrium 
sterni Brownish­black in colour.
2] Contusion present over the right side 
of the neck 2 cm X 1 cm in size, vertical 
in   direction   4   cm   above   to   Manubrium 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:43 :::

cnfcase3.16
59
sterni brownish black in colour 1 cm above 
to injury No.1.
3] Contusion present over the right side 
of the neck 1 cm X 1 cm in size, vertical 
in direction 5 cm above to the Manubrium 
sterni brownish black in colour 1 cm above 
to the injury No.2.  
4] Contusion present over the right side 
of the chin 1 X 1 cm in size, horizontal 
in   direction   3   cm   above   to   Manubrium 
sterni brownish black in colour parrel to 
injury No.3.
5] Contusion   present   over   left   side   of 
the eye 2 X 1 cm in size, horizontal in 
direction   3   cm   parrel   to   right   mastoid 
process brownish black in colour.
6] Contusion present over the left side 
of the neck laterally 2 X 1 cm in size, 
horizontal   in   direction   4   cm   above   to 
midpoint   of   clavicle   brownish   black   in 
colour.
7] Multiple   contusions   present   over   the 
left arm medially varying in direction and 
size, Brownish black in colour. 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:43 :::

cnfcase3.16
60
8] Multiple   contusions   present   over   the 
right  arm  varying  in  direction   and size, 
brownish black in colour.  
9] Multiple   contusions   present   over   the 
right   and   left   knee   joint   varying   in 
direction   and   size,   brownish   black   in 
colour.
10] Contusion   present   over   the   left 
buttock  5 X 3 cm in size,  horizontal   in 
direction   3   cm   from   pubic   symphysis 
brownish black in colour.
11] Contusion   present   over   the   right 
buttock 4 X 2.5 cm in size, horizontal in 
direction   3   cm   from   pubic   symphysis 
brownish black in colour."   
. The   above   all   injuries   were   ante­mortem 
in   nature   and   shown   by   them   in   column   No.17   in 
postmortem notes.
. On   internal   examination,   they   found 
evidence   of   petechial   hemorrhags   seen   in   white 
matter of brain and the above injury shown by them 
in   column   No.19   (III)   in   postmortem   notes.   They 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:43 :::

cnfcase3.16
61
also found in column No.20 D and E right and left 
lung shows reddish frothy fluid oozes out on cut 
section   with   evidence   of   petechial   hemorrhages 
seen   over   interlobar   surface.   The   above   all 
injuries were shown by them in column No.20E and D 
in postmortem notes.
. On external and internal examination, it 
was   opined   that   the   probable   cause   of   death   of 
deceased   Noorjaha   due   to   Asphyxia   due   to   manual 
strangulation.   There   is   no   evidence   of   forceful 
sexual intercourse however viscera and blood for 
C.A. preserved.  
. During   his   examination­in­chief,   he 
admitted   that   he   along   with   Medical   Officer 
Dr.Vishal Gholve prepared postmortem notes.  
27. PW­12 along with Dr. Vishal Gholve also 
conducted   postmortem   examination   of   Parveen   D/o. 
Shaikh Chand. He stated that at the time of her 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:43 :::

cnfcase3.16
62
postmortem   examination,   firstly   on   her   external 
examination,   they   found   that   face   cyanosed   and 
swollen, tongue outside the mouth and tongue tie 
present.   Mouth   partially   opened.   No   salivary 
stains seen. Reddish blackish coloured blood fluid 
oozing   from   nose,   mouth   and   ears.   The   above 
external examination shown by them in column No.13 
in postmortem notes. They also found on external 
examination   lips   cyanosed.   The   above   external 
examination   shown   by   them   in   column   No.14   in 
postmortem   notes.   At   the   time   of   her   postmortem 
examination,   they   found   following   external 
injuries on the person of deceased Parveen:
"1] Contusion present over the Right side 
of the  neck  4 x 3 cm in size, vertical in 
direction   4   cm   above   to   Manubrium   sterni 
brownish black in colour.
2] Contusion present over the Right side 
of the neck 4 X 2 cm in size, vertical in 
direction   6   cm   above   to   Manubrium   sterni 
brownish   black   in   colour   1   cm   above   to 
injury No.1.  
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:43 :::

cnfcase3.16
63
3] Contusion present over the Right side 
of the chin 2 X 1.5 cm in size, vertical in 
direction   4   cm   above   Manubrium   sterni 
brownish black in colour parrel to injury 
No.3.  
4] Contusion present over the right side 
of the eye 1 X 1 cm in size, horizontal in 
direction   3   cm   parrel   to   right   mastoid 
process Brownish black in colour.  
5] Contusion   present   over   left   side   of 
the   neck   laterally   2.5   x   2   cm   in   size, 
horizontal   in   direction   4   cm   above   to 
midpoint   of   clavicle   brownish   black   in 
colour.  
6] Multiple   contusions   present   over   the 
right   and   left   knee   joint   varying   in 
direction   and   size,   brownish   black   in 
colour.  
7] Contusion   present   over   the   left 
buttock 4 x 3.5 cm in size, horizontal in 
direction   3   cm   from   pubic   symphysis 
brownish black in colour.  
8] Contusion   present   over   the   right 
buttock 4.5 x 3 cm in size, horizontal in 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:43 :::

cnfcase3.16
64
direction   3   cm   from   pubic   symphysis 
brownish   black   in   colour.   The   above   all 
injuries   were   ante­mortem   in   nature   and 
shown by them in column No.17 in postmortem 
notes."   
   
28. On   internal   examination,   they   found 
evidence   of   petechial   hemorrhages   seen   in   white 
matter of brain, the above injuries are mentioned 
by them in column No.19 (III).  The right and left 
lung shows reddish frothy fluid with evidence of 
petechial hemmorrhages on interlobar surface. The 
above injuries are mentioned in column no.20 D and 
E.   Then   external   examination   of   genitals,   they 
found following injuries:  
"1] External   injuries   like   contusion 
present over right labial fold 2 x 1 cm in 
size vertical in direction brownish black 
in colour.
2] Contusion present over the left labial 
fold 1.5 x 1.5 cm in size, oblique downward 
in direction brownish black in colour.  
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:43 :::

cnfcase3.16
65
3] Multiple   contusion   present   over   the 
right and left side of the thigh varying in 
direction   and   size   brownish   black   in 
colour.  
4] Swelling   present   over   the   right   and 
left labial fold.  
5] Hymen   rupture   at   3   O'clock   and   7 
o'clock position.  
6] Foul   smelling   discharge   coming   out 
from the cervix.  
7] Internally contusion present over the 
cervix 1 x 0.5 cm in size on left of the 
wall   brownish   in   colour   with   bleeding 
present   black   in   colour.   The   above   all 
injuries   were   ante­mortem   in   nature   and 
shown by them in column No.21 of postmortem 
notes."    
29. They expressed opinion that the probable 
cause of death of deceased Parveen is Asphyxia due 
to   Manual   Strangulation.   There   is   evidence   of 
forceful   sexual   intercourse   however   viscera   with 
blood, blood for grouping, pubic hairs and vaginal 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:44 :::

cnfcase3.16
66
swabs preserved for C.A.  
30. During   his   cross   examination,   he   fairly 
stated that the age of injuries are not mentioned 
in   column   No.17.   However,   they   mentioned 
additional remarks in postmortem notes of Noorjaha 
and Parveen that the death was occurred within 36 
to   48   hours   before   doing   the   postmortem.   It   is 
specifically denied by him that they have falsely 
mentioned the nature of injuries as ante­mortem in 
column   No.17.   He   voluntarily   stated   that   the 
examination of stomach content is not relevant to 
ascertain   the   time   of   death.   He   reiterated   that 
the death of both the deceased was occurred within 
36   to   48   hours   prior   to   their   postmortem 
examination and denied suggestion that due to the 
bacterial   infection   the   decomposition   and 
autolysis started in the body, they could not give 
correct opinion. He specifically stated that it is 
not necessary that hyoid bone should be fractured 
in strangulation process. He further stated that 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:44 :::

cnfcase3.16
67
the findings of strangulation and snake bite are 
not identical.
. Upon careful perusal of his evidence, it 
appears   that   PW­12   along   with   Dr.Vishal   Gholve 
conducted postmortem of Noorjaha and Parveen and 
expressed   their   opinion   that   the   death   of   both 
deceased   is   homicidal   in   nature.   It   is 
specifically stated by PW­12 that, when the dead 
body   of   Parveen   was   brought   for   postmortem 
examination   at   that   time   torn   yellow   colour 
underwear,   red   colour   payjama   as   well   as   yellow 
colour Salwar were on her person. He specifically 
stated that on the basis of pubic hairs, they have 
mentioned the age of Parveen as 14 years in her 
postmortem notes. However, he fairly stated that 
it   is   not   mentioned   in   the   postmortem   notes   of 
Parveen that on the basis of her pubic hairs, they 
have   ascertained   her   age   as   14   years.   He   also 
admitted that they did not follow the ossification 
test. He specifically denied suggestion that the 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:44 :::

cnfcase3.16
68
opinion given by them about the probable cause of 
death of Noorjaha and Parveen as well as rape on 
Parveen are not true and correct.  
. In   conclusion,   the   evidence   of   PW­12 
makes   it   clear   that   the   death   of   Noorjaha   and 
Parveen   was   homicidal   and   there   are   signs   of 
intercourse with Parveen, and further on the basis 
of pubic hairs, the age of Parveen was 14 years at 
the relevant time.    
31. PW­11,   Balasaheb   Shahajirao   Solanke,   is 
serving   as   a   Medical   Officer   in   Rural   Hospital 
Dharur. He stated in his evidence that he examined 
accused no.2 Achyut @ Bapu Kachru Chunche. After 
medical   examination   of   accused   no.2,   as   per   his 
opinion   the   accused   no.2   is   capable   to   perform 
sexual   act.   At   the   time   of   his   medical 
examination,   he   had   taken   sample   of   pubic   hair, 
sample of scalp hair, nail cutting and sample of 
blood. The said samples sealed by him and handed 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:44 :::

cnfcase3.16
69
over to Police for sending to C.A. Accordingly, he 
issued medical examination report of accused no.2. 
He further stated that on the same day he examined 
accused no.1 as per requisition letter of police. 
At   the   time   of   medical   examination   of   accused 
no.1, he narrated the history about 'peno vaginal 
intercourse   with   Parimala   Chand   Shaikh   since   10 
days   before   incident   and   performed   peno   vaginal 
intercourse on same date of incident, but she was 
not killed by him'. After medical examination of 
accused no.1, as per his opinion accused no.1 is 
capable   to   perform   sexual   act.   At   the   time   of 
medical examination of accused no.1, he had taken 
sample from pubic hair, sample of scalp hair, nail 
cutting   and   blood   sample.   The   said   samples   were 
sealed   by   him   and   handed   over   to   police   for 
sending   it   to   C.A.   At   the   time   of   medical 
examination   of   accused   no.1,   PW­11   found   in   all 
three injuries on his person. Injury no.1 abrasion 
size   1/2   cm   over   back.   2]   Abrasion   size   2x2   cm 
over right arm on middle 1/3rd. 3] Abrasion size 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:44 :::

cnfcase3.16
70
1/2 cm over right forearm. The age of above three 
injuries was within 6 to 8 days. Accordingly, he 
prepared   medical   examination   report   of   accused 
no.1   in   his   own   handwriting.   He   also   identified 
both the accused persons, who were present in the 
Court.    
   
32. So far as accused no.1 is concerned, he 
narrated   the   history   about   'peno   vaginal 
intercourse   with   Parimala   Chand   Shaikh   since   10 
days   before   incident   and   performed   peno   vaginal 
intercourse on same date of incident, but she was 
not killed by him'. Upon careful perusal of the 
evidence of PW­11, he has clearly mentioned that 
accused no.1 is capable to perform sexual act. At 
the time of medical examination of accused no.1, 
he   had   taken   sample   from   pubic   hair,   sample   of 
scalp   hair,   nail   cutting   and   blood   sample.   The 
said   samples   sealed   by   him   and   handed   over   to 
police for sending to C.A. He has also mentioned 
three   injuries   noticed   by   him   on   the   person   of 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:44 :::

cnfcase3.16
71
accused no.1. The age of injuries also stated in 
between 6 to 8 days prior to his examination. He 
also   identified   the   accused   persons   who   were 
present before the Court.  
. So   far   as   accused   no.2   is   concerned, 
PW­11 has stated that, during medical examination 
of   accused   no.2,   he   took   sample   of   pubic   hair, 
sample of scalp hair, nail cutting and sample of 
blood of accused no.2. The said samples sealed by 
him and handed over to Police for sending to C.A. 
Accordingly, he issued medical examination report 
of accused no.2. On the said medical report, there 
is   signature   of   PW­11   as   well   as   signature   and 
thumb marks of accused no.1 and also signature of 
one   witness   Angad   Nakhate.   Even   on   the   medical 
report   of   accused   no.1,   there   is   signature   of 
PW­11 as well as the signature and thumb mark of 
accused   no.1   and   the   signature   of   witness   Angad 
Nakhate.   He   denied   suggestion   that   he   did   not 
medically examine the accused on 2nd June, 2015. 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:44 :::

cnfcase3.16
72
He has specifically stated even during his cross 
examination that the requisite samples were taken 
and same were sealed by him for sending to C.A. 
Upon   careful   perusal   of   his   cross   examination, 
nothing useful was elicited by the defence. 
33. The   prosecution   examined   in   all   13 
witnesses. PW­1 Samina Amin Shaikh and PW­2 Ramesh 
Vitthal Chavan were examined to prove the inquest 
panchnama. PW­1 Samina Shaikh in her evidence has 
stated   that   on   29th   May,   2015,   she   went   to   the 
SRTR   Hospital   at   Ambajogai   to   act   as   Panch   of 
inquest   panchnama   of   Noorjaha.   She   found 
strangulation   marks as well as injuries on her 
both cheeks, chin as well as on chest. When she 
noticed the dead body of Noorjaha in P.M. room at 
that   time   one   chain   of   black   beads   was   in   her 
neck.   She   has   signed   the   inquest   panchnama.   The 
strangulation marks and injuries on cheek and chin 
on the person of Noorjaha were mentioned in the 
said panchnama. When she noticed the dead body of 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:44 :::

cnfcase3.16
73
Noorjaha in all five injuries i.e. strangulation, 
two on her both cheeks, one on her chin and one on 
her chest.   According to her, the said injuries 
were swelling injuries and not bleeding.        
34. PW­2 Ramesh Vitthal Chavan was Panch to 
the inquest panchnama of Parveen at Exhibit­27. He 
noticed that Parveen has sustained injury on her 
right cheek and the blood was oozing from her nose 
and   he   also   found   mark   on   her   neck.   He   noticed 
that   her   private   part   was   also   swollen.   He   has 
signed on the said inquest panchnama. 
. During cross examination of PW­1 and PW­2 
nothing   useful   to   the   defence   has   been   elicited 
from them.        
35. Therefore,   if   the   evidence   of   PW­11, 
PW­12,   PW­1   and   PW­2,   postmortem   report   and   the 
inquest panchnamas would lead to a conclusion that 
the death of Noorjaha and Parveen was homicidal, 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:44 :::

cnfcase3.16
74
and there was intercourse with Parveen.   
36. The   prosecution   examined   PW­3   Lahu 
Bhimrao Kedar, at the relevant time he was working 
as In­charge Talathi at Choramba, Sajja Dharur. On 
5th   June,   2015,   he   himself   along   with   Revenue 
Circle Inspector Munde went to the Police Station 
Dharur.   The   Police   brought   accused   no.1   from 
police   custody   before   them.   Accused   no.1   made 
memorandum statement before them and police that 
he committed rape on Parveen and then he committed 
her murder as well as he also stated the another 
accused   no.2   committed   murder   of   Noorjaha.   He 
further stated before them and police the cloths 
on his person at the time of incident are kept by 
him in his house and he is ready to produce the 
said   clothes   and   handed   over   it   to   the   police. 
Accordingly,   the   Police   prepared   memorandum 
statement   of   accused   no.1.   The   statement   was 
signed by PW­3 and also Revenue Circle Inspector 
Munde.
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:44 :::

cnfcase3.16
75
. Lahu   (PW­3)   further   deposed   that 
thereafter, the Police brought accused no.2 Achyut 
Chunche   from   the   police   custody   before   them. 
Accused   no.2   made   memorandum   statement   before 
them. He has stated that he committed murder of 
Noorjaha and the clothes wore by him at the time 
of incident has been kept in his house and he is 
ready to produce the said clothes and handed over 
it to the police. Accordingly, the police prepared 
memorandum statement of accused no.2 before them. 
The said memorandum statement  was signed by PW­3 
and also the accused.         
37. Lahu   (PW­3)   has   stated   that   the 
Dy.S.P.Gawade   with   Police   Staff,   accused   nos.1 
and 2, he himself  as well as another Panch Mundhe 
went to village Choramba by police jeep. Accused 
no.1   produced   his   one   shirt   and   pant   from   his 
house   and   the   said   clothes   were   seized   by   the 
Police under seizure panchnama in their presence. 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:44 :::

cnfcase3.16
76
The said panchnama was signed by PW­3 as well as 
by   another   Panch.     It   was   also   signed   by   the 
Deputy S.P. Gawade. He identified the clothes of 
accused   no.1   when   those   were   shown   to   him.   He 
stated   that   the   label   affixed   on   seized   pant 
pocket   is   shown   to   him   and   he   noticed   his 
signature and signature of another Panch Munde on 
the   said   seizure   panchnama.   He   also   stated   that 
after   that   along   with   police,   he   himself   and 
Mr.Munde   went   to   the   house   of   accused   no.2. 
Accused no.2 produced his shirt and pant from his 
house. The said seizure panchnama was prepared and 
all of them have signed.  
. During   the   cross   examination   of   PW­3, 
nothing   useful   to   the   defence   has   been   elicited 
from this witness.   
38. Mahendrasingh   Mahavirsingh   Rahekwal 
(PW­4), deposed that he received phone call from 
Police   Station   Dharur.     He   went   to   the   Police 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:44 :::

cnfcase3.16
77
Station,   Dharur.   It   appears   that   the   clothes   on 
the person of deceased Noorjaha i.e. one sari, one 
petti­coat   stained   by   blood   and   one   blouse   were 
shown to PW­4, and thereafter the Police prepared 
seizure panchnama of the clothes on the person of 
deceased   Noorjaha   in   his   presence   and   in   the 
presence of another Panch. The Police also seized 
the clothes on the person of deceased Parveen at 
the time of postmortem in presence of PW­4. The 
Police prepared seizure panchnama. PW­4 identified 
his signature on the said panchnama. It is true 
that during his cross examination, he stated that 
he   did   not   remember   the   seized   petti­coat   of 
deceased Noorjaha was having lace (thread) or not. 
He   cannot   tell   how   many   buttons   were   on   seized 
blouse of Noorjaha. However, he reiterated that in 
his presence the seizure panchnama of the clothes 
was   there   and   he   reiterated   his   statement   of 
witnessing such seizure panchnama and signing it 
during his cross examination. He denied suggestion 
that   the   Police   did   not   seize   the   clothes   of 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:44 :::

cnfcase3.16
78
deceased   Noorjaha   and   deceased   Parveen   in   his 
presence.  
39. The   prosecution   examined   Shaikh   Amin 
Rasul as PW­5. He stated in his deposition that on 
29th   May,   2015,   he   was   present   in   his   village 
Choramba.   He   was   called   by   the   Police   Officer 
Gawade on the place of occurrence to act as Panch. 
He has stated minute details about articles seized 
from   the   spot.   He   stated   that   at   the   time   of 
preparing spot panchnama, the police also seized 
blood   mixed   soil   on   the   place   of   occurrence, 
simple soil on the place of occurrence, one nicker 
having   red   colour   stained   with   semen   and   black 
hair   attached   with   the   said   nicker.   The   Police 
also   seized   the   black   hair   on   the   place   of 
occurrence, one parrot colour lime Dabi of Rajesh 
company,   one   button   of   fashion   company   having 
white   colour,   one   full   and   one   half   buttons   of 
fashion   company,   having   white   colour   and   six 
pieces   of   broken   bangles   having   faint   red   pink 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:44 :::

cnfcase3.16
79
colour   on   the   spot   in   their   presence.   He   can 
identify the seized article if shown to him. He 
identified   all   those   articles   when   he   was   shown 
those articles during recording of his evidence. 
He also identified his signature. He specifically 
stated that the seized full button and one half 
button of fashion company having white colour are 
the same, which were seized and the label on it 
are the same. He put his signature on it.  He also 
identified other seized articles and his signature 
on the seizure panchnama. He stated details about 
his   relation   with   the   deceased   Noorjaha   and   her 
husband Shaikh Chand. He has also stated about the 
habits   of   Shaikh   Chand.   He   stated   that   the 
distance   between   house   of   Noorjaha   and   village 
Choramba   is   300   meter.   He   has   also   stated 
topography of the adjoining area of house of the 
Noorjaha. He specifically stated that on 27th May, 
2015,   there   was   a   function   of   jagran­Gondhal   in 
the   house   of   Haribhau   Sakrudkar.   To   go   to   the 
house of the said Haribhau Sakrudkar, there was a 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:45 :::

cnfcase3.16
80
way in front of the house of Noorjaha. He stated 
that on the day of incident Shaikh Chand was not 
at his house.   
40. The   prosecution   examined   PW­6  ­   Gulab 
Ismail Shaikh. He is an informant. He deposed that 
his   brother   Shaikh   Chand,   his   wife   Noorjaha   and 
their daughter Parveen were residing in his field 
on Chardari road at village Choramba.   But eight 
days   prior   to   the   incident   his   brother   Shaikh 
Chand   went   to   the   house   of   their   sister   at 
Koregaon.   On   29th   May,   2015,   he   was   in   his 
village.   On that day he went to police Station 
Dharur for filing report before police about the 
death   of   Noorjaha   and   Parveen.   He   deposed   that 
one day prior to lodging report, he went to his 
field   in   which   his   brother   Shaikh   Chand   was 
residing with his wife and daughter, and on that 
day   when   he   was   in   the   field,   one   Gadekar   came 
there.   Gadekar   made   demand   of   drinking   water. 
Then he told Gadekar to go in the house of Chand 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:45 :::

cnfcase3.16
81
and   to   drink   water.     Accordingly,   said   Gadekar 
went to the house of Chand and opened the door and 
entered   in   the   house   and   Gadekar   noticed   that 
Noorjaha and Praveen were lying in dead condition. 
PW­6 further deposed that immediately said Gadekar 
rushed to him and narrated him about the death of 
Noorjaha and Parveen.   Thereafter he himself and 
Gadekar   went   in   the   house   of   Shaikh   Chand   and 
noticed   that   Noorjaha   and   Parveen   were   dead   and 
the blood from nostril of Parveen was oozing as 
well as the clothes were also disordered on their 
person.  Thereafter he returned back to his house 
and   narrated   about   the   death   of   Noorjaha   and 
Parveen   to   his   brothers   and   their   wives. 
Thereafter on next day he went to police Station 
Dharur and lodged report Exhibit­43. 
. During   the   course   of   his   cross­
examination,   PW­6   Gulab   further   stated   that   as 
mother of Parveen was saying that Parveen was aged 
about 14 years, therefore he had mentioned age of 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:45 :::

cnfcase3.16
82
Parveen as 14 years in report. 
41. The prosecution examined PW­7 Ramchandra 
Sakrudkar. He deposed that on the day of incident 
at about mid­night when he woke up for urine, at 
that   time   he   noticed   that   accused   No.1   was 
hurriedly going towards his field.
42. The   prosecution   examined   PW­8   Ganpat 
Bhimrao   Jadhavar.   He   deposed   that   on   2nd   June, 
2015, and again on 8th June, 2015 he  carried the 
seized   articles   and   submitted   the   same   in   the 
office of C.A., Aurangabad.
43. The   prosecution   examined   PW­9   Baliram 
Mahadeo Ermale. But he turned hostile and did not 
support the prosecution case. The prosecution also 
examined PW­10 Vachisht Bhanudas Mule on the point 
of   'last   seen   together'.   However   this   witness 
turned hostile and did not support the prosecution 
case.
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:45 :::

cnfcase3.16
83
44. The   prosecution   examined   PW­13   Ganesh 
Namdeo Gawade. He is Investigating Officer in this 
crime. He deposed about the manner in which he has 
carried out the investigation of the crime.
45. Pursuant   to   the   order   passed   by   this 
Court   on   2nd   February,   2017,   one   Sandeep   Ganpat 
Pawar was examined as PW­14 by the Special Judge, 
Majalgaon.   Pursuant to the order passed by this 
Court, further evidence of PW­13 Ganesh s/o Namdeo 
Gawade,   Dy.S.P.   Beed   was   also   recorded   by   the 
Special Judge, Majalgaon.  
46. We have discussed the evidence of medical 
officers     PW­11     Balasaheb   Solanke   and   PW­12 
Dr.   Vishwajeet   Pawar,   and   PW­1   Samina   and   PW­2 
Ramesh   who   were   panch   witnesses   to   the   inquest 
panchnamas of deceased Noorjaha and Parveen. The 
medical   officer   PW­12   Vishwajeet   Pawar   expressed 
opinion   that   death   of   Noorjaha   and   Parveen   was 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:45 :::

cnfcase3.16
84
homicidal and there was forceful intercourse with 
Parveen and further on the basis of pubic hairs, 
it is mentioned in the postmortem notes that age 
of Parveen was 14 years. It appears that only on 
the basis of pubic hairs the conclusion is reached 
by the medical officer that age of Parveen was 14 
years. It is admitted by the medical officer PW­12 
Pawar in his cross­examination that they did not 
follow the ossification test. PW­12 Pawar fairly 
stated   in   his   cross­examination   that   it   is   not 
mentioned   in   the   postmortem   report   that   on   the 
basis of pubic hairs they have ascertained the age 
of   Parveen   as   14   years.   Importantly,   in   the 
present case the provisions of the POCSO Act, are 
invoked.   We   find   considerable   force   in   the 
argument of counsel appearing for the accused that 
the   trial   Court   ought   to   have   invoked   the 
provisions of Section 34(2) of the POCSO Act, to 
determine the age of Parveen so as to lend support 
to the opinion expressed by PW­12 Pawar that he 
has determined her age as 14 years, on the basis 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:45 :::

cnfcase3.16
85
of   pubic   hairs.   PW­12   Pawar   has   also   given   an 
important   admission   in   his   evidence   that   he   has 
not mentioned the age of the injuries in Column 
No.17 of the postmortem reports. However, in the 
postmortem   report   it   is   stated   that   death   of 
Parveen   was   within   36   to   48   hours   preceding 
conducting the postmortem report.  
47.  Admittedly, in the present case there is 
no eye witness to the prosecutions case and the 
prosecution   case   is   entirely   based   upon   the 
circumstantial   evidence.   So   far   as   the 
appreciation   of   the   circumstantial   evidence   is 
concerned,   the   law   is   well   settled.   The   Supreme 
Court in the case of Hanuman Govind Nargundkar and 
27
another Vs. State of M.P. , held thus:  
"It   is   well   to   remember   that   in   cases 
where the evidence is of a circumstantial 
nature,   the   circumstances   from   which   the 
conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should 
in   the   first   instance   be   fully 
27 AIR 1952 SC 343
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:45 :::

cnfcase3.16
86
established,   and   all   the   facts   so 
established should be consistent only with 
the   hypothesis   of   the   guilt   of   the 
accused.   Again,   the   circumstances   should 
be of a conclusive nature and tendency and 
they   should   be   such   as   to   exclude   every 
hypothesis   but   the   one   proposed   to   be 
proved.   In   other   words,   there   must   be   a 
chain of evidence so far complete as not 
to   leave   any   reasonable   ground   for   a 
conclusion   consistent   with   the   innocence 
of the accused and it must be such as to 
show that within all human probability the 
act must have been done by the accused."
48. The Supreme Court in the case of Nathiya 
vs.   State   Represented   by   Inspector   of   Police, 
28
Bagayam   Police   Station,   Vellore ,   in   Para­27   of 
the Judgment held thus:
"27.   As   recently   as   in   Sujit   Biswas   vs. 
29
State   of   Assam   and   Raja   vs.   State   of 
30
Haryana ,  it  has   been  propounded   that  in 
scrutinising the circumstantial evidence, a 
court is required to evaluate it to ensure 
28 (2016) 10 S.C.C. 298
29 (2013) 12 S.C.C. 406
30 (2015) 11 S.C.C. 43
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:45 :::

cnfcase3.16
87
that   the   chain   of   events   is   established 
clearly   and   completely   to   rule   out   any 
reasonable likelihood of innocence of the 
accused. It was underlined that whether the 
chain is complete or not would depend on 
the facts of each case emanating from the 
evidence and no universal yardstick should 
ever   be   attempted.   That   in   judging   the 
culpability   of   the   accused,   the 
circumstances   adduced   when   collectively 
considered,   must   lead   only   to   the 
irresistible   conclusion   that   the   accused 
alone   is   the   perpetrator   of   the   crime 
alleged. That the circumstances established 
must be of a conclusive nature consistent 
only with the hypothesis of the guilt of 
the accused, was emphatically propounded."
49. Since   the   case   is   based   upon   the 
circumstantial   evidence,   the   motive   assumes 
importance. According to the prosecution case, so 
as   to   fulfill   the   sexual   lust,   the   accused 
committed   forceful   intercourse   with   Parveen   and 
thereafter   they   killed   Noorjaha   and   Parveen.   In 
the   light   of   discussion   of   the   prosecution 
evidence and also keeping in view the evidence of 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:45 :::

cnfcase3.16
88
PW­7 Ramchandra Sakrudkar, who is alleged to have 
seen accused No.1 Krushna going hurriedly in the 
intervening night of Wednesday and Thursday within 
the   proximate   time   of   the   incident,   following 
incriminating   circumstances   would   emerge   for 
consideration in the present case.
i) PW­12 Pawar in his evidence stated that 
death   of   Noorjaha   and   Parveen   was 
homicidal and there was sexual intercourse 
with Parveen. 
ii)   Secondly,   PW­11   Solanke   in   his 
evidence   stated   that,   at   the   time   of 
medical   examination   accused   No.1   Krushna 
narrated   the   history   about   'peno   vaginal 
intercourse   with   Parimala   Chand   Shaikh 
since   10   days   prior   to   incident   and 
performed peno vaginal intercourse on same 
date of incident, but she was not killed 
by   him'.   PW­11   Solanke   also   expressed 
opinion   that   accused   No.1   is   capable   to 
perform   sexual   act   and   he   noticed   three 
injuries on the person of accused No.1 and 
the age of said three injuries was within 
6   to   8   days   preceding   the   conducting   of 
examination by him. 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:45 :::

cnfcase3.16
89
iii)     The   prosecution   claims   that   PW­7 
Ramchandra Sakrudkar who saw accused No.1 
Krushna   in   the   intervening   night   between 
Wednesday and Thursday, is the witness on 
'last   seen   together'.   Subsequent   conduct 
of accused is relevant under Section 8 of 
the Evidence Act.
iv)     Fourthly,   Chemical   Analyzer   (for 
short   "C.A.")   PW­14   Sandeep   Ganpat   Pawar 
stated   in   his   evidence   that,   the   DNA 
profile of Exhibit­6 semen stain's cutting 
from  Jangiya   of deceased   and DNA  profile 
of accused No.1 Krushna are identical and 
from   one   and   same   source   of   male   origin 
and the DNA profile match the maternal and 
paternal allels present in the source. 
v)   The   prosecution   claims   that 
memorandum statement of   accused Nos.1 
and 2 were recorded wherein they stated 
that   they   were   ready   to   produce   the 
clothes which were on their person at 
the   time   of   incident   which   have   been 
concealed by him in the house, and at 
the instance of accused No.1 one pant 
and   one   shirt   and   at   the   instance   of 
accused   No.2   one   pant   and   one   shirt 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:45 :::

cnfcase3.16
90
were seized, and button of said cloth 
matched with buttons recovered from the 
spot which were of Fashion Company.
50. In   order   to   find   out   whether   afore­
mentioned circumstances brought on record by the 
prosecution   have   been   proved   or   otherwise,   we 
would   like   to   discuss   the   evidence   brought   on 
record by the prosecution in relation to each of 
circumstance mentioned herein above.
51. It   is   true   that   death   of   Noorjaha   and 
Parveen   appears   to   be   homicidal,   as   stated   by 
PW­12 Pawar and injuries noticed on the person of 
the   deceased   and   described   by     PW­1   Samina   and 
PW­2   Ramesh,   who   were   panch   witnesses   to   the 
inquest   panchnamas   of   deceased   Noorjaha   and 
Parveen. There appears to be sign of intercourse 
with Parveen. As already observed, PW­12 Pawar has 
expressed the opinion that death was within 36 to 
48   hours   preceding   conducting   the   post­mortem. 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:45 :::

cnfcase3.16
91
It appears that as per the prosecution case the 
alleged incident had taken place within 36 to 48 
hours preceding of the conducting of post­mortem, 
it means that incident had taken place in between 
the period on 27th May, 2015, and 28th May, 2015, 
since the post­mortem was conducted on 29th May, 
2015. 
52. The   husband   of   Noorjaha   i.e.   Chand 
Shaikh,   is   not   examined   by   the   prosecution. 
Gangabhishan   Gadekar   was   the   first   person   who 
opened the door of the house where deceased were 
residing   and   noticed   dead   bodies   in   injured 
condition,   is   also   not   examined   by   the 
prosecution.   The   police   officer   Panpatte,   who 
carried out the initial investigation, is also not 
examined by the prosecution. It has come on record 
that   the   spot   of   incident   i.e.   house   of   the 
deceased and Shaikh Chand, is situate in a place 
where there are no adjoining houses and appears to 
be at isolated place. Though the prosecution has 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:45 :::

cnfcase3.16
92
brought   on   record   PTR   record   of   Gram   panchayat 
houses of village Choramba, nevertheless there is 
no satisfactory evidence brought on record showing 
exact   location   of   the   house   or   the   spot   of 
incident, the houses of the accused or any other 
important   evidence   so   as   to   connect   the   accused 
with the alleged commission of offence.   
53. It   is   true   that   medical   officer   PW­12 
Pawar   has   expressed   opinion   that   there   was 
forceful sexual intercourse with Parveen. However, 
the   real   question   is,   who   committed   such   sexual 
intercourse? In order to connect the accused with 
such commission of crime, which according to the 
prosecution,   was   done   with   a   motive   to   first 
ravish   the   victim,   and   then   so   as   to   cause   the 
disappearance of evidence, kill them, reliance has 
been placed on 'medical history'.
54. When   history   was   given   to   the   medical 
officer   by   accused   No.1,   admittedly,   he   was   in 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:45 :::

cnfcase3.16
93
police custody. Therefore, such statement given by 
accused No.1, when he was in police custody, is 
not admissible. And secondly, even if we consider 
said history given by the accused to the medical 
officer at the time of treatment, while he was in 
police   custody,   the   same   cannot   form   basis   for 
conviction. The Supreme Court in the case of Munna 
Kumar Upadhyaya alias Munna Upadhyaya V. State of 
A.P., supra, in Para­34 of the Judgment held that, 
the   history   given   to   the   doctor   at   the   time   of 
treatment would not be strictly an extra­judicial 
confession,   but   would   be   a   relevant   piece   of 
evidence, as the document had been prepared in the 
normal course of business. However, upon careful 
perusal of other evidence brought on record by the 
prosecution, there is no any corroboration to such 
statement   given   by   accused   No.1   before   he   was 
examined   by   the   medical   officer.   Therefore,   it 
cannot form the basis for conviction.
55. Regarding   the   third   circumstance,   the 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:45 :::

cnfcase3.16
94
prosecution has placed reliance on the evidence of 
PW­7 Ramchandra Sakrudkar.  In his deposition, he 
stated before the Court that he is residing with 
the   family   in   his   field   on   Chardari   road   at 
village Choramba. The land of one Papa Shaikh is 
towards eastern side of his land. On the day of 
incident i.e. on     Wednesday he went to house of 
his brother Haribhau for attending the function of 
“Jagran   Gondhal”.     On   that   day   at   about   10.30 
p.m.,  he had taken meal and  returned back to his 
house   in   the   field   and   slept   in   the   house. 
Thereafter at about mid­night he woke up for urine 
and   came   out   from   his   house.     At   that   time   he 
noticed   that   accused   No.1   was   hurriedly   going 
towards his filed.  After urine, he returned back 
and slept in the house.  On the next day afternoon 
he came to know that incident of murder of wife 
and daughter of Shaikh Chand took place.
. During the course of cross­examination by 
the Advocate for accused No.1, he stated that Papa 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:46 :::

cnfcase3.16
95
Shaikh is the brother of Shaikh Chand. The house 
of   Papa   Shaikh   is   opposite   to   his   house, 
therefore,   they   used   to   go   the     houses   of   each 
others. Towards Southern side of his house, there 
is house of Subhash Sarudkar. The distance between 
his house and house of accused No.1 is 300 to 400 
meters.   The   land   of   Accused   No.1   is   towards 
Western   side   of   his   land   and   way   for   passing 
towards land of accused No.1 is passing from his 
land   Survey   No.46.     Except   the   way   in   his   land 
Survey No.46, there is no other way for passing 
the land of accused No.1. 
. In   his   further   cross­examination   by   the 
Advocate for accused No.2 he stated that  he has 
cordial relations with Papa Shaikh. He denied that 
he was deposing falsely on the say of Papa Shaikh. 
He denied that   he was deposing falsely that on 
the concerned day at midnight he woke up for urine 
and   he   noticed   that   Accused   No.1   was   hurriedly 
going towards his field.   He denied that he was 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:46 :::

cnfcase3.16
96
deposing falsely on the say of Papa Shaikh.
56. Upon careful perusal of evidence of PW­7 
Ramchandra Sakrudkar, nowhere he has stated that 
he saw accused No.1 Krushna in the relevant night 
in   the   company   of   the   deceased.   His   statement 
nowhere even remotely suggest that he saw accused 
No.1   Krushna   in   the   company   of   deceased   either 
nearby   his   house   or   nearby   the   spot   or   at   any 
other place. At the most, the said statement can 
be considered to view the conduct of accused No.1 
Krushna under Section­8 of the Evidence Act. But 
certainly PW­7 cannot be considered as a witness 
to accept the case of the prosecution that he is 
the   witness   on   'last   seen   together'.   He   only 
stated that he woke up at midnight for urine and 
he came out from his house and at that time he 
noticed   that   accused   No.1   Krushna   was   hurriedly 
going   towards   his   field.   By   no   stretch   of 
imagination   his   aforementioned   version   can   be 
construed as the evidence on 'last seen together'. 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:46 :::

cnfcase3.16
97
Though   PW­7   stated   in   his   evidence   that   on   the 
next   day   afternoon   he   came   to   know   about   the 
incident of murder of wife and daughter of Shaikh 
Chand, nevertheless for the reasons best known to 
the   prosecution,   statement   of   PW­7   came   to   be 
recorded belatedly i.e. on 2nd June, 2015, after 
six days. Since defence did not bring on record 
omissions,   contradictions   or   improvements   by 
confronting   him   the   statement   made   before   the 
police, we refrain ourselves from commenting upon 
the   said   aspect.   However,   his   deposition   before 
the   Court   is   quite   different   than   what   he   has 
stated before the police. An important admission 
given by PW­7 in cross­examination is that he has 
cordial relations with Papa Shaikh who is brother 
of Shaikh Chand, husband of deceased Noorjaha. He 
admitted that house of Papa Shaikh is opposite to 
his   house   and   therefore   they   used   to   go   to   the 
house of each others. He has stated that distance 
between   his   house   and   house   of   accused   No.1 
Krushna is 300 to 400 meters. The land of accused 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:46 :::

cnfcase3.16
98
No.1 is towards western side of his land and way 
for passing land of accused No.1 is passing from 
his land Survey No.46. Except the way in his land 
Survey No.46, there is no other way for passing 
the land of accused No.1. The prosecution has not 
brought on record the evidence showing that there 
was   sufficient   light   or   moon   light   so   as   to 
conclude that PW­7 had proper opportunity to see 
accused   No.1   Krushna   and   there   was   no   mistaken 
identity.   PW­7   has   candidly   admitted   that   no 
discussion   or   any   exchange   of   words   took   place 
between him and accused No.1 and he did not ask 
accused No.1 where he was hurriedly proceeding. An 
admission   given   by   him   that   there   is   a   land   of 
accused No.1 towards western side of his land and 
there   is   no   other   way   except   from   land   Survey 
No.46 owned by him to go to the land of accused 
No.1 makes it abundantly clear that being a farmer 
accused No.1 might have gone to his field, and as 
already   observed,   evidence   of   PW­7   cannot   be 
construed   as   evidence   on   'last   seen   together' 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:46 :::

cnfcase3.16
99
i.e., deceased were last seen in the company of 
the accused and thereafter nobody saw them. It is 
also   relevant   to   observe   that,   there   is  no 
corroboration   from   evidence   of   any   other 
prosecution witness to the claim of PW­7 that, he 
saw accused No.1 on said night. 
57. It appears that prosecution examined PW­9 
Baliram   Ermale   and   PW­10   Vachisht   Mule   on   'last 
seen together'. However, they turned hostile and 
their evidence is of no use to the prosecution. 
While discussing the evidence of PW­7 Ramchandra, 
the trial Court has observed that PW­10 Vachisht 
corroborated to the version of   PW­7 Ramchandra. 
But this is incorrect appreciation of evidence, as 
PW­10 Vachisht turned hostile and did not support 
to the prosecution case, it was not proper on the 
part of the trial Court to rely on his version. 
Therefore, the position which clearly emerges on 
record is that the prosecution failed to establish 
that deceased were last seen in the company of the 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:46 :::

cnfcase3.16
100
accused.   There   are   even   no   remote   circumstances 
brought on record by the prosecution that within 
proximity   of   death   of   Noorjaha   and   Parveen   the 
witnesses   saw   the   accused   even   nearby   the   house 
i.e.,   spot   of   the   incident,   where   both   the 
deceased were residing. 
58. The   fourth   and   most   important 
circumstance according to the prosecution is the 
result of DNA Test. The report received from C.A. 
was submitted before the trial Court on the day 
fixed for recording of the statements of accused 
under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. The say of the 
defence   was   called   before   taking   on   record   the 
report   received   from   C.A.   The   defence   sought   an 
opportunity   to   contest   the   C.A.   report,   however 
the   trial   Court   rejected   the   said   prayer   and 
proceeded   to   record   statements   of   accused   under 
Section   313   of   Cr.P.C.   During   the   course   of 
hearing   of   this   Confirmation   Case   and   Appeals 
filed   by   both   the   accused,   the   counsel   for   the 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:46 :::

cnfcase3.16
101
accused raised the objection that the trial Court 
committed error in admitting the vital documents 
of DNA reports Exhibit­95 and 96 directly in the 
evidence, without giving sufficient opportunity to 
the   accused.   The   counsel   submitted   that   these 
documents   were   produced   at   the   fag   end   of   the 
trial, after filing the "Evidence Close Purshis" 
on   behalf   of   the   prosecution   and   the   date   was 
fixed for recording statement of both the accused 
under   Section   313   of   Cr.P.C.   when   prosecution 
produced the documents of DNA report on record and 
though the accused raised objection for production 
of   these   documents   at   belated   stage,   the   trial 
Court did not accede to the objection and directly 
allowed production of these documents. Therefore, 
this Court passed detailed order on 2nd February, 
2017. After considering the rival contentions made 
by   the   counsel   appearing   for   the   parties,   and 
referring   to   the   provisions   of   Section   391   of 
Cr.P.C.,   this   Court   observed   in   Para­7   of   the 
order as under:
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:46 :::

cnfcase3.16
102
"7.   Undoubtedly,   the   Court   trying   the 
criminal trial has a heavy responsibility 
and   duty   to   see   that   fair   trial   is 
conducted   within   the   purview   of 
established   practice   and   procedure 
prescribed   under   the   law.   In   such 
circumstances, we are of the view that it 
would be appropriate to send the matter to 
the   trial   Court   only   for   the   purpose   of 
recording   the   evidence   of   the   Assistant 
Chemical Analyzer Shri S.G. Pawar, who had 
issued the DNA reports at Exh.95 and 96. 
After examination of the Chemical Analyzer 
to Government Forensic Laboratory, Mumbai, 
the   trial   Court   is   directed   to   record 
evidence   of   I.O.   restricted   only   to   the 
extent   of   evidence   of   the   Chemical 
Analyzer   ­   Shri   Pawar.   Moreover,   the 
statement   of   accused   prescribed   under 
Section   313(1)(b)   of   Cr.P.C.   be   recorded 
in   regard   to   the   additional   evidence   of 
Shri   Pawar,   Assistant   Chemical   Analyzer 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:46 :::

cnfcase3.16
103
and I.O. in this case. The opportunity to 
the   prosecution   and   accused   be   given   to 
put   questions   to   these   witnesses,   as 
prescribed   under   law.   This   endeavour   is 
only   to   afford   an   opportunity   to   the 
accused   to   traverse   the   genuineness   and 
veracity of the vital piece of evidence in 
the   form   of   DNA   Reports   (Exh.95   and   96) 
produced on record. The trial Judge should 
take   care   that   cross­examination   of   Shri 
Pawar, Assistant Chemical Analyzer and the 
concerned   I.O.   be   restricted   to   the 
documents of DNA (Exh.95 and 96)."  
59. Thus, by order dated 2nd February, 2017, 
this   Court   transmitted   the   matter   back   to   the 
concerned Court of Special Judge, Majalgaon, Dist­
Beed, for recording evidence of Assistant Chemical 
Analyzer and additional evidence of the concerned 
Investigating Officer. Thereafter, the matter was 
received   from   the   trial   Court   after   recording 
evidence of Chemical Analyzer, additional evidence 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:46 :::

cnfcase3.16
104
of   the   Investigating   Officer   and   statement   of 
accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. 
60. In   the   light   of   above,   the   fourth 
circumstance on which heavy reliance is placed by 
the   prosecution   is   the   C.A.   report   which   shows 
that semen found on said Jangiya (nicker) is of 
blood group "A" i.e. blood group of accused No.1 
Krushna.   In   order   to   appreciate   the   said 
circumstance, we propose to discuss the evidence 
of   PW­5   Shaikh   Amin   Rasul,   who   was   the   panch 
witness   to   the   spot   panchnama.   We   have   already 
discussed   his   evidence   in   earlier   part   of   the 
Judgment.   PW­5   Shaikh   Amin   stated   that   on   29th 
May, 2015, he was present in his village Choramba. 
He was called by the Police Officer Gawade on the 
place of occurrence to act as Panch. He has stated 
minute   details   about   articles   seized   from   the 
spot. He stated that at the time of preparing spot 
panchnama, the police also seized blood mixed soil 
on   the   place   of   occurrence,   simple   soil   on   the 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:46 :::

cnfcase3.16
105
place of occurrence, one nicker having red colour 
stained   with   semen   and   black   hair   attached   with 
the said nicker. The Police also seized the black 
hair on the place of occurrence, one parrot colour 
lime Dabi of Rajesh company, one button of fashion 
company having white colour, one full and one half 
buttons   of   fashion   company,   having   white   colour 
and six pieces of broken bangles having faint red 
pink colour on the spot in their presence.
61. Therefore,   from   the   deposition   of   PW­5 
Shaikh   Amin   Rasul   it   is   clear   that   one   nicker 
having   red   colour   stained   with   semen   and   black 
hair attached with the said nicker, was recovered 
from   the   spot.   Ganesh   Gawade   (PW­13)   who 
investigated   the   case,   at   the   relevant   time 
working   as   Police   Sub­Divisional   Officer,   Beed, 
stated   that   he   prepared   the   spot   panchnama   by 
visiting the spot. At the time of preparing spot 
panchnama,   he   seized   blood   mixed   soil,   simple 
soil, one ladies nicker of red colour, hair which 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:46 :::

cnfcase3.16
106
were attached to nicker and also hairs on place of 
occurrence. He also seized one Lime Box of Rajesh 
company   of   parrot   colour,   one   button   of   white 
colour of Fashion Company as well as one button 
and   one   half   button   of   Fashion   company   and   the 
pieces   of   broken   bangles   on   the   place   of 
occurrence.   Then   he   obtained   signature     of   the 
panchas on the spot panchnama. He further deposed 
that on the same day he seized the clothes on the 
person of both the deceased at the time of post­
mortem examination which were produced by police 
person namely Jadhavar. He stated that on the same 
day   he   seized   the   clothes   on   the   person   of 
deceased Parveen which were sent by doctor in one 
pocket. The said clothes are one Punjabi Shirt and 
Paijama.   He   has   stated   further   details   about 
seizure of clothes. However, he has given certain 
admissions in his evidence that nicker handed over 
by the doctor is not found in Muddemal. He further 
stated that as per the pocket sent by doctor he 
seized all the articles under panchnama.   
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:46 :::

cnfcase3.16
107
62. The   prosecution   case   in   the   wake   of 
evidence   of   prosecution   witnesses   and   in 
particular   PW­5   Shaikh   Amin   and   PW­13   Ganesh 
Gawade is that red colour nicker seized from the 
spot at the time of preparing spot panchnama was 
sent to C.A., and at one breath PW­13 Gawade has 
stated that the nicker handed over by the doctor 
is not found in the Muddemal. However, at another 
breath PW­13 Gawade stated that as per the pocket 
sent   by   the   doctor,   he   seized   all   the   articles 
under the panchnama. It is clear from the evidence 
of PW­5 Shaikh Amin and PW­13 Ganesh Gawade that 
the nicker which was seized at the time of spot 
panchnama   was   of   red   colour.   At   this   stage,   it 
would   be   appropriate   to   make   reference   to   the 
evidence   of   medical   officer   PW­12   Vishwajeet 
Pawar.   He   stated   in   his   deposition   before   the 
Court   that   when   the   dead   body   of   Parveen   was 
brought for post­mortem examination, at that time 
torn yellow colour underwear, red colour payjama 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:46 :::

cnfcase3.16
108
as   well   as   yellow   colour   Salwar   were   on   her 
person.   In   the   aforesaid   background,   therefore, 
the question arises, the red colour nicker which 
was recovered from the spot belongs to whom? when 
the   medical   officer   has   stated   in   his   evidence 
that,   when   Parveen   was   brought   for   post­mortem 
examination,   at   that   time   torn   yellow   colour 
underwear was on her person. Therefore, reasonable 
inference can be drawn that the red colour nicker 
which was seized from the spot at the time of spot 
panchnama, belonged to Noorjaha. We have carefully 
perused Exhibit­47, a letter dated 1st June, 2015, 
written   by   PW­13   Ganesh   Gawade   to   the   Deputy 
Director,   Regional   Forensic   Science   Laboratory, 
Aurangabad,   wherein   it   is   shown   that   the   seized 
articles were sent for C.A. examination. From the 
said   letter,   it   would   be   relevant   to   make 
reference to Exhibit C­1 i.e.   nicker seized at 
the time of preparing spot panchnama. Upon careful 
perusal of description of Exhibit C­1, the typed 
portion shows that the nicker recovered from the 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:46 :::

cnfcase3.16
109
spot was on the person of Noorjaha Chand Shaikh at 
the   time   of   incident   which   was   kept   in   sealed 
envelope.   However,   subsequently,   the   name 
"Noorjaha"   is   scored   and   in   handwriting   it   is 
written as "Parveen". PW­13 Ganesh Gawade stated 
in his cross­examination that he did not authorize 
PW­8   Ganpat   Jadhavar   to   change   the   contents   of 
said letter. Thus, it also create serious doubts 
about   the   prosecution   case,   that   really   which 
nicker was sent to C.A. In his deposition, PW­13 
Ganesh Gawade has stated that the   seized ladies 
nicker of red colour which was shown to him was 
the same, which is Article­3. Therefore, the red 
nicker which was sent to C.A., was different and 
not the same which was on the person of Parveen 
when her dead body was taken to the hospital for 
post­mortem   examination   to   medical   officer   PW­12 
Vishwajeet   Pawar.   As   already   observed,   medical 
officer   PW­12   Vishwajeet   Pawar   stated   that   when 
dead body of Parveen was brought for post­mortem 
examination,   at   that   time   torn   yellow   colour 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:46 :::

cnfcase3.16
110
underwear was on her person. Therefore, reasonable 
inference can be drawn that the torn yellow colour 
underwear on the person of Parveen at the time of 
post­mortem examination, was not sent to the C.A. 
The medical officer PW­12 Vishwajeet Pawar did not 
notice any sign of forceful sexual intercourse on 
Noorjaha, nor it is the case of the prosecution 
that   there   was   any   forceful   intercourse   with 
Noorjaha.   Therefore,   the   red   colour   Jangiya 
(nicker) which was recovered from the spot appears 
to be that of Noorjaha, which was sent to C.A.
63. Now, we proceed to discuss in detail, the 
evidence   of   C.A.   which   was   recorded   pursuant   to 
order passed by this Court on 2nd February, 2017. 
Sandeep Ganpat Pawar was examined as PW­14 by the 
Special   Judge,   Majalgaon.   In   his   deposition   he 
stated   that   since   11th   January,   2013,   he   is 
serving as Assistant Chemical Analyzer in Forensic 
Science Laboratory, Kalina, Santacruz, Mumbai. He 
had completed training in DNA, Finger Printing in 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:46 :::

cnfcase3.16
111
DNA Division, Mumbai. In his service tenure, till 
today, he has examined in all 500 DNA cases. He 
further stated that on 26th June, 2015, he was on 
duty in his office.  On that day, he received one 
sealed envelope with a letter signed by the Deputy 
Director, Regional Forensic Laboratory, Aurangabad 
by hand Shri Gaisamudre. Then he analyzed the said 
Exhibit   and   get   the   DNA   profile   from   the   said 
Exhibit. Then he received blood samples of accused 
on 3rd July, 2015.  He analyzed the same Exhibits 
and   generated   the   DNA   profile   of   the   said 
Exhibits.   The   first   blood   sample   was   of   accused 
no.1   Krushna   and   second   was   of   accused   no.2 
Achyut. They match the DNA profile of accused no.1 
blood   sample   with   semen   stains   detected   on 
Jangiya. Then He gives the interpretation that the 
DNA   profile   of   Exhibit­6   semen   stain's   cutting 
from   Jangiya   of   deceased   and   DNA   profile   of 
accused Krushna are identical and from one and the 
same   source   of   male   origin   and   the   DNA   profile 
match the maternal and paternal alleles present in 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:46 :::

cnfcase3.16
112
the source. He also give the interpretation that 
DNA profile of Exhibit­6 semen stains cutting from 
Jangiya of deceased and Exhibit­2 blood sample of 
accused Achyut are not identical and not from one 
and same source of male origin. The DNA profiles 
did not match with maternal and paternal alleles 
present   in   the   source.   Then   he   prepared   report. 
Reports   at Exhibits­95 and 96 shown to him, are 
the same. He put his signature on it. For the test 
of DNA, he used PCR Amplification Technique.     
. During   the   course   of   his   cross­
examination,   PW­14   Sandeep   Ganpat   Pawar   stated 
that he has not received the consent letter for 
DNA test of accused from any office. He has not 
studied   about   the   legal   provisions   of   DNA   Test. 
For   DNA   test   consent   is   must.   He   read   the 
scientific literature about DNA test. He did not 
read   the   scientific   literature   about   the   fake 
results   of   DNA   test   can   be   made.   He   has   no 
knowledge about preparation of fake results of DNA 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:47 :::

cnfcase3.16
113
test. As per the report Exhibit­96, he has started 
analysis   from   2nd   July,   2015.   As   per   the   said 
date,   it   appears   that   analysis   started   before 
receipt of the sample. He has perused the letter 
of   Investigating   Officer   at   Exhibit­80.   On   the 
said   letter   there   was   no   seal   specimen.   When   a 
question was put to him that, is there any letter 
in   the   papers   which   he   has   brought   with   him   to 
show that his office had ever supplied DNA kit to 
the investigating officer of this case, he denied 
the said question. He further stated that report 
Exhibit­95 did not show how and from whom and on 
which date Exhibit­6 received. Similarly, it did 
not show in what manner it was received. Exhibit­6 
did   not   show   whether   it   is   received   from   FSL 
Aurangabad.   Similarly,   it   did   not   show,   it   was 
received   in   sealed   condition.   While   preparing 
document   Exhibit­95,   he   was   diligent   and   not   at 
all   lethargic.   Column   No.5   in   Exhibit­95   is   an 
important column. When a question was put to him 
that, had the parcel been received as described in 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:47 :::

cnfcase3.16
114
Exhibit­95 he has hesitated to write in Exhibit­95 
that   it   was   received   in   sealed   condition.   He 
replied that in refer case they are not mentioning 
the   same   thing.   He   further   stated   that   sample 
Exhibit­6 was received in sealed envelope but he 
has not mentioned the same in report Exhibit­95. 
On the day of recording his evidence, he has not 
brought the said envelope. For the first time he 
stated   in   examination   in   chief   that   sample 
Exhibit­6 received in sealed envelope. The papers 
which he has brought did not show that sample was 
received in sealed condition. The whole Jangiya of 
deceased was not received. He was unable to tell 
size of said sample of Jangiya. Till the day of 
recording   his   evidence   the   said   sample   was 
preserved in their laboratory. He did not verify 
whether sample received was from Jangiya or not. 
He was unable to tell that if the said sample of 
Jangiya was of male or female. Prior he received 
Exhibit­6   said   sample   was   subjected   to   chemical 
analysis.   He   did   not   find   any   traces   on   sample 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:47 :::

cnfcase3.16
115
Exhibit­6   in   respect   of   its   earlier   chemical 
analysis.   He   denied   that   the   said   sample   was 
handled   by   another   person   prior   to   him.   On   the 
said sample it was written "Exhibit­6 semen stain" 
by pen. For writing said words, the said sample 
was   handled.   He   admits   that   if   sample   is 
contaminated,   its   results   will   not   be   accurate. 
When the question was put to him that the control 
sample   can   be   contaminated   with   the   crime   scene 
sample, he was unable to tell the same. He further 
stated that there is no document to show how there 
were white blood cells shown in report Exhibit­96. 
He   did   not   know   whether   the   WBC   were   separated 
from blood. He did not know whether the WBC can be 
separated from blood by centrifuging it. Red blood 
cell does not contain DNA. He does not know after 
removing   WBC   from   blood   sample   the   DNA   of   a 
targeted   person,   can   be   intermixed.   DNA   can   be 
obtained   from   saliva,   uprooted   hair,   semen, 
biological   fluid   and   cup   touched   by   lips.   If 
anything which carries DNA of a person comes in a 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:47 :::

cnfcase3.16
116
contact with the crime scene sample then DNA of 
the   control   sample   and   crime   scene   sample   will 
match,   if   the   sufficient   amount   of   source   will 
transfer. In sample Exhibit­6, quantity of source 
is not mentioned in report Exhibit­95. Therefore, 
training   is   given   for   handling   the   sample 
properly. 
. During   the   course   of   his   cross­
examination,   PW­14   Sandeep   Ganpat   Pawar   further 
stated that it is not mentioned that blood sample 
Exhibit­96 received from doctor. It is mentioned 
that   sample   received   from   police.   Blood   samples 
should   be   collected   by   medical   officer.   In   the 
sample,   it   is   not   mentioned   whether   it   was 
collected by medical officer. The RFSL Aurangabad 
did not send any blood sample to them. There was 
no data that how many people handled the sample 
and in what temperature it was kept. The stages of 
DNA   extraction   not   mentioned   in   the   report   i.e. 
protocol   of   analysis   is   not   mentioned   in   the 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:47 :::

cnfcase3.16
117
report.   He   has   adopted   15­STR   LOCi   and   gender 
specific Amelogenin Locus using PCR amplification 
Technique. In that technique they did not detect 
the   Methylation.   He   agreed   with   the   proposition 
contained in Para (iv) under heading "FABRICATED 
DNA EVIDENCE AND COUNTER­MEASURES" on page No.202, 
in   Chapter­5,   Synopsis   5   from   book   DNA   TEST   in 
Criminal   Paternity   Disputes   (Scientific 
Investigation and Trial) by Dr. Gupta and Agrawal, 
Edition­2016, which runs as under:
"(iv)   The   Nucleix   Countermeasure.­ 
Fortunately   the   same   investigators   that 
exposed   this   weakness   have   suggested   a 
countermeasure in the form of detection of 
DNA   methylation.   In   vivo,   nuclear   DN 
becomes   methylated   at   cytosine   bases   by 
the   addition   of   a   methyle   group   to   the 
pyramidine   ring   (Nelson   and   Cox   2004). 
This   is   a   naturally   occurring   process 
that,  in  the living  oganism,  is involved 
in gene expression and regulation, as well 
as  DNA replication   (Nelson  and  Cox 2004) 
DNA amplified by PCR isn't subject to this 
sort of regulation and as a result is not 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:47 :::

cnfcase3.16
118
methylated.   Lab   assays   to   detect 
methylation are available, but as yet, the 
procedure is not well­automated, is time­
consuming   and   laborious,   and   is   not 
frequently included as part of a forensic 
analyst's   training   (Cottrell   2004). 
Further, since "faked" DNA evidence gives 
every   appearance   of   being   legitimate 
(aside from its lack of methylation), and 
it   may   not   be   obvious   in   which   cases   a 
life   sciences   graduate   may   be   involved, 
methylation   assay   must   be   performed   on 
every   forensic   DNA   sample   if   we   are   to 
retain   our confidence­   legal  and moral  ­ 
in   DNA   profiling   as   a   criminal   justice 
tool.   Fortunately   the   wide   publicity   of 
the  Nucleix  article  is having  an  effect. 
Several   life   science   companies   have 
announced   development   of   more   repid   and 
automated   assays.   Nucleix   among   them 
(Cottrell 2004, Eada 2000)."
 
. PW­14 Sandeep Ganpat Pawar stated that he 
did not perform the said test, therefore, he is 
not confirm with above proposition. He was unable 
to   tell   that   if   Methylation   is   found   in   DNA   it 
will   be   a   sure   sign   that   the   sample   which   were 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:47 :::

cnfcase3.16
119
received   for   analysis   were   not   contaminated 
because he never performed the same test. Till the 
day of recording his evidence he never performed 
Methylation test and he has no knowledge about the 
said   test.   He   denied   that   he   is   imperfect   in 
scientific   test   or   DNA   test.   He   has   no   data   to 
show that whether the samples were contaminated or 
not   contaminated.   He   did   not   provide   any 
sequencing   photographs   to   police.   He   did   not 
perform the test for detection of blood in sample 
Exhibit­6.   Therefore,   he   was   not   able   to   tell 
whether   the   sample   Exhibit­6   contained   blood   or 
not. If the blood will transfer to any object, the 
DNA profile can be obtained, but it depends upon 
amount of source and environmental condition. He 
did   not   examine   quantity   of   semen   on   sample 
Exhibit­6. The colour of said sample Exhibit­6 is 
not   mentioned   in   reports   Exhibits­95   and   96.   He 
did   not   perform   any   test   for   detection   of 
spermatozoa.  In letter Exhibit­80, the sample Y­2 
and Z­2 were of what, is not mentioned.  The said 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:47 :::

cnfcase3.16
120
samples were received by them in Thermos is not 
mentioned   in   it.   It   is   not   mentioned   that   he 
performed   analysis   of   the   sample   received   in 
Thermos.   He   did   not   ask   clarification   from   the 
person   under   whose   signature,   the   letter   was 
forwarded to his office. In his report Exhibit­96, 
he has not mentioned about Exhibits­Y­2 and Z­2, 
he did not know who had given marking Exhibits­Y­2 
and Z­2, as referred to in Exhibit­80.  He has no 
any   document   to   show   that   the   samples   were 
received as Y­2 and Z­2 as referred in the letter 
Exhibit­80.  Quantity of blood is not mentioned in 
the report.   His seniors are Assistant Director, 
Joint Director, Deputy Director and Director.  His 
next   promotion   will   be   as   a   Assistant   Director. 
He   is   Sub­ordinate   to   Assistant   Director.     The 
documents   Exhibit­95   and   96   does   not   bear 
signature   of   Assistant   Director.     He   did   not 
remember sample of Exhibit­6 was crusty in nature. 
He did not remember whether it was puckered.   He 
did   not   remember   same   was   plain.     He   did   not 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:47 :::

cnfcase3.16
121
remember the condition of sample Exhibit­6.   The 
said   condition   is   not   mentioned   in   reports 
Exhibits­95   and   96.     He   had   not   checked   the 
properties   of   sample   Exhibit­6.     He   did   not 
analyze motility of stain on sample Exhibit­6.  He 
performed   the   test   for   detection   of   semen.   In 
reports   Exhibit­95   and   96   he   has   not   mentioned 
that the sample Exhibit­6 was having semen.  
. During   the   course   of   his   cross­
examination,   PW­14   Sandeep   Ganpat   Pawar   further 
stated that he did not perform the test for EDTA, 
therefore, it remained in dark.   He did not know 
the   words   "isonins"   and   "isogens".     He   has   not 
submitted   the   calibration   certificate   of 
equipments   with   reports   Exhibits­95   and   96.     He 
admits that the sample sent to the Lab should be 
kept   in   requisite   temperature.     He   has   not 
mentioned   in   reports   Exhibits­95   and   96   that 
samples were kept in requisite temperature in his 
Lab.     Sample   Exhibit­6   was   not   received   from 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:47 :::

cnfcase3.16
122
Police Officer.  The Police has not requested for 
DNA test of sample Exhibit­6 to his office as well 
as in letter Exhibit­80. It is not mentioned in 
reports   about   colour   and   colourless   of   sample 
Exhibit­6. He was unable to tell whether the DNA 
of one person can be planted at the crime scene 
article.  After analysis of sample Exhibit­6, his 
office   did   not   return   the   same   to   Police.     The 
number shown in report Exhibit­96 in the chart of 
Genotype, are the numbers of DNA LOCUS.  The data 
of number shown in Genotype column was not already 
stored   in   their   lab.   That   numbers   have   some 
significance. The said numbers were not created on 
his   own   view.   Their   lab   uses   standard   DNA   for 
reference. Their Lab has no data base. He did not 
know their data Lab is connected with Maharashtra 
Police Website. The police persons used to come to 
their office. There is no restriction to police on 
his part. He did not know if his office restricts 
police persons. He did not know word "Dog Tail". 
The sample taken on tags or slides are preserved 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:47 :::

cnfcase3.16
123
by   their   office.   They   did   not   create   images   of 
said   tags   or   slides.   There   is   no   mention   in 
reports   Exhibits­95   and   96   about   preparation   of 
any tags or slides for the purpose of analysis. He 
has   not   brought   the   tags   or   slides.   He   has   not 
brought electronic data about images with him. He 
did   not   supply   images   with   report   Exhibit­96   to 
police. The date of dispatch of report Exhibit­96 
is   7th January, 2016. He was unable to tell on 
which date the said report was accepted by police. 
His office dispatched reports Exhibits­95 and 96 
by post. Those were not received back to him as 
unserved. He denied that DNA reports Exhibits­95 
and   96   are   totally   false   and   prepared   without 
analysis,   and   therefore,   the   so­called   Amplified 
images were not supplied with reports Exhibits­95 
and 96. He denied that to suppress the above fact, 
they   prepared   false   documents   and   attempted   to 
produce   in   the   Court.   He   denied   that   sample 
Exhibit­6   was   not   received   by   their   office.   He 
denied that the blood sample which he said to have 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:47 :::

cnfcase3.16
124
matched of accused No.1, as per report Exhibit­96, 
is not blood sample of accused No.1. He did not 
remember whether there is any signature on Vial. 
He   do   not   remember   except   names,   other   details 
were   given   on   vials   or   not.   It   is   not   their 
practice to write in detail on Vials. He has not 
mentioned   in   report   that   Vials   were   sealed.   He 
denied that he only put his signature on reports 
Exhibits­95   and   96   and   data   in   said   reports   is 
false. He has not mentioned in reports Exhibits­95 
and 96 that he rechecked the data before signing 
them. He denied that entries of findings of data 
are taken in concerned register by their office. 
He denied that their office taken entries of data 
on loose papers. Their office also did not take 
entries   of   said   data   in   compute.   The   number   is 
given to case and not Code. He has not given Code 
in this case. In reports Exhibits­95 and 96, he 
has not mentioned that it was of "human". He has 
not mentioned in reports Exhibits­95 and 96 that 
the stains are of human stains. He denied that he 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:47 :::

cnfcase3.16
125
is deposing falsely. During interval time he went 
with   Dy.S.P.   Gawade   in   his   Jeep   and   within   one 
hous he returned back to Court. Dy.S.P. Gawade is 
not   his   friend.   He   admits   that   Dy.S.P.   Gawade 
offered   food   to   him.   He   denied   that   since 
childhood, Dy.S.P. Gawade is his friend. He denied 
that on the say of Dy.S.P. Gawade he is deposing 
falsely. 
64. Thus,   the   evidence   of   Chemical   Analyzer 
makes   it   abundantly   clear   that   he   did   not 
recognize the colour of Jangiya (nicker) wherein 
he noticed the semen which he found matched with 
blood   of   accused   No.1.   It   is   also   important   to 
note   that   Sandeep   Ganpat   Pawar   (PW­14)   in   his 
cross­examination   stated   that,   report   Exhibit­95 
did not show how and from whom and on which date 
Exhibit­6 received. Similarly it did not show in 
what manner it was received. Similarly it did not 
show that it was received in sealed condition. He 
further stated that the whole Jangiya of deceased 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:47 :::

cnfcase3.16
126
was not received. He was unable to tell size of 
said   sample   Jangiya.   He   did   not   verify   whether 
sample received was from Jangiya or not. He was 
not able to tell if the said sample of Jangiya was 
of   male   of   female.   Blood   samples   should   be 
collected by medical officer. In the sample it is 
not mentioned whether it was collected by medical 
officer. There was no data that how many people 
handled the sample and in what temperature it was 
kept.   He   also   admitted   that   he   never   performed 
Methylation test and he has no knowledge about it. 
He   did   not   examine   quantity   of   semen   on   sample 
Exhibit­6. The colour of said sample Exhibit­6 is 
not   mentioned   in   reports   Exhibits­95   and   96.   In 
letter Exhibit­80, the sample Y­2 and Z­2 were of 
what, is not mentioned. He has not mentioned that 
the sample Exhibit­6 was having semen. He has not 
mentioned   in   reports   Exhibits­95   and   96   that 
samples   were   kept   in   requisite   temperature   on 
their Lab. Sample Exhibit­6 was not received from 
police officer. The police has not requested for 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:47 :::

cnfcase3.16
127
DNA test of sample Exhibit­6 to their office, as 
well as in letter Exhibit­80. He did not remember 
whether there is any signature on Vial. He did not 
remember except names, other details were given on 
Vials   or   not.   He   has   not   mentioned   in   reports 
Exhibits­95 and 96 that the stains are of human 
stains.
65. Just   to   ascertain   whether   the   articles 
seized   at   the   time   of   preparation   of   spot 
panchnama by the Investigating Officer were sent 
in a proper sealed condition to C.A., it would be 
apt to discuss the evidence of PW­8 Ganpat Bhimrao 
Jadhavar. During his cross­examination, he stated 
that on 1st June, 2015, and again on   6th June, 
2015,   when   Dy.S.P.   Gawade   directed   him   to   carry 
seized   articles   to   C.A.,   Aurangabad   on   that   day 
the above seized articles were in custody of in­
charge   of   Malkhana   namely   Rajgire.   Both   times 
Dy.S.P.   Gawade   directed   him   orally   to   carry   the 
articles   to   C.A.,   Aurangabad.     When   he   went   to 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:47 :::

cnfcase3.16
128
C.A., Aurangabad for submitting seized articles on 
that day the PSO had taken entry in that regard in 
Station   Diary.     The   seized   articles   were   sealed 
but the pockets of said articles do not bear the 
signature of Rajgire. Admittedly, the prosecution 
has not examined said Rajgire who was in­charge of 
the Malkhana. Conjoint reading of evidence of PW­8 
Jadhavar,   PW­13   Gawade   and   PW­14   Sandeep   Pawar, 
C.A., reasonable inference can be drawn that the 
seized articles were not immediately sent to C.A. 
and those were not sent in proper sealed condition 
as   per   the   procedure.   The   Supreme   Court   in   the 
31
case   of   The   State   vs.   Motia   and   others ,   held 
that:
"Similarly it is necessary that the officer 
recovering the articles should immediately 
take steps to seal them and evidence should 
be   produced   that   the   seals   were   not 
tampered   with   till   the   identification   is 
over, or till the articles are sent to the 
Chemical   Examiner   for   analysis.   In   the 
absence of such precautions it would always 
be   open   to   the   accused   to   say   that   the 
31 A.I.R. 1955 RAJASTHAN 82 (Vol.42 C.N.27)
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:47 :::

cnfcase3.16
129
police   later   put   human   blood   on   the 
articles in order to implicate the accused. 
If   evidence   as   to   such   sealing   is   not 
produced,   court   cannot   place   the   same 
reliance on the discovery of blood stains 
on various articles as the Court would have 
done   if   necessary   precautions   had   been 
taken."
66. Even   if   we   take   the   case   of   the 
prosecution   at   the   highest   that   the   prosecution 
has   brought   on   record   DNA   report,   in   that   case 
also   that   itself   will   not   form   basis   for   the 
conviction   of   accused   No.1.   At   the   most   said 
report can be used as corroborative evidence i.e. 
the evidence to substantiate other evidence.   In 
the case of Premjibhai Bachubhai Khasiya vs. State 
32
of Gujarat and another , placing reliance upon the 
exposition of law in the case of Kamti Devi vs. 
33
Poshi   Ram   and   in   the   case   of   Ranjitsing 
Brahmajeetsing Sharma vs. State of Maharashtra and 
34
another , in Para­14 of the Judgment, it is held 
32 2009 Cri.L.J. 2888
33 2001(5) S.C.C. 311
34 2005(5) S.C.C. 294
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:47 :::

cnfcase3.16
130
that:
"14. It is thus clear that positive D.N.A. 
report can be of great significance, where 
there is supporting evidence, depending of 
course on the strength and quality of that 
evidence. If the D.N.A. report is the sole 
piece of evidence, even if it is positive, 
it cannot conclusively fix the identity of 
the   miscreant,   but,   if   the   report   is 
negative,   it   would   conclusively   exonerate 
the   accused   from   the   involvement   or 
charge."
67. So   far   as   the   fifth   circumstance 
recording   memorandum   statements   of   accused   Nos.1 
and 2 and seizure of the clothes at their instance 
is   concerned,   firstly,   the   memorandum   statements 
were   recorded   when   the   accused   were   in   police 
custody and secondly, the clothes were recovered 
at the instance of the accused from their houses, 
where other family members were also residing. The 
prosecution has not brought on record cogent and 
clinching   evidence   showing   that   really   the   said 
clothes belonged to accused Nos.1 and 2. The claim 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:48 :::

cnfcase3.16
131
of   the   prosecution   that   the   clothes   which   were 
allegedly recovered from the houses of the accused 
at   their   instance,   button   of   said   cloth   matched 
with buttons recovered from the spot which are of 
Fashion   Company,   cannot   be   accepted   since   such 
type of buttons are normally available in market, 
and during investigation, no enquiry was made with 
any   of   the   inmates   of   the   said   houses   as   to 
exactly whom the clothes belonged.  
68. We   find   considerable   force   in   the 
argument   of   the   counsel   appearing   for   the 
Appellants that the investigation in the present 
case   to   some   extent   was   motivated,   due   to   the 
following   admissions   given   by   the   Investigating 
Officer   in   his   cross­examination.   In   his   cross­
examination   Investigating   Officer   PW­13   Ganesh 
Gawade   admitted     that   after   incident   in   present 
case   the   political   leaders   namely   President   of 
N.C.P. Shri Sharad Pawar, Parliamentary Member of 
Beed namely Smt. Preetam Munde and Parliamentary 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:48 :::

cnfcase3.16
132
Member   Ramdas   Athwale   visited   village   Choramba. 
M.L.A.   Shri   Jaidatt   Kshirsagar   also   visited 
Choramba. When the above political leaders came to 
Choramba, he met them and at that time the said 
political   leaders   had   asked   him   about   arrest   of 
accused. The S.P. Beed told him to investigate the 
matter as early as possible. 
69. Considering   the   manner   in   which 
investigation is carried out in the present case, 
we find considerable force in the submissions made 
by the counsel appearing for the Appellants that 
the Investigating Officer was determined to book 
the present Appellants by hook or crook, and to 
ensure   their   conviction   so   as   to   save   the 
investigating   machinery   from   not   really   tracing 
out the real culprits. In this respect the counsel 
appearing for the Appellants has referred to the 
statement of accused No.1 Krushna, recorded under 
Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. on 9th March, 2017. In 
reply to Question No.23, as to whether he want to 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:48 :::

cnfcase3.16
133
say anything else, he replied thus:
"When I was in lock­up the Dy.S.P. Gawade 
has   taken   my   semen   on   cloth   and   he   has 
used the same semen."  
70. We   also   find   considerable   force   in   the 
submission of the counsel for the Appellants that 
in   the   present   case,   the   prosecution   has   not 
examined material witnesses. As observed earlier, 
Gangabhishan,   who   first   saw   the   dead   bodies   of 
Noorjaha and Parveen lying in the house, is not 
examined by the prosecution. Rajgire, in­charge of 
Malkhana, from whose custody PW­8 Jadhavar claims 
that he has taken the seized articles to carry the 
same   to   the   C.A.,   Aurangabad,   is   also   not 
examined.   According   to   Investigating   Officer 
Ganesh   Gawade   (PW­13),   the   police   constable 
Wanjare   carried   blood   sample   of   accused   for   DNA 
Test to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Mumbai. 
Said   Wanjare   is   also   not   examined   by   the 
prosecution.   Mr.   Panpatte,   who   carried   out   the 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:48 :::

cnfcase3.16
134
initial investigation, is also not examined by the 
prosecution.
71. The   Supreme   Court   in   the   case   of 
Shankaralal   Gyarasilal   Dixit   Vs.   State   of 
35
Maharashtra   in para 13 held thus : 
"13. Since this is a case of circumstantial 
evidence, it is necessary to find whether 
the circumstances on which the prosecution 
relies   are   established   by   satisfactory 
evidence,   often   described   as   `clear   and 
cogent'   and   secondly,   whether   the 
circumstances  are of such a nature  as to 
exclude every other hypothesis save the one 
that   the   appellant   is   guilty   of   the 
offences of which he is charged. In other 
words, the circumstances have to be of such 
a nature as to be consistent with the sole 
hypothesis   that   the   accused   is   guilty   of 
the crime imputed to him."
35
AIR 1981 SC 765
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:48 :::

cnfcase3.16
135
. After   discussing   the   circumstances 
brought   on   record   and   the   evidence   available 
therein,   in   the   case   of    Shankaralal   Gyarasilal 
Dixit   (supra),     the   Supreme   Court   observed   that 
though 12 circumstances have been relied upon by 
the   prosecution,   the   important   circumstance   is 
that   the   appellant   therein   was   present   in   the 
house,   was   not   proved   by   the   prosecution. 
Therefore,   in   the   facts   of   that   case,   Supreme 
Court   held   in   Para­26   of   the   Judgment   that   the 
crucial link in the chain of circumstances is the 
presence of the appellant in his house at the time 
when the dead body of Sunita was discovered. Once 
that   link   snaps,   the   entire   case   would   have   to 
rest   on   slender   tit­bits   here   and   there.   This 
discussion disposes of the second part of the 4th 
circumstance,   part   of   5th   circumstance   and 
circumstances   (6)   and   (7).   The   Supreme   Court 
acquitted the appellant therein.
72. In the present case also, in the light of 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:48 :::

cnfcase3.16
136
discussion in foregoing paragraphs, it will have 
to   be   held   that   the     chain   of   circumstances   on 
which reliance has been placed by the prosecution 
has not been established beyond reasonable doubt 
by the prosecution. Therefore, benefit of doubt in 
favour of the Appellant deserves to be extended.
73. The Supreme Court in the case  of Sharad 
36
Birdhichand   Sarda   Vs.   State   of   Maharashtra   has 
held that, the prosecution must stand or fall on 
its   own   legs   and   it   cannot   derive   any   strength 
from the weakness of the defence. It is not the 
law that where there is any infirmity or lacuna in 
the prosecution case, the same could be  cured or 
supplied by a false defence or a plea which is not 
accepted by a Court.  It is also to be borne in 
mind   that   the   case   in   hand   is   a   case   of 
circumstantial   evidence   and   if   two   views   are 
possible on the evidence on record, one pointing 
to   the   guilt   of   the   accused   and   other   his 
36 (1984) 4 SCC 166 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:48 :::

cnfcase3.16
137
innocence,   the   accused   is   entitled   to   have   the 
benefit of one which is favourable to him.
74. In the light of discussion in foregoing 
paragraphs,   we   are   of   the   considered   view   that 
the   entire   prosecution   case   rests   upon   the 
circumstantial evidence   and the evidence brought 
on   record   by   the   prosecution   is   not   cogent, 
sufficient,   convincing   and   do   not   inspire 
confidence so as to prove the offence against the 
Appellants beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore,   an 
inevitable conclusion is that the Appellants are 
entitled for the benefit of doubt. Hence we pass 
the following order:
               O R D E R
(I)     Criminal   Appeal   No.527   of   2016 
filed   by   accused   No.1   ­   Krishna   s/o 
Ramrao   Ridde,   and   Criminal   Appeal 
No.507 of 2016 filed by accused No.2 ­ 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:48 :::

cnfcase3.16
138
Achyut   @   Bappa   @   Babu   s/o   Kachru 
Chunche, are allowed.
(II)   The   conviction   and   sentence 
imposed on   accused No.1 ­ Krishna s/o 
Ramrao Ridde and accused No.2 ­ Achyut 
@ Bappa @ Babu s/o Kachru Chunche, is 
quashed and set aside.
(III)   The   confirmation   sought   by   the 
trial   Court   of   the   conviction   and 
sentence is declined.
(IV) Accused No.1 ­ Krishna s/o Ramrao 
Ridde and accused No.2 ­ Achyut @ Bappa 
@ Babu s/o Kachru Chunche are acquitted 
of the offence punishable under Section 
449,   354(B),   376(2)(i),   302   read   with 
34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and 
under   Section   4   of   the   Protection   of 
Children   from   Sexual   Offences   Act, 
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:48 :::

cnfcase3.16
139
2012.
(V)  accused No.1 ­ Krishna s/o Ramrao 
Ridde and accused No.2 ­ Achyut @ Bappa 
@ Babu s/o Kachru Chunche shall be set 
at   liberty   forthwith,   unless   their 
presence   is   required   in   any   other 
offence.
(VI)         accused   No.1   ­   Krishna   s/o 
Ramrao Ridde and accused No.2 ­ Achyut 
@ Bappa @ Babu s/o Kachru Chunche shall 
furnish   the   bail   bonds   of   Rs.15,000/­ 
each   and   surety   of   like   amount   each 
under   Section   437­A   of   the   Code   of 
Criminal   Procedure,   before   the 
concerned trial Court at Majalgaon.
[ K.K. SONAWANE , J.]                 [S.S. SHINDE, J.] 
asb/AUG17     
  
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:54:48 :::