Dinesh Arjandas Lahrani vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors.
- Court
- Bombay High Court
: 1 : 29-APEAL-1102-23-j.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1102 OF 2023
1. Balvindersingh Balvirsingh Rathod,
2. Diljit Babusingh Labhana,
3. Raina Asaraf Khan, &
4. Bhalchandra Haridas Mahale. …..Appellants
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
2. Rajesh Vishwakarma, &
3. Sunny Dhirmalani. .….Respondents
…..
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.4357 OF 2023
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1102 OF 2023
-----
Dr. Yug Mohit Chaudhry, Advocate a/w. Anush Shetty for the
Appellants.
Ms. Mahalakshmi Ganapathy, Addl.P.P. for the Respondent-State.
Mr. Satyam Nimbalkar, Advocate a/w. Harshwardhan Pawar, Yash
Saxena, Abhishek Arote, Padmasinh Patil, for the Intervenor in
IA/4357/2023.
-----
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL &
ASHISH S. CHAVAN, JJ.
th
DATE : 29 JUNE, 2026
JUDGMENT : [PER SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.]
1.
The Appellants have challenged the judgment and
order dated 8.8.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Kalyan in Sessions Case No.90/2013. By the impugned
1 of 49
Deshmane(PS)
: 2 : 29-APEAL-1102-23-j.odt
judgment and order, the Appellants were convicted and sentenced
as under :
i] they were convicted for commission of the offence
punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of IPC and
were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life
and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default of
payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six
months;
ii] they were convicted for commission of the offence
punishable under Section 364 read with 34 of IPC and
were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life
and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default of
payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six
months;
iii] they were also convicted for commission of offence
punishable under Section 201 read with 34 of IPC and
were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five
years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of
payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six
months.
2 of 49
: 3 : 29-APEAL-1102-23-j.odt
All the sentences were directed to run concurrently
except the sentence of in default of payment of fine. They were
granted set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.. Out of the fine amount
if recovered, except the amount of Rs.10,000/- rest of the amount
was directed to be paid equally to the brothers of the two deceased
towards compensation.
2.
For convenience, the Appellants are referred to by their
status before the trial Court as accused.
3.
Heard Dr. Yug Mohit Chaudhry, learned Counsel for the
Appellants, Ms. Mahalakshmi Ganapathy, Addl.P.P. for the
Respondent-State and Mr. Satyam Nimbalkar, learned counsel for
the Intervenor in IA/4357/2023.
4.
The prosecution story, in brief, is as follows
5.
The accused No.1 Balvindersingh Balvirsingh Rathod
was having dispute with PW-24 Dinesh Lehrani regarding a gala
[shop block]. In the night of 29.12.2012 and 30.12.2012 there was
a fight between the two groups i.e. the accused No.1
Balvindersingh Balvirsingh Rathod and the accused No.2 Diljit
Babusingh Labhana on one side and Dinesh Lehrani’s friends on
the other. Both the groups suffered some injuries and had lodged
3 of 49
: 4 : 29-APEAL-1102-23-j.odt
their separate non-cognizable cases at the police station. It is the
prosecution case that between the night of 30.12.2012 and
31.12.2012, PW-24 Dinesh Lehrani’s employees Rakesh
Vishwakarma and Amitchand Dhirmalani were working in his
factory till about midnight. Then they called Dinesh on his mobile
phone and informed him that they were going home. At that time,
Dinesh was having a party in a restaurant with his friends. He
asked them to visit his shop before going home. After some time
he received a phone call from the brother of Rakesh Vishwakarma.
He was worried because Rakesh had not reached home. Dinesh
told him to make enquiry at the factory; but Rakesh was not
found. In the meantime, it was noticed that even Amitchand
Dhirmalani had not returned home. Even his brother was searching
for him. Dinesh then told Rakesh’s brother Rajesh to inform the
police. Search was undertaken. The police officers who were on
patrolling duty went to the gala of PW-24. It is the prosecution
case that Rakesh’s brother Rajesh had seen a Activa scooter near
that gala some time before the police were informed. When the
police went there, the Activa scooter was not seen. The police, in
the meantime, started recording the missing complaint. When the
4 of 49
: 5 : 29-APEAL-1102-23-j.odt
police team went to the shop of PW-24 they saw some clothes and a
foot-wear being burnt near that shop. The accused No.1’s gala
(shop block) was behind PW-24’s shop. PW-24 had expressed
suspicion against the accused No.1. Therefore, the police went to
the accused No.1’s shop. The accused Nos.1 & 2 were found there.
They were having blood stains on their clothes. The police found
those stains to be suspicious. They asked the accused No.1
Balvindersingh Balvirsingh Rathod and accused No.2 Diljit
Babusingh Labhana regarding Rakesh and Amitchand. They did
not give satisfactory answers. Therefore, both of them were taken
to the police station. The search for the missing persons continued.
6.
In the next morning, at around 11.00 a.m., their dead
bodies were found near the railway-track. They had suffered slit
injuries on their throats. A press reporter was informed by
somebody regarding finding of the dead bodies. He went there. He
saw the situation and called the police. The police visited the spot.
It was realized that the dead bodies were of those two missing
persons Rakesh and Amitchand. Their brothers were called to
identify them. The inquest panchnama was conducted. The dead
bodies were sent for postmortem examination. The offence was
5 of 49
: 6 : 29-APEAL-1102-23-j.odt
registered. The accused Nos.1 & 2 were put under arrest.
Subsequently, the accused No.3 Raina Khan and the accused No.4
Bhalchandra Mahale were also arrested. The investigation was
carried out. It is the prosecution case that the accused No.1
showed his shop. It was locked. He removed a key from the trunk
of a tree and opened the gala. The police entered inside. On
search, they found five mobile phones, one stick and one rod from
the shop. All these articles were seized.
7.
It is also the prosecution case that the accused No.1
showed willingness to point the place where he had concealed the
knife. Accordingly, he led the police and the panchas to his small
house. He took out the knife from near the roof. The accused No.4
showed willingness to point the place where the Activa scooter was
kept. At his instance, it was recovered. The half burnt shirt and
foot-wear were seized which were found burning on the night of
incident. They were seized subsequently. The articles as well as the
clothes of the deceased and the accused were sent for C.A.
examination. It is the prosecution case that the accused No.1 was
holding a grudge against PW-24. Out of that enmity, initially
Rakesh and Amitchand were assaulted in the shop of the accused
6 of 49
: 7 : 29-APEAL-1102-23-j.odt
No.1 and then they were taken near the railway track where their
throats were slit with a knife. At the conclusion of the investigation,
the charge-sheet was filed and the case was committed to the Court
of Session.
8.
During trial, the prosecution examined 30 witnesses.
Some of the panchas turned hostile. Significantly, the police officer
who was on patrolling duty and who had taken the accused Nos.1
& 2 in custody also turned hostile and did not support the
prosecution case. The prosecution case mostly relied on the
evidence of PW-24 Dinesh Lehrani, the recovery panchas, brothers
of the two deceased and the police officers conducting the
investigation. The prosecution also produced the telephone record
in the form of CDR to show the location where the telephone
numbers of the deceased showed their location. Apart from that,
the C.A. report was produced on record.
9.
The learned Judge accepted the prosecution case and
convicted and sentenced the Appellants, as mentioned earlier.
10.
Before discussing the main evidence of PW-24 Dinesh
Lehrani, it is necessary to refer to the FIR lodged by PW-1 Bharat
Khare. His evidence shows how the dead bodies were discovered
7 of 49
: 8 : 29-APEAL-1102-23-j.odt
and how the FIR was lodged. Said Bharat Khare was examined as
PW-1. He had lodged the FIR. He deposed that he was working as
a correspondent for a Marathi daily. He had his office at
Sanjaynagar, Ulhasnagar Railway Station. On 31.12.2012 at about
11.00 a.m. he received a phone call from an unknown person
informing him that two persons were lying near Vadolgaon Railway
track. PW-1 went to that place. He saw two dead bodies. There
were blood stains around the dead bodies. He then lodged his FIR
with Ambernath Police Station. It is produced on record at Exhibit-
48. The FIR was registered vide C.R. No.I-194/2012 at Ambernath
police station under Sections 302, 201 of IPC at around 12.25 p.m..
The FIR sufficiently corroborates his deposition.
In his cross-examination, he stated that the boys from
Sanjaynagar zopadpatti used to go to the spot for consuming drugs,
where the dead bodies were found. The railway track was at a
distance of about 40 ft. from the spot. There were dense bushes
near the spot. There was one liquor shop at about a distance of 50
to 60 ft. distance from that spot. Significantly, he stated that he saw
a knife, sachets of drugs and mats lying near the dead bodies. The
police lifted the dead bodies in his presence and took them away.
8 of 49
: 9 : 29-APEAL-1102-23-j.odt
The police recorded his complaint at the spot. He stayed there for
about two–three hours. This is how the dead bodies were
discovered and the FIR was lodged.
11.
PW-24 Dinesh Lehrani is one of the important witnesses
examined by the prosecution. He deposed that he was having a
shop at Vasant Bar Road, Ulhasnagar and an embroidery factory at
Tanaji Nagar, Ulhasnagar. He knew the accused No.1’s father
Gaddasingh Rathod. He had purchased one shop block near the
shop block of Gaddasingh Rathod at Ganesh Nagar, Ulhasnagar. He
wanted to start an embroidery factory in that shop block. He had
purchased it in the month of November, 2012. There was some
dispute with Rajesh Shelar and Sanjay Shelar and PW-24 had
lodged a complaint against them at Hill Line Police Station. PW-24
had not started the embroidery factory at the shop block at Ganesh
Nagar, but according to him he himself and his friends used to meet
there. On 28.12.2012, in the night, he was partying with some
friends at that shop block at Ganesh Nagar. At that time, the
accused No.1 came there. He was accompanied by the accused
No.2 Diljit Labhana and the accused No.4 Bhalchandra Mahale.
There was some quarrel between PW-24 and the accused No.1. PW-
9 of 49
: 10 : 29-APEAL-1102-23-j.odt
24 has further deposed that the accused No.1 asked the accused
No.4 to bring a weapon. The accused No.4 Bhalchandra was an
employee of the accused No.1. After sometime both the groups left
the shop. In the night of 29.12.2012, PW-24 was at the embroidery
factory with his friends. They requested PW-24 to give the keys of
his shop so that they could start their party in that shop. PW-24
reached there after sometime and started enjoying their drinks.
After some time, the accused Nos.1, 2 & 3 along with two-three
other persons entered the shop. They joined in the drinking session
with PW-24’s friends. There was a quarrel between the accused
No.1 and the accused No.2. According to PW-24, the accused No.2
Diljit suffered a head injury. After some time, the accused No.1
came out of the shop near PW-24’s car and blamed him for the
quarrel. PW-24 further deposed that the accused No.1 threatened
that he would eliminate PW-24’s community people one by one. At
that time PW-24’s friend Naresh intervened. That dispute was
resolved. PW-24 further deposed that he came to know that the
accused No.1 and his companions went to the police station to
lodge a complaint. PW-24 called his friends and all of them went to
the police station to lodge a report because PW-24’s friend Sagar
10 of 49
: 11 : 29-APEAL-1102-23-j.odt
had also suffered an injury.
PW-24 further deposed that on 30.12.2012 in the night
at about 11.00 p.m., he and his friends went to Jacky Plaza for
drinks. At about midnight Rakesh Vishwakarma (the first victim)
called PW-24 telephonically and informed him that the work was
completed at the factory and that he and Amitchand (the second
victim) were returning home. PW-24 asked him to visit his new
shop block on the way of returning home and asked them to come
early in the morning to the shop. After about an hour, Rakesh’s
brother Rajesh Vishwakarma made a telephonic call and told him
that Rakesh had not reached home and asked whether Rakesh was
still at the factory. PW-24 advised him to go to the factory. After
some time, Rajesh again called PW-24 and informed him that
Rakesh was not at the factory. Then he asked Rajesh to visit his
new shop block as he thought Rakesh could be there, but, Rakesh
was not found even there. Rajesh further called PW-24 again
telephonically and told him that Rakesh was not at the new shop
block, but the Activa scooter connected to the factory was parked
in front of the shop block of the accused No.1’s father. The
registration number of the Activa scooter was MH-05-AW-6382.
11 of 49
: 12 : 29-APEAL-1102-23-j.odt
PW-24 further deposed that he asked Rajesh to go to the factory.
PW-24 went to the Hill Line police station. He deposed that he did
not go to the new shop block because he was scared due to the
previous quarrel. He went to the police station with his friends
Naresh Rohra and Naresh Chawla. He was informed that the PSI
Thakur was the duty officer and he was on patrolling duty. He
tried to contact PSI Thakur telephonically but there was no
response. He then went to his factory. His friends Naresh Rohra
made a telephonic call to the police control room. After about 45
minutes, the police reached the factory. In the meantime,
Amitchand’s brother Sunny contacted PW-24 and informed that
Amitchand had not reached home. PW-24 gave all this information
to PSI Thakur. He told PSI Thakur about the previous quarrel with
the accused No.1 and expressed suspicion against the accused
No.1. After that, he himself and the police went in front of the
shop block of the accused No.1’s father. They did not see the Activa
scooter or the accused No.1’s vehicle. They themselves and the
police took search nearby but could not find anything. PW-24
again came back to the police station and asked Rajesh to lodge the
report about missing of Rakesh and Amitchand. He expressed
12 of 49
: 13 : 29-APEAL-1102-23-j.odt
suspicion against the accused No.1. He and the police went to the
accused No.1’s house but he was not found there. They then went
to the liquor shop of the accused No.1. They saw the CBZ
motorcycle of the accused No.1. It was in front of the shop block of
the accused No.1. They saw that some clothes and chappals were
set on fire. The fire was extinguished. The shutter of the accused
No.1’s shop was closed from inside. The police tried to open it.
Within a short time the shutter was opened. The accused Nos.1
and 2 were found inside. Their clothes were stained with blood.
The police made inquiries with them, but they did not give any
information. Therefore, the police took them to Hill Line police
station. PSI Thakur instructed one of the police personnel to bring
the accused No.1’s CBZ motorcycle to the police station. Rakesh’s
brother Rajesh identified the chappal lying near the shop block as
that of his brother Rakesh. On 31.12.2012 at about 3.00 p.m. the
police took him to the spot where the dead bodies were lying. PW-
24 gave the telephone numbers of both the deceased. According to
him, Amitchand was using three phone numbers including
9987014314. Rakesh was using two phone numbers including
9321013668. He identified the shirt in a half-burnt condition
13 of 49
: 14 : 29-APEAL-1102-23-j.odt
produced in the Court. He also identified the mobile phone
handsets belonging to Rakesh and Amitchand which were
produced in the Court.
In the cross-examination, he deposed that on
31.12.2012, he was not called by the police at the police station.
He himself had gone to the police station. Till 23.1.2013, he was
not called to the police station. During that period, he had not
given his statement. Neither had the police approached him for
recording of his statement during that period. In the night when
the police had gone near the spot, PW-24 stated that at that time
they had not seized the half burnt chappals and handkerchief. He
was given a suggestion that Rakesh and Amitchand were having a
dispute with him regarding their salary. It was also suggested that
Amitchand had illicit relations with his wife and Rakesh used to
support Amitchand and because of that dispute PW-24 and his
friends committed the crime and falsely implicated the accused.
This suggestion was denied by him. He accepted that he had not
given the telephone numbers of the deceased to the police station
when his statement was recorded by Ambernath police station on
3.1.2013. Between 3.1.2013 to 23.1.2013, he had not gone either
14 of 49
: 15 : 29-APEAL-1102-23-j.odt
to Ambernath police station or Hill Line police station to give
statements. He was called on 23.1.2013 by the Crime Branch but
even at that time, he had not given the telephone numbers. He
further deposed that the Activa scooter in question was purchased
by him but the registration was yet to be done in his name.
12.
PW-20 Rajeshkumar Vishwakarma was the brother of
the deceased Rakeshkumar. He deposed that since 2007, PW-20
had come to Ulhasnagar to reside with Rakesh who was working in
the factory of PW-24 at Ulhasnagar. PW-20 also started working
there. It was an embroidery factory. It was situated at Veer Tanaji
Nagar at Ulhasnagar. He and his brother were staying together. In
June, 2012 Rakesh got married but his wife did not come to
Ulhasnagar. PW-20 and Rakesh continued staying together. Amit
Dhirmalani was the manager of their factory. Rakesh was working
as a master worker. On 30.12.2012, PW-20 completed his work and
left the factory at 9.30 p.m.. Rakesh and Amitchand were still
present in the factory. For a long time, Rakesh did not return. He
tried to contact Rakesh on his telephone, but Rakesh could not be
contacted. PW-20 has given the phone numbers of Rakesh in his
deposition. At about midnight, he called PW-24 Dinesh Lehrani
15 of 49
: 16 : 29-APEAL-1102-23-j.odt
and informed him that Rakesh did not return home. PW-24 advised
him to go to the factory. Accordingly PW-20 went to the factory but
Rakesh was not seen there. He again called PW-24 who told him to
go to his new shop. PW-20 went to the new shop of PW-24. He saw
the Activa scooter parked there. According to him it was used by
Rakesh and Amitchand. It was bearing No.MH-05-AW-6382 but
Rakesh was not seen. He again went to the factory. After some
time, PW-24’s friend Naresh came there and made a telephone call
to the police. PW-24 suggested that PW-20 showed the place where
the Activa scooter was parked. All of them went to the place where
the Activa scooter was parked. This time the Activa scooter was not
seen. PW-20 then went back to the police station with the police
and gave his complaint about his brother having gone missing.
Even Amitchand’s brother informed that Amitchand was missing.
At that time, PW-24 expressed suspicion against the accused No.1.
Therefore, the police and PW-24 went in search of the accused
No.1. After sometime the accused Nos.1 & 2 were brought to the
police station. Their clothes were stained with blood. They could
not give any information about Rakesh and Amitchand. He then
went to the spot where the Activa scooter was seen parked by him.
16 of 49
: 17 : 29-APEAL-1102-23-j.odt
They saw that some articles were set on fire in front of the accused
No.1’s shop. There was half burnt chappal, one half burnt T-shirt
and handkerchief. PW-20 identified the chappal as that of his
brother Rakesh. On 31.12.2012, at about 3.00 p.m., the police took
him to the spot where the dead bodies were lying.
In the cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that
he had falsely identified the half burnt chappal.
13.
PW-22 Sunny Dhirmalani was the brother of other
victim Amitchand. His evidence is almost similar to the evidence of
PW-20 Rajeshkumar. He gave the telephone number of Amitchand
in his deposition. He identified the half-burnt shirt as that of his
brother Amitchand. His statement was recorded on 20.1.2013. In
that deposition, he had stated that his brother Amitchand was
using the Activa scooter bearing No. MH-05-6382.
Further in the cross-examination, it was brought out
that this fact was not mentioned in his police statement. In the
police statement he had stated that he could not say as to which
clothes Amitchand was wearing on that day and that contradiction
was brought to his notice.
17 of 49
: 18 : 29-APEAL-1102-23-j.odt
14.
PW-21 Naresh Chawla was a friend of PW-24. He
deposed about the quarrel that had taken place on the night of
28.12.2012. He corroborated the evidence of PW-24 regarding that
incident. He further deposed that on 30.12.2012 he had gone with
PW-24 to Hotel Jacky Plaza in the night. After that he narrated the
incident in the same manner as is narrated by PW-24. Their
evidence is consistent with each other. His statement was recorded
in the Crime Branch on 21.1.2013.
In the cross-examination, he could not explain as to
why his police statement did not mention that on 28.12.2012 in the
quarrel, the accused No.1 had told his friends to bring weapon.
This was an important omission from his police statement.
15.
The prosecution led medical evidence in the form of
two doctors. PW-16 Dr. Sandeep Shinde had examined the accused
Nos.1 and 2 on 29.12.2012 regarding the injuries suffered by them
in the first incident of the quarrel in the night of 29.12.2012. He
deposed that the accused Nos.1 and 2 were brought to Central
Hospital, Ulhasnagar. The accused Nos.1 and 2 were brought to his
hospital at 2.25 a.m. The accused No.1 had suffered the following
injuries:
18 of 49
: 19 : 29-APEAL-1102-23-j.odt
i. Linear abrasion of the size 10 cm x 1 cm on the left side of
neck.
ii. Swelling of the size 6 cm x 5 cm x 0.5 cm on the left side
of the chest.
The accused No.2 Diljit had suffered the following injuries :
i. CLW of the size 5 cm x 1 cm x 0.5 cm at left parietal
region of head.
ii. CLW of the size 8 cm x 10 cm x 0.5 cm over left parietal
region.
iii. Contusion admeasuring 3 x 1 x 0.5 cm on the right side of
forehead.
All the injuries were caused by hard and blunt object.
He produced the medical certificates of both of them at Exhibits-
144 and 143 respectively.
16.
PW-8 Dr. Mangala Bhongade had conducted the
postmortem examination and had treated the accused No.3 for
injuries. She deposed that she was attached to Central Hospital at
Ulhasnagar at the relevant time. On 31.12.2012, the accused No.3
Raina Khan was brought to her hospital at about 12.45 p.m. He
had suffered one CLW of the size 5 x 2 cm on his left parietal
region. It was caused by a hard and blunt object. The medical
certificate produced by her was at Exhibit-107. On the same day,
19 of 49
: 20 : 29-APEAL-1102-23-j.odt
she conducted the postmortem examination on the two dead
bodies. The deceased Rakesh had following injuries :
1] Incised wound seen over anterior aspect of the neck, of the
size 18 x 10 x 5 cm.
2] Incised wound horizontal 2 cm above umbilicus.
The first wound was antemortem and the second
wound was postmortem.
There was haematoma over left parietal region of the
size 2 x 2 cm. The cause of death was mentioned as ‘haemorrhagic
shock due to cut throat injury.’ The postmortem notes were
produced on record at Exhibit-108. She deposed that the injury
mentioned by her on the postmortem report was possible by knife
(article 10) produced in the Court and the haematoma was possible
by iron rod produced in the Court.
17.
The postmortem conducted on Amitchand showed the
following injuries :
1] CLW over right eyebrow of the size 4 cm x 1 cm
2] Contusion – (left) axilla region of the size 2 cm x 2 cm.
3] Contusion – (right) axilla region of the size 1 cm x 1 cm.
4] Contusion over right forearm of the size 2 cm x 1 cm.
5] Incised wound below chin, over anterior aspect of neck (right
side) of the size 10 cm x 2 cm x 1 cm.
20 of 49
: 21 : 29-APEAL-1102-23-j.odt
6] Incised wound – below thyroid cartilage (left) side of neck of
the size 10 cm x 5 cm x 3 cm.
7] Abrasion on popliteal region (left) side of the size 2 cm x 1
cm.
8] Abrasion on popliteal region (right side) of the size 3 cm x 2
cm.
9] Abrasion – umbilicus region of the size 1 cm x 1 cm.
According to her, the last three injuries were
postmortem and the other six injuries were antemortem. The cause
of death was mentioned as ‘shock due to hemorrhagic shock due to
cut throat injury.’
She deposed that the incised wound was possible by
the knife produced in the Court and contusion was possible due to
iron rod at Article 8 and stick produced at Article 9.
In the cross-examination, she deposed that the time of
death of Rakesh Vishwakarma was within twelve hours of his last
meal and the time of death of Amitchand was within 24 hours of
conducting the postmortem examination. She opined that time of
death of both the deceased could be different. She further deposed
that the incised injuries mentioned in the postmortem report of the
deceased Rakesh were possible by means of a sword or a long
chopper. She further admitted that the incised wound mentioned in
both the postmortem reports at Exhibit-108 were possible by a
21 of 49
: 22 : 29-APEAL-1102-23-j.odt
sharp edged sickle.
18.
The learned Judge has relied heavily on the recovery
evidence. Before referring to the recovery evidence, we may note
here that some of the witnesses i.e. the panchas have turned
hostile. They have not supported the prosecution case. Very briefly
they are as follows:
i. PW-2 was a hostile pancha for spot panchnama.
ii. PW-3 was a hostile pancha for inquest panchnama.
iii. PW-4 was a hostile pancha for arrest panchnama.
iv. PW-5 was a hostile pancha for arrest panchnama.
v. PW-6 was a hostile pancha for recovery panchnama.
vi. PW-13 Rajesh Shelar was a hostile witness. According to
the prosecution case the accused No.1 sought his help to
register the FIR against PW-24 regarding their previous
quarrel.
vii. PW-17 was the father of the accused No.1; and PW-18 was
the father of the accused No.2. Their evidence does not
help the prosecution. Neither does it help the defense.
viii. PW-19 Sandeep Landge was another witness who had
turned hostile. According to the prosecution case, the
accused No.1 was taking his help to register FIR against
PW-24.
. The evidence of all these witnesses is not important.
22 of 49
: 23 : 29-APEAL-1102-23-j.odt
19.
There are certain witnesses who have taken formal part
in the investigation. PW-23 Police Naik Prashant Naik had carried
the muddemal articles to FSL on 8.1.2013. PW-29 Police Constable
Dhananjay Sonawane had taken the dead bodies to the Central
Hospital, Kalyan for postmortem. He had collected clothes of the
victims. PW-30 SHO Vijay Mahadik had seized the clothes of the
victims under seizure panchnama.
20.
The main evidence in this case is in the form of
recovery. PW-7 Sunny Sawant is an important witness. He was a
pancha for seizure and recovery of some articles. He deposed that
on 1.1.2013, the officers of Ambernath police station called him for
panchnama. He went to the police station. One pancha was already
present. The police told him that they had to take search of one
gala and that they had to prepare the panchnama in that respect.
The police brought the accused No.1 before him who stated that he
would show his gala. After that, the panchas and the police went to
Tanaji Nagar. The accused No.1 led them to one closed gala. There
23 of 49
: 24 : 29-APEAL-1102-23-j.odt
were burnt clothes by the side of the Gala. There were half-burnt
blood stained T-shirt and handkerchief. The police seized those
clothes. He further deposed that there was one tree in front of the
closed gala and from the hole in the trunk of that tree, the accused
No.1 took out a key. With the help of that key the accused No.1
opened the lock of the gala. They entered the gala. There were
three plastic cans. According to him, they were used for storing
liquor but there was no liquor in those cans. One platform was seen
broken. The bricks were removed. He further deposed that the
accused No.1 took out one wooden stick and an iron rod and then
the accused No.1 also produced five mobile phones kept in one bag
from there. The police made phone call through those five mobile
phones to the mobile phone of one police officer and thus got
information of the mobile phone numbers of those five mobile
phones. According to him, they came to know that the phones
belonged to the deceased Rakesh and Amitchand. Those five
mobile phones were seized. The iron rod and wooden stick were
also seized. The panchnama was drawn. It is produced on record at
Exhibit-91. It was conducted between 10.35 a.m. to 12.30 p.m. on
1.1.2013.
24 of 49
: 25 : 29-APEAL-1102-23-j.odt
21.
On the same day, again he was called by Ambernath
police station in the evening. He went there. The accused No.1
again was brought in front of him. According to PW-7, the accused
No.1 told him that he was ready to show the place where he had
kept the knife used in the crime. The statement was recorded
between 4.55 p.m. to 5.10 p.m.. It is produced on record at
Exhibit-92. The accused No.1 led them to his house made of tin-
sheets. The accused No.1 opened the bolt of the house. They
entered the house. He took out one knife from the corner of the
roof of that house. The knife was stained with blood. The
panchnama was drawn. It is produced on record at Exhibit-93. It
was completed at 7.10 p.m.
22.
On 3.1.2013 again he was called by Ambernath police
station. At that time, the accused No.4 Bhalchandra made a
statement that he was willing to show the place where the Activa
scooter was kept. The memorandum statement was recorded and it
is produced on record at Exhibit-97. The accused No.4 Bhalchandra
then led them to the site. One white coloured Activa scooter was
parked there. PW-7 deposed that the scooter was locked. Some
blood stains were seen on the floor-mat. One head constable
25 of 49
: 26 : 29-APEAL-1102-23-j.odt
brought a key-maker and the dicky was opened with his help.
There were some cloth, bills and pieces of pipe. The Activa scooter
and the articles were seized. The seizure panchnama is produced
on record at Exhibit-98. He identified all the articles including the
clothes, the mobile phones, the weapons and the clothes in the
Court.
In the cross-examination, PW-7 stated that he was
coming to the Court on every date since about thirteen months for
giving evidence in the case. He had come to the Court on fifteen
occasions. From the time the trial had started, he had appeared in
the Court on 25 to 30 occasions. He was in the business of
supplying building materials. Whenever he used to come to the
Court, the police guard used to remain present with him as he was
apprehending danger to his life from the accused. On 1.1.2013, he
was doing business of selling CDs on the road at Ambernath. He
accepted that he knew selling of pirated CD was an offence, but,
he denied the suggestion that he was under the pressure of police.
After the panchnama, he went back for doing his business of selling
CDs. He was selling these CDs on a handcart. He further admitted
that while he was doing the business of selling pirated CDs; at that
26 of 49
: 27 : 29-APEAL-1102-23-j.odt
time, the police came to him requesting him to act as a panch
witness on 3.1.2013. The place where the Activa scooter was
found was the place where people resided and around that place
people used to park their vehicles. He accepted that he was not
having a license to sell the pirated CDs at that time.
23.
PW-10 Shivram Mishra was another pancha. He was
called by the Crime Unit No.1 on 10.1.2013. The accused No.1 was
brought before him. According to him, the accused No.1 made a
statement that the vehicle used in commission of the crime was
kept by him behind Datta Mandir. The statement was recorded. It
is produced on record at Exhibit-119. He led the police and the
panchas behind a temple. The motorcycle shown by him was
seized. The seizure panchnama is produced on record at Exhibit-
120. Nothing further incriminating is shown from recovery of this
motorcycle. In any case, it is the prosecution case itself that on the
night of the incident, that motorcycle was taken from the gala by
Police Naik Dhande (PW-15) to the police station. Therefore, this
evidence is absolutely of no use for the prosecution; but in fact it
shows that the police have tried to create evidence of recovery at
the instance of the accused No.1.
27 of 49
: 28 : 29-APEAL-1102-23-j.odt
24.
PW-9 ASI Ganesh Raut had registered NCs regarding
the earlier incident. He was attached to the Hill Line police station.
He deposed that at about 1.30 a.m. on 30.12.2012 the accused
Nos.1 and 2 came to the police station to lodge a complaint. One
Sagar Duseja also came to the police station to lodge his complaint
against the accused Nos.1 and 2. The accused Nos.1 & 2 also
wanted to lodge a complaint. This was in respect of the incident
that took place on 29.12.2012 and 30.12.2012. PW-24 Dinesh
Lehrani, his friend Naresh and others had come with Sagar Duseja.
The accused Nos.1 and 2 were having injuries and they were sent
to the hospital for medical treatment. Both the complaints were
registered. Sagar’s complaint was registered as N.C. No.1144/2012
and the accused No.2 Diljit’s complaint was registered as N.C.
No.1145/2012. It was registered against Sagar Duseja, PW-24 and
Naresh. The copies of those NCs are produced on record at
Exhibits-114 and 115. PSI Rahul Sonawane (PW-11) was also
present when these NCs were registered by the police constable
Ganesh Raut (PW-9). On 30.12.2012, he received a phone call from
one Shelar enquirying with him as to why PW-24 and others were
not arrested in the complaint lodged by the accused No.2.
28 of 49
: 29 : 29-APEAL-1102-23-j.odt
25.
PW-12 Police Naik Manohar Gharat had lodged the
missing report given by Rakesh’s brother Rajesh. He deposed that
the missing complaint was lodged around 3.00 a.m. on 31.12.2012.
While he was recording the complaint, PSI Thakur brought the
accused Nos.1 & 2 to the police station. Their clothes were stained
with blood. They did not give satisfactory answers. He deposed
that he and the other police officers made the accused Nos.1 & 2
stand in the police station. He was in the police station till at about
9.00 a.m. on 31.12.2012. The missing complaint is produced on
record at Exhibit-127.
26.
PW-14 PSI Jagatsingh Thakur is an interesting witness.
Though he is the police officer who had searched for the missing
persons and had brought the accused Nos.1 & 2 to the police
station, surprisingly he turned hostile and did not support the
prosecution case. He deposed that in the night of 30.12.2012 and
31.12.2012 he was on patrolling duty. The control room directed
him to go to Tanaji Nagar. He deposed that he did not remember as
to what happened in Tanaji Nagar. According to him, two persons
had sustained injuries in Tanaji Nagar and on the basis of
suspicion, he brought them to the police station and then sent them
29 of 49
: 30 : 29-APEAL-1102-23-j.odt
for medical examination. This witness’s statement was recorded
during the investigation. His statement was shown to him, but he
denied having given that statement. Some portion of his statement
is accepted by him as having made by him but some part is denied
by him. The contradictions from his police statement are proved
through the investigating officer who had recorded his statement.
Since the contradictions are proved his statement can be
considered. He had stated that he had gone to the area of
embroidery factory. At that time, Dinesh and others had informed
them that two employees had not returned home and that their
scooter was seen near the accused No.1’s shop. He had expressed
suspicion against the accused No.1. Therefore, the police went to
the shop of the accused No.1. The Activa scooter was not found.
The missing persons were not found. To search for the accused
No.1, he went to his shop. He then brought the accused Nos.1 & 2
from the accused No.1’s gala. This story is similar to the evidence
of PW-24.
27.
Though PW-14 has not supported the prosecution,
PW-15 Kiran Dhande who was Police Naik, has given evidence
regarding the events that took place on that night. He narrated the
30 of 49
: 31 : 29-APEAL-1102-23-j.odt
story which is almost similar to the evidence of PW-24. He referred
to all the events of searching for the missing persons, searching for
the accused No.1, finding half burnt clothes and then taking the
accused Nos.1 and 2 to the police station from the accused No.1’s
gala. Importantly, he deposed that he had brought the accused
No.1’s CBZ motorcycle to the police station. The police had
recorded his statement on 23.1.2013.
In the cross-examination, he stated that Tanaji Nagar is
at a distance of half kilometer from Hill Line Police Station. The
accused No.1’s gala was in Tanaji Nagar. The house of the accused
No.1 was at a distance of one and a half kilometers from Tanaji
Nagar. He further admitted that in the night at about 3.00 a.m.
they again went to the gala of the accused No.1. At that time the
chappals / footwear and the clothes which were found burnt
outside the gala were not seized. The police did not enter the
accused No.1’s gala to conduct search. He further admitted that
when they brought the accused Nos.1 & 2 to the police station from
his gala, they did not lock that gala. From that time onwards the
gala was open. The second time when they went in front of the
accused No.1’s gala even at that time the burnt clothes and
31 of 49
: 32 : 29-APEAL-1102-23-j.odt
chappals were not seized. He admitted that he had not told the
investigating officer in his statement that Rajesh Vishwakarma had
identified the clothes of the deceased Rakesh. He did not
remember as to who gave the keys of the motorcycle in the night.
He further deposed that on the next day when his duty was over at
that time the accused Nos.1 & 2 were still in custody of Hill Line
Police Station. On the next day, the second time when they went to
the gala of the accused No.1, from that time till the morning they
did not deploy any personnel to supervise that gala.
28.
PW-27 P.I. Anil Sonawane was the investigating officer.
He deposed that he took over the investigation of C.R.
No.194/2012 registered at Ambernath police station. He
conducted the spot panchnama where the dead bodies were found.
He collected the blood stained soil and other soil from the spot. He
produced the spot panchnama at Exhibit-209. He arranged for the
photographs of the dead bodies to be taken. He conducted the
inquest panchnama. He sent the dead bodies for postmortem
examination. In the meantime, the Crime Detection Branch was
conducting inquiry regarding identity of the dead bodies. The
Detection Branch squad had taken the accused Nos.1 & 2 in their
32 of 49
: 33 : 29-APEAL-1102-23-j.odt
custody. Their arrest panchnama was conducted. He supervised the
panchnama when the accused No.1 showed his shop on 1.1.2013.
When they entered the shop, he saw the platform which was partly
broken. It was separated by bricks. He got the bricks removed. He
found five mobile phones, an iron rod and a wooden stick. Those
articles were seized. He arrested the accused No.3 on 31.12.2012.
His clothes were seized. On 1.1.2013, the knife was recovered at
the instance of the accused No.1. He then arrested the accused
No.4. At his instance, the Activa scooter was seized. Further
investigation was handed over to the Crime Branch.
29.
PW-28 PI Meghshyam Dange was the next investigating
officer who completed the investigation. He deposed that he
received the case papers and the accused from Ambernath police
station on 8.1.2013 and then he carried out further investigation.
He seized the motorcycle. He sent the articles to Chemical
Analyzer. He made investigation regarding the seized vehicle. He
obtained the CDR and SDR regarding the mobile phones. In his
deposition, he gave the names of original owners of the mobile
phones numbers which were used by the deceased Rakesh and
33 of 49
: 34 : 29-APEAL-1102-23-j.odt
Amitchand. He proved the contradictions from the statements of
the witnesses who had either turned hostile or had not supported
the prosecution.
30.
PW-25 Yogesh Rajapure was the Nodal Officer of
Bharati Airtel. He produced the CDR of the phone number
9987014314 used by Amitchand.
31.
PW-26 Rajesh Gaikwad was a Nodal Officer working
for Reliance Communication company. He produced the SDR and
CDR of the other phone numbers. The CDRs are produced on
record at Exhibits-200 and 205.
32.
Apart from this evidence, the CA report is produced on
record at Exhibit-297 which showed that there was human blood
on the clothes of all the accused, half burnt T-shirt, handkerchief,
iron rod, wooden log, button knife and clothes of the deceased.
However, in none of the articles the blood group was mentioned.
The C.A. report mentions presence of human blood but the blood
group was shown as inconclusive.
. This, in short, is the evidence led by the prosecution.
34 of 49
: 35 : 29-APEAL-1102-23-j.odt
Submissions on behalf of the Appellants :
33.
Learned counsel Dr. Yug Mohit Chaudhry made the
following submissions :
i. There was no motive for the accused to commit murder of
the deceased. There is no direct evidence. The case is based
on circumstantial evidence. The only circumstance relied on
by the prosecution is the recovery of mobile phones, iron rod
and a wooden stick from the shop of the accused No.1 and
recovery of the knife at his instance.
ii. He submitted that the recovery evidence is extremely
doubtful. The evidence shows that when the accused Nos.1
& 2 were taken in custody in the night between 30.12.2012
and 31.12.2012 at that time the gala remained open and then
surprisingly after more than 24 hours, the accused No.1 is
supposed to have taken out the key from a secret place i.e.
from the trunk of a tree and then he is supposed to have
opened the gala. This itself is unbelievable.
iii. He submitted that the CDR shows that there was an
incoming call received for about 20 seconds on the telephone
35 of 49
: 36 : 29-APEAL-1102-23-j.odt
number of the deceased Amitchand at about 7.19 a.m. on
31.12.2012. At that time, the accused No.1 was already in
the police custody though he was not formally arrested and it
was impossible that he could have concealed the same mobile
phone inside his own gala after 7.19 a.m. on 31.12.2012.
This recovery evidence is extremely doubtful.
iv. He further submitted that similarly the recovery of the knife
on 1.1.2013 is also doubtful. The tin-shed from where it was
recovered was not even locked. Anyone could have entered
the tin-shed. In any case, the blood group on that knife was
inconclusive and, therefore, the knife could not be connected
with the assault on the deceased.
v. He submitted that though according to the prosecution case
half burnt T-shirt and the handkerchief of the deceased were
seen outside the area of the gala of PW-24 and the accused
No.1 in the night between 30.12.2012 and 31.12.2012; these
important articles were not seized immediately. They were
seized on 1.1.2013. The chappal was never seized.
vi. He submitted that the statements of the brothers of the
deceased were recorded by the investigating agency after
36 of 49
: 37 : 29-APEAL-1102-23-j.odt
more than twenty days. Even then, there was no evidence to
show that the half burnt clothes belonged to the deceased.
The brother of the deceased Amitchand has admitted that he
had given the description of the clothes only by guessing.
Therefore, there is no connecting piece of evidence with
those burnt articles.
vii. There was no quarrel between the accused and the deceased.
The accused held no grudge against them. They had no
reason to commit this offence.
viii. The recovery of Activa scooter is equally doubtful. There is
no record as to how the Activa scooter was started though
the key maker was brought to open the lock. There is no
reference to recovery of the key of the Activa scooter. There is
no cogent evidence to link the Activa scooter with the
deceased. It was not registered in the name of PW-24 and
there is only a vague reference that the deceased were using
that Activa scooter. In any case, the blood stains found on the
mat of the Activa scooter did not show blood stains,
according to the C.A. report. Therefore, there is no evidence
to show that the victims were carried on that Activa scooter
37 of 49
: 38 : 29-APEAL-1102-23-j.odt
or that the said Activa scooter was in any way connected with
the offence.
ix. The recovery of the CBZ motorcycle is insignificant because
admittedly it was parked by the police in the police station
and it belonged to the accused No.1.
x. The blood stained clothes seized from the accused were not
incriminating because as per the prosecution case itself, on
the previous night the accused Nos.1 & 2 themselves had
suffered bleeding injuries and the accused No.3 had also
suffered a bleeding injury. It is not shown to be the blood of
the deceased.
Submissions on behalf of the Respondents :
34.
On the other hand, the learned APP and the learned
counsel for the victims’ brothers submitted that the prosecution has
proved its case through a complete chain of circumstantial
evidence. They submitted that though the accused did not have
direct motive against the deceased, however, the motive could
develop at the spot. They submitted that admittedly the accused
Nos.1 & 2 had altercation with the PW-24 and his group and,
38 of 49
: 39 : 29-APEAL-1102-23-j.odt
therefore, they were holding a grudge against PW-24’s community.
The evidence of PW-24 shows that he had asked the victims to go
his shop which was next to the shop of the accused No.1.
Therefore, something must have occurred in the night which had
resulted in the accused No.1 getting enraged and then assaulting
the victims. Thereafter the victims were taken near the railway
track where their murder was committed. They submitted that
finding of blood on the clothes of the accused Nos.1 & 2 is an
incriminating piece of evidence. The accused Nos.1 & 2 were taken
to the police station in the night. However, there was a small time
gap when the police had gone in search of the accused No.3,
during that period the accused No.1 must have concealed the
weapon and the mobile phones in his shop. The CDR of the phone
numbers of the victims show that the victim Rakesh had made a
phone call to PW-24 at around midnight, which corroborates the
story of PW-24. They relied heavily on the recovery made at the
instance of the accused No.1 from his shop and the tin-shed. The
doctor had stated that the injuries were possible by the knife
recovered at the instance of the accused No.1. Finding of the blood
on the clothes of the accused Nos.1 & 2 was incriminating. The
39 of 49
: 40 : 29-APEAL-1102-23-j.odt
tower location of the mobile phones showed that the deceased
were present in the vicinity of the shop of the accused No.1.
Reasons and conclusion :
35.
We have considered these submissions. The case is
based on the circumstantial evidence. There is no direct eye
witness to the incident. Broadly there are the following
circumstances against the accused, as submitted by the learned
APP:
i. Motive.
ii. Blood stained clothes of the accused Nos.1 & 2.
iii. Recovery of mobile phones, wooden stick and iron rod.
iv. Recovery of the knife at the instance of the accused
No.1.
v. Finding of half burnt clothes of the deceased.
vi. Recovery of an Activa scooter at the instance of the
accused No.4 and seizure of the accused No.1’s vehicle
at his instance.
36.
Ordinarily, in a case when there is direct evidence,
motive may not play a crucial part. In this particular case, when it
40 of 49
: 41 : 29-APEAL-1102-23-j.odt
is based on the circumstantial evidence which is not very strong,
motive plays an important part. In this case, we do not find that
any of the accused had any motive to commit the murder of the
deceased Rakesh and Amitchand. The evidence shows that there
was enmity between the accused Nos.1 and 2 on one hand and PW-
24 and his friends on the other hand. There was history of two
incidents in the night on 28.12.2012 and 29.12.2012. In none of
those incidents, the victims Rakesh and Amitchand were present.
The fight was between the two groups for which two NCs were
lodged by the rival groups. The fight was between the two groups
where the victims Rakesh and Amitchand were not present at all.
Neither of the accused had issued any threats to commit murder of
the victims. Therefore, there was absolutely no motive in this
particular case. We are unable to accept the submissions that
motive could have developed on the spot. It is not possible to hold
that the victims must have visited the shop of the accused No.1, the
accused must have got enraged and then must have assaulted the
deceased. This is all in the realm of conjectures and surmises. We
are not inclined to enter in that arena. Unfortunately the learned
trial Judge has done exactly the same. He has based his reasoning
41 of 49
: 42 : 29-APEAL-1102-23-j.odt
on conjectures and surmises without there being any reasonable
evidence to reach that conclusion.
37.
The other incriminating circumstance is finding of
blood on the clothes of the accused Nos.1 & 2. Admittedly the
accused Nos.1 & 2 had suffered injuries as described hereinabove
on their own person. Therefore, finding of blood on their clothes is
not incriminating. The prosecution has not ruled out the possibility
that the blood was not that of the accused. The blood group
mentioned in the C.A. report is inconclusive. Therefore, the
prosecution has failed to prove that the blood found on the clothes
of the accused Nos.1 & 2 was that of the deceased. Moreover, it is
an admitted fact that the accused No.3 had also suffered head
injury. That also explains the blood on their clothes since they were
said to be together.
38.
The most incriminating piece of evidence, according to
the prosecution, is finding of the mobile phones, iron rod and the
wooden stick inside the shop shown by the accused No.1. In this
regard it must be noted that as per the prosecution case, the
accused Nos.1 & 2 were taken in custody in the night of
30.12.2012 and 31.12.2012 itself. Since that point onwards they
42 of 49
: 43 : 29-APEAL-1102-23-j.odt
were always in the custody of police though they were shown
formally arrested in the afternoon of 31.12.2012. Therefore, there
was no way that the accused No.1 could have concealed those
articles inside the shop and would have locked the shop and then
would have kept the keys inside the trunk of a tree. The evidence,
as discussed above, clearly shows that when the accused Nos.1 & 2
were taken in custody, the shop was open. It was not closed. It was
not locked. The accused No.1 was always under the control of the
police. Therefore, he could not have locked that shop and kept the
keys inside the trunk of a tree. Therefore, the recovery at the
instance of the accused No.1 itself is unbelievable. In any case, it is
not possible to hold that the accused Nos.3 & 4 who were at large
during the night could have concealed those articles inside the shop
and could have locked it. This also would be entering into the
arena of conjectures and surmises, which is not permissible in law.
39.
The pancha in this case for recovery of these articles
was a person who was selling pirated CDs illegally and hence was
under the thumb of police.
40.
It is also not possible to accept the submissions of the
learned APP that during the period when the police were searching
43 of 49
: 44 : 29-APEAL-1102-23-j.odt
for the accused No.3, the accused No.1 could have concealed those
articles inside the shop. It still does not explain as to at what point
of time he could have locked the shop.
41.
More importantly there is one more circumstance
giving deathblow to the prosecution case. The CDRs produced on
record at Exhibit-202 show that there was an incoming call
received on the mobile phone No.9987014314, which was used by
the second victim Amitchand. The CDR shows that there was an
incoming call for a duration of twenty seconds at 7.19.34 a.m. on
31.12.2012. Thus in the morning of 31.12.2012, that particular
phone was not in control or in possession of the accused No.1 as he
was already in the custody of the police. It was not a missed
called. It was an incoming call for twenty second duration.
Therefore, somebody had received the call on that mobile phone
and it was certainly not received by the accused No.1. Therefore, it
is not possible to hold that the accused No.1 concealed that
particular handset inside his shop and then locked the shop.
Therefore, the entire recovery is not believable and hence that
recovery evidence will have to be discarded.
42.
It is not a case of suspicious recovery. In fact it is
44 of 49
: 45 : 29-APEAL-1102-23-j.odt
demonstrated by the learned counsel for the Appellants that the
recovery evidence is false. The prosecution had not led truthful and
believable evidence in that behalf. Therefore, the other recoveries
will also have to be tested from that point of view. The knife which
is recovered at the instance of the accused No.1 showed presence
of blood but the blood group was inconclusive. The place from
where the knife was recovered was a tin-shed. It was not even
locked. Any one could have entered that tin-shed. Cross-
examination of PW-1 shows that a knife was lying near the dead
bodies. There is no further reference to that knife. It was not
seized. The prosecution did not get this fact explained by asking
questions to PW-1 in that behalf in re-examination.
Though the doctor has said that the injuries were
possible by the knife produced in the Court, the doctor has also
admitted that those injuries were possible by any sharp weapon
viz. a chopper or a sword. Therefore, it cannot be said that based
only on this recovery of knife it could be concluded that the
accused No.1 had committed the murder.
43.
The recovery of CBZ motorcycle had no meaning.
Admittedly the police officer had taken that motorcycle from the
45 of 49
: 46 : 29-APEAL-1102-23-j.odt
accused No.1’s shop to the police station. Then showing it as
recovered at the instance of the accused No.1 had absolutely no
meaning. There is no recovery at the instance of either accused
No.2 or accused No.3. In fact there is no evidence against the
accused No.3 at all.
44.
As far as the accused No.4 is concerned, the
prosecution case is that at his instance an Activa scooter was
recovered on 3.1.2013. Again the foot-mat recovered from that
scooter did not show presence of blood. The registration of that
scooter is not conclusively proved to be in the name of PW-24.
There is only a vague reference that the victims were using that
particular scooter. In any case there is no recovery of key of that
Activa scooter. If the accused No.4 had indeed concealed it at that
particular spot, then there was no difficulty in recovering the key at
his instance but the police had to call the key maker. There is no
reference to the key at all. The evidence shows that the area was
surrounded by residential houses and many vehicles could be
parked around that area. It is not possible to base conviction of
murder only on this weak piece of evidence against the accused
No.4. There is absolutely no evidence to show that the accused
46 of 49
: 47 : 29-APEAL-1102-23-j.odt
Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 had acted in furtherance of their common
intention to commit murder of both the victims.
45.
As mentioned above, the learned Judge has not
considered these aspects in their proper perspective. In fact, he has
referred to the scope of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. He
has shown awareness that the confessional part of the statement
which does not lead to recovery cannot be relied on being
inadmissible but in his entire discussion he has relied on the story
mentioned in the inadmissible part of the memorandum statement
given by the accused Nos.1 & 4. The learned Judge has
erroneously observed in paragraph-155 as to how the motive could
have developed at the spot. He had observed that upon noticing
the workers of PW-24 at the shop block the accused No.1 must
have got enraged and he must have assaulted them in his shop
block and then must have taken them on vehicle with the help of
the other accused near the railway track and must have killed them
by cutting their throats with the knife. All these observations are
without basis and are based on pure imagination. It is not
supported by any evidence. This approach is impermissible in law.
We find the approach of the learned Judge absolutely erroneous.
47 of 49
: 48 : 29-APEAL-1102-23-j.odt
The learned Judge has also observed that the discovery of the knife
at the instance of the accused No.1 confirmed that, what he had
stated in relation to the offence was true. Again the learned Judge
erred in relying on the inadmissible confessional part of the
statement of the accused No.1. In paragraph-141 again the learned
Judge has observed that it would be relevant to go through the
statement of the accused persons recorded by the investigating
machinery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. That
approach of referring to inadmissible portion was again erroneous.
46.
As a result of above discussion, we are satisfied that the
prosecution has failed to prove even a single circumstance against
the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution has
certainly not completed the chain of circumstantial evidence
pointing unerringly to the hypothesis of guilt of the accused. The
prosecution has not proved its case against the accused at all. The
accused, therefore, deserve to be acquitted in this case.
47.
Hence, the following order :
:: O R D E R ::
i. Criminal Appeal is allowed.
ii. The judgment and order dated 8.8.2023 passed by the
48 of 49
: 49 : 29-APEAL-1102-23-j.odt
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kalyan in Sessions Case
No.90/2013, is set aside. The Appellants are acquitted from
all the charges.
iii. The Accused No.1 Balvindersingh Balvirsingh Rathod is in
custody. He shall be released forthwith if not required in any
other case.
The other accused are on bail. They need not surrender.
Their bail bonds stand cancelled.
iv. Before being released, the Accused No.1 Balvindersingh
Balvirsingh Rathod shall execute a P.R. bond in the sum of
Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) under Section
481 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for his
appearance in case an Appeal against acquittal is preferred.
The other accused shall execute P.R. bond in the sum of
Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) each for their
appearance in case an Appeal against acquittal is preferred.
They shall execute such bonds within a period of two months
from today.
v. Appeal is accordingly disposed of. The connected Interim
Application is also disposed of.
( ASHISH S. CHAVAN, J.) (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
Deshmane (PS)
Digitally signed
by
PRADIPKUMAR
PRAKASHRAO
DESHMANE
Date:
2026.07.03
17:34:18
+0530
PRADIPKUMAR
PRAKASHRAO
DESHMANE
49 of 49