Suresh Bhagat Murder Case Judgement

Receivedon Registeredon Decidedon Duration
:03/10/2008 :24/04/2009 :31/07/2013 :04Y,09M,28D
INTHECOURTOFSESSIONSFORGREATERBOMBAY, ATFORT (PresidedoverbyS.G.Shete,C.R.No.07)
SESSIONSCASENO.294OF2009 (OLDM.C.O.C.CASENO.14OF2008)
Exh.901
TheStateofMaharashtra ...Complainant (throughAssistantCommissioner ofPolice,DetectionCrimeBranch CrimeInvestigationDepartment, UnitI,Mumbai,C.R.No.116/2008 ofDCBCID inC.R.No.25/2008ofPoynadPoliceStation) Versus 1.PravinDayanandShetty Age35years,Occ.Driver, R/o.Borsapada,Indiranagar, Kandivali(W),Mumbai. And OriginalresidentofAnandnagar, Kariyakal,TalukaKarkla, DistrictUdipi,Karnataka ...2/ ...Accused
S.C.No.294/09 ...2...StateV/s.PravinD.Shetty&7Ors. Judg.contd.Exh.901
2.AjimuddinMaulasabShaikh Age39years,Occ.Mason R/o.HanumanChawl,DindayalNagar, UpadhyayNagar,M.I.D.C.,Andheri(W), Mumbai. And OriginalresidentofHangraga, TalukaAurad,DistrictBidar, Karnataka.
(Accused/Approver)
3.HarishRamaMandvikar Age33years,Occ.Electrician R/o.BhartiChawl,RoomNo.42, 1/9,IndiraNagar,Borsapada, Kandivali(W),Mumbai400067.
...Accused
4.SuhasMahadevRoge Age42years,Occ.HotelBusiness, R/o.3/B,DadysethWadi,SiriRoad, BandStand,GirgaonChowpati, MalbarHill,Mumbai400006.
...Accused
5.KiranBabanAmle Age36years,Occ.CableBusiness R/o.Roomno.1,BhaskarKolekar Chawl,Navagaon,LaxmanMhatre Road,Dahisar(W),Mumbai400068.
...Accused
...3/
6.KiranRaguPujari Age30years,Occ.Nil, R/o.41/4,ShreeGaneshKrupa, PowaiChowk,MulundColony, Mulund(W),Mumbai400080.
(Accused/Approver)
7.JayaTalakshiChheda Age49years,Occ.Nil R/o.126,RoomNo.3518,Pantnagar VishalHousingSociety,Ghatkopar (E),Mumbai.
...Accused
8.HiteshSureshBhagat Age33years,Occ.ShareTrading, R/o.212,JayantVilla,4thfloor, Opp.WorliMarket,Worli, Mumbai400018.
...Accused
CHARGE:U/s.120B,302r/w.34ofI.P.C.
Ms.KalpanaChavan,Spl.P.P.fortheState. ShriAvinashRasal,Advocateforaccusedno.1. ShriVilasNaik,Advocateforaccusedno.3 ShriAdhikShirodkar,SeniorAdvocatewithShriArchitSakhalkar, Advocateforaccusedno.4. ShriAmitMunde,Advocateforaccusedno.5 ShriSudeepPasbola,CounselwithShriRamPawde, Advocate for theaccusedno.7. ShriTaraqSayyed,Advocateforaccusedno.8 ...4/
JUDGMENT (Deliveredon31stJuly,2013)
The accused are charged for the commission of the offences punishable u/s.120B, 302 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC),forhatchingcriminalconspiracytokilloneSureshBhagatand committinghismurderandsixotherswiththeircommonintention.
2.
Prosecutioncaseisthus: DeceasedSureshBhagatwasrunningMatakabusiness.
Accused no.7 Jaya Suresh Bhagatmaiden name Jaya Talakshi Chhedais his divorcee. Accused no.8 Hitesh Bhagat is their son. Accusedno.4SuhasRogewaspreviouslyservingashisbodyguard and is said to be a paramour of accused no.7 Jaya Chheda. It is allegedthataccusedno.4SuhasRogeandaccusedno.7JayaChheda were also running mataka business. Accused nos.4, 7 and 8 were intendingtoreinMatakabusinessofSureshBhagat.Accusedno.2 Ajimuddin Maulasab Shaikh, who turned to be approver, was the owneroftruckno.MH04CA4445.Accusedno.1PravinShetty,who wasthedriverofthesaidtruck,gavedashtoScorpiobearingno.MH 01AC2475, in which deceased Suresh Bhagat and others were sitting. Accused no.3 Harish Mandvikar was an electrician and pretendinghimselfasaBhaiaswellassocialworkerandthereby, ...5/
formedaDahiHandiMandal.HewasknowingapproverAjimuddin Shaikhaspreviouslytheywerecolleaguewith'M/s.JaiElectricals'. HealsousedtogivehistruckfordahihandiaswellasforGanpati festival. They were knowing each other for more than 10 years. Accusedno.5KiranAmleisalsoamemberofDahiHandiMandal aswellascoaccusedwithaccusedno.3HarishMandvikarinother criminal cases. They were the members of the Cricket Club. Accused no.3 Harish, accused no.5 Kiran Amle and approver Ajimuddin are the resident of Borsapada, Kandivali. Accused no.6 KiranPujari,whoturnedtobeapprover,isasocalledsocialworker, policeinformerandhavingcontactswithpolice,governmentofficials andevenwiththeMinisters.
3.
Special casebearingno.02/2008underN.D.P.S.Actwas
pendingagainstdeceasedSureshBhagat,hissonHiteshBhagat& othersinSessionsCourt,Alibaug.On15/5/2008,itwasadjournedto 13/6/2008.Accusedno.4SuhasRoge,accusedno.7JayaChhedaand accused no.8 Hitesh Bhagat hatched the conspiracy to kill the deceasedSureshBhagattoreinhismatakabusinesswiththehelpof accusedno.6 Kiran Pujari,whoagreedtocooperatewith political influenceaswellasinfluencewithpoliceforvaluableconsideration. Thereby,accusedno.3HarishMandvikartookthecontract( Supari)
...6/
withthemtoeliminateSureshBhagat,foranamountofRs.70lakhs, while returning from Alibaug Court. As a part of the conspiracy, accusedHiteshchosetoremainabsentinAlibaugCourtonboththe dates. Approver Ajimuddin agreed with Harish Mandvikar to give the truck for a consideration of Rs.10 lakhs. Accused no.1 driver PravinShettyagreedwithHarishMandvikartoplythetruckandto eliminatethedeceasedSureshBhagatbygivingdashtohisvehicle while returning from Alibaug Court for an amount of Rs.3 lakhs. Accusedno.5alsojoinedthehandswithaccusedHarishMandvikar forthecommissionofcrimeforvaluableconsideration.
4.
Infact,theconspiracywashatchedtokillSureshBhagat
on15/5/2008i.e.thepreviousdateinAlibaugCourt,but,thesame did not materialise. On the day of the incident i.e. on 13/6/2008, Suresh Bhagat, his nephew Tushar Shah, his bodyguards DharmendraSinghandMilindNamdeoKadam,AdvocateKamlesh Bhagwan Salunkhe, servant Valmiki Sitaram Pawar and one Kamlesh Ashok Kamble went to Alibaug by Scorpio jeep bearing no.MH01AC2475 for attending the court. While returning by AlibaugPenRoad,atabout1.15p.m.,accusedno.1rammedScorpio jeep by the truck bearing no.MH04CA4445 with an intention to committhemurder.Resultantly,SureshBhagatandfiveothersdied
...7/
on the spot due to heavy impact. One of them by name Kamlesh Kamblealsosustainedseriousinjuries,whocouldnotsurvivethough ultimatelyforwardedtoSionHospital,Mumbai.
5.
On13/6/2008,P.W.01HeadConstableJ.D.Mokalwason
dutybetween13:00hrs.to20:00hrs.,asaStationHouseOfficerof Poynadpolicestation.Atabout13:45hrs.,hereceivedthetelephonic messagethataccidentoccurredbetweenonetruckandScorpiojeep infrontofFaujiDhabaonAlibaugPenRoad,withinthevicinityof villageShahbaj. ImmediatelyheinformedtheincidenttotheStation Incharge, Sr.P.I. Hiremath. Thereby, informant Head Constable Mokal, Sr.P.I. Hiremath and the other staff rushed to the spot of incident.Whentheyreachedonthespot,theyfoundthatheadon collusion between truck and Scorpio jeep had taken place. They noticedthattruckwasfacingtowardsPenanditsrearsidewasdown side of the road as well as front sides of Scorpio and truck were totallydamaged.TheyfoundthatScorpiowascompletelydamaged and front side of the truck was damaged. Seven passengers in ScorpiowereseriouslyinjuredandremovedfromScorpioandsentto CivilHospital,Alibaug.
...8/
6.
On the local inspection of the spot, P.W.01 J.D. Mokal
found that truck was proceeding from Pen to Alibaug whereas Scorpio was proceeding from Alibaug to Pen. He found that truck driverwasdrivingthetruckrecklesslyandwithoutconsideringthe conditionoftheroad.SixpassengersfromScorpiojeephaddiedon thespotandonewasseverelyinjured,whodiedlater.Immediately, aftertheincident,truckdriverranawayfromthespot.Accordingly, informantHeadConstableJanardanDhayaMokalwenttoPoynad policestationandlodgedthereportu/s.304A,279,337,427,338of IPCaswellasu/s.184,134ofMotorVehicleAct.Onthebasisofhis report, Station House Officer registered the crime vide C.R.No.I 25/2008.
7.
Being a Sr.P.I., P.W.71 Hiremath carried out the
investigation by drawing a spot panchanama. Dead bodies were forwardedtoCivilHospital,Alibaugforpostmortem.Heobtained theCompactDisk(C.D.)andphotographsofthevehicleswith the helpofphotographerShriMusaleandShriChavalkar.On18/6/2008, withthehelpofmechanicNakul,heinspectedthevehicleandfound onepistol,sixcartridgesandone'Nike'bagcontainingthecopiesof WritPetition.Accordingly,hedrewtheseizurepanchanamaofpistol, chopperanddocumentsinthebag.
...9/
8.
In the meantime, District Superintendent of Police
directed the parallel investigation to Local Crime Branch, Raigad. Accordingly, Sr.P.I. V.K.More alsoinspected thespoton the same day. During the inspection of vehicles, he found mobile numbers writtenoverthetruckandcontactedthetruckownerAnandPatilas well as approver Ajjimuddin.Ontelephonicinquiry,hefoundthat approverAjjimuddinShaikhandtheAnandPatilaretheownersof thetruckinquestion.ImmediatelyherushedtoDahisar,Mumbai. He went to the house of Ajjimuddin Shaikh and interrogated in respectofthedriver.Duringtheinterrogation,hecametoknowthat accusedno.1PravinShettywasthedriver.On14/6/2008,Sr.P.I.More alsonabbedtheaccusedno.1PravinShettyandapproverAjjimuddin andbroughtbothofthemtoPoynadPoliceStation.
9.
At the time of the arrest, accused no.1 was found in
possession of one toll receipt. At the relevant time, he found that accused no.1 Pravin Shetty sustained the injuries on his forehead and nose. During the investigation, he found that it was not an accident, but it is the case of murder. Thereby, on 16/6/2008, I.O. submitted the report to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alibaug, for additionofchargeu/s.302,120BofIPC.Accordingly,hearrested accused no.1 driver Pravin Shetty and accused no.2 Ajimuddin
...10/
Shaikh (approver) and produced them before the Magistrate for police custody. On 16/6/2008, he issued a letter to the concerned mobileserviceprovidercompanyforgettingcalldetailreports. 10. During the investigation i.e. on 19/6/2008, I.O. arrested
accusedno.3HarishMandvikarandaccusedno.4SuhasRogefrom Somnath Chowk, Surat. On 19/6/2008, both the accused were produced before the Magistrate, who granted the police custody. Duringtheinvestigation,accusedHarishMandvikarmadevoluntary statement and shown willingness to produce the cash received by himasaconsiderationofthecontracttokillSureshBhagat,fromthe houseofhisfriendsP.W.39ArvindModasiaandP.W.77AnthonyRaj Nannya Dravid, residents of Kandivali, Mumbai. Accordingly, they went to the house of Arvind Modasia and Anthony Raj Nannya Dravid.TheyproducedthecashofRs.23,50,000/andRs.8,00,000/ respectively,attheinstanceofaccusedHarishMandvikarandthe samewasseizedunderrecoverypanchanamau/s.27ofEvidenceAct. Thereafter, IO recorded the statements of Arvind Modasia and AnthonyRajNannyaDravid.On21/6/2008,I.O.tooksearchofthe houseoftheaccusedno.7JayaChhedainthepresenceofaccused SuhasRogeaswellassearchofhouseofaccusedno.4SuhasRoge. DuringthesearchofhouseofaccusedSuhasRoge,I.O.seizedthree mobilesfromdickeyof'Activa'Scooter. ...11/
11.
On21/6/2008,I.O.arrestedaccusedKiranAmle.Onthe
nextday,hewasproducedbeforetheJudicialMagistrateFirstClass, Alibaug, who committed him to the police custody. On 23/6/2008, theywenttoDamanalongwithaccusedSuhasRogefortakingthe searchofwantedaccusedJayaChheda,butshewasnotfound.On 19/6/2008, he recorded thestatement of Vinod Bhagat, who isthe brotherofthedeceasedSureshBhagat.On29/6/2008,herecorded thestatementofRakeshSawant,whosemobilewasusedbySuhas Roge. On 30/6/2008, he issued a wireless message to all the Commissionarate as well as District Superintendent of Police for causingthearrestofwantedaccusedJayaChheda.
12.
On1/7/2008,hearrestedapproverKiranPujari.Onthe
sameday,hereceivedthecommunicationfromtheDirectorGeneral of Police regarding transfer of investigation of C.R.No.25/2008 of Poynad police station to Crime Branch, Mumbai. Accordingly, he submittedhisreporttoCrimeBranch,Mumbaiandhandedoverthe investigationtoI.O.P.I.R.P.Mahale.
13.
Earlier on 12/6/2008, P.I. Mahale had received the
complaintlodgedbydeceasedSureshBhagat,on13/3/2008,withthe CommissionerofPolice,Mumbai,aboutthethreatstohislifefrom
...12/
Jaya Chheda, Suhas Roge, Hitesh Bhagat and Kiran Pujari in connection with usurping his Mataka business. On 13/6/2008, at about 4.00 p.m., he received the information of the accident. Immediately,herushedtoPoynadpolicestationi.e.on14/6/2008,at about2.00a.m.,butnoneofthepoliceofficerofPoynadpolicestation met him. On 1/7/2008, investigation of the crime itself was transferredtoDCBCID.On2/7/2008,I.O.P.I.Mahalearrestedthe accusedKiranPujariinthiscrimeunderthearrestpanchanama.He seized three mobiles from the possession of Kiran Pujari. On 4/7/2008, he arrested the accused Jaya Chheda under the arrest panchanama. He found that provisions of M.C.O.C. Act are applicable tothe presentcase.Therefore,on6/7/2008,hesentthe proposalofM.C.O.C.Acttothesuperiors.On8/7/2008,hecausedto bearrestedtheaccusedHiteshBhagatbysendinghiscolleaguesto Hotel'SunNSand'atGoa.DuringthesearchoftheaccusedHitesh Bhagat, I.O. seized three mobiles, wrist watch and cash of Rs.11,39,000/fromhispossession.Accordingly,hedrewthearrestas well as seizure panchanama. On 9/7/2008, Joint Commissioner of Police (Crime), approved the proposal of M.C.O.C.. Thereafter, on 12/7/2008,investigationwashandedovertoA.C.P.Duraphe.
...13/
14.
From 9/7/2008, I.O. P.I. Mahale carried out the further
investigationunderthesupervisionofA.C.P.Duraphe.On12/7/2008, he recorded the statement of Advocate Somet Shirsat. During the investigation,I.O.recordedsupplementarystatementofJosephJohn Madanlal,on13/7/2008,statementofAnthonyRajNannyaDravid, on 14/7/2008, statement of Vinod Naik on 5/8/2008, statement of GaneshRaneon7/8/2008,statementsofVinayakPawarandMohd. Kashif Abdul Majid on 13/8/2008 and 16/8/2008 respectively, statementofRiteshMehtaon27/8/2008,statementsofSitaramPatil, AmitPatilandAbdullaKhanandsupplementarystatementofNitin Chavan, on 29/8/2008, statement of witness Rahul Mehta on 3/9/2008, supplementary statement of Rahul Mehta and Ritesh Mehta,on4/9/2008.HefurtherrecordedstatementofNitinChavan, on 5/9/2008, statement of Deepak Devrukhkar and supplementary statementofVinodBhagat,on8/9/2008and12/9/2008respectively.
15.
On 9/7/2008, I.O. arrested the accused Jaya Chheda,
HiteshBhagatandKiranPujariunderM.C.O.C.Act.Heproduced thembeforetheSpecialCourton10/7/2008forfurtherpolicecustody to carry out the investigation. On 10/7/2008, he rearrested the accusedPravinShetty,AjjimuddinShaikh,HarishMandvikar,Suhas Roge and Kiran Amle and obtained their police custody. During
...14/
furtherinvestigation,i.e.on21/7/2008,heissuedaletterofrequestto thelearnedChiefMetropolitanMagistratetorecordthestatement u/s. 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) of the witnesses SometShirsat,JosephNadarandJosephMadanlal.On25/7/2008,he obtained the certified copy of the exemption application dated 13/6/2008,filedonbehalfoftheaccusedHiteshBhagatinAlibaug Court.Duringtheinvestigation,heobtainedthecalldetailreportsof alltherespectivemobiles.HealsocalledtherecordfromHotelsi.e. 'ITCGrand',Hyatt,RamadaPlazaandGrandHyatt,inwhichthe accusedHiteshBhagathadstayeduptohisarrest.On16/9/2009,he obtained the paper cutting of newspaper 'MidDay'. On 17/9/2008, I.O. A.C.P. Duraphe forwarded the letter to the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for recording the statements of the witnessesu/s.164ofCodeofCriminalProcedure.On30/9/2008,he also obtained the papers from Hotel 'J.W. Marriate' where the accusedHiteshBhagathadstayed.Aftercompletionofinvestigation, i.e.on3/10/2008,I.O.A.C.P.Duraphefiledthechargesheetbefore theSpecialCourt.
16.
Evenafterfilingofchargesheet,I.O.issuedalettertothe
ChiefGovernmentPleaderandobtainedthecertifiedcopiesofthe WritPetitionNo.1013/2008aswellasthecopyoftheaffidavitofJaya
...15/
Bhagat in respect of Writ Petition No.2486/2005. Thereafter, he recordedthestatementofSanjayShirkeandJosephRodrigues.On 9/11/2009, he forwarded witnesses Joseph Rodrigues before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 28th Court, for recording his statementu/s.164ofCodeofCriminalProcedure.Healsoobtained thecopyoftheapplicationformofprepaidmobileofaccusedHarish Mandvikar(X63).
17.
During the pendency of trial, accused no.4 Suhas Roge
filedanapplication(Exh.26)todischargehimfromtheprovisionsof M.C.O.C.Act.Aftergivingopportunitiestoboththeparties,accused are discharged by the learned Special Judge for the offence punishableu/s.3(1)(1)ofM.C.O.C.Act,byorderdated24/4/2009,with adirectiontoproducetheaccusedbeforeSessionsCourton5/5/2009.
18.
The charge (Exh.264) was framed by my learned
Predecessoragainsttheaccusedfortheoffencepunishableu/s.120 B,302r/w.34ofIndianPenalCode,towhichaccusedpleadednot guiltyandclaimedtobetried.
19.
During the trial i.e. on 8/8/2011 and on 04/04/2012,
accused no.6 Kiran Raghu Pujari and accused no.2 Ajimuddin
...16/
MaulasahabShaikhfiledapplicationsu/s.306ofCr.P.C.(Exh.316& Exh.656 respectively), before my Ld. Predecessor, for tender of pardon to the accomplice. They were allowed on the same day. Accordingly,myLd.PredecessorframedthechargevideExh.264A& Exh.264Brespectivelyagainstremainingaccused,whichwasread over and explained to accused in vernacular, to which accused pleadednotguiltyandclaimedtobetried.Theirdefenceisoftotal denialandoffalseimplication.
20.
Consideringthefacts,theevidenceandthematerialon
record, following points arise for my determination. My findings thereonareasunderforthereasonsdiscussedbelow: POINTS 1. Whether the death of the deceased Suresh Bhagatandothersisaccidentalorhomicidal? 2.Whetherprosecutionhasprovedthatonor before13/6/2008,atMumbai,accusedhatched conspiracy with approver Ajimuddin Shaikh and approver Kiran Pujari to kill Suresh Bhagat and thereby committed an offence punishableu/s.120BofIndianPenalCode? 3.Whetherprosecutionhasfurtherprovedthat on 13/6/2008, at about 1.15 p.m., within the vicinityofvillageShahabaj,AlibaugPenRoad, FINDINGS Homicidal
Inthe affirmative
Inthe affirmative
...17/
the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, intentionally and knowingly caused thedeathofSureshBhagatandsixothersand thereby committed an offence punishable u/s. 302r/w.34ofIndianPenalCode? 4.Whetherprosecutionfurtherprovedthaton the same date, time and place, accused no.1, intentionally and knowingly committed the murder of Suresh Bhagat and six others by forcibly dashing his truck no.MH04CA4445 toScorpioinwhichSureshBhagatandothers were traveling and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s. 302 of Indian Penal Code? 5.Whatorder? Inthe affirmative
Accused nos.1,3,4,5,7&8 areconvicted REASONS
ASTOPOINTNOS.1TO4: 21. The facts and evidence in this case are such that the
discussion on all the points would be intermixing. Therefore, it is necessarytodiscussthepointunderonechapter.Itisnecessaryto mentionherethatevidenceofalleighty(80)witnesseswasrecorded bymyLd.Predecessors. ...18/
22.
In support of their case, the prosecution has examined
informant/complainant,investigatingofficers(I.O.),whocarriedout theinvestigationandtookthehelpofotherpoliceofficers.Theyare informant/complainant Janardan Dhaya Mokal (P.W.01Exh.327), I.O. P.I. G.C. Hiremath (P.W.71Exh.725), I.O. Sr.P.I. Vishnu Kashinath More (P.W.78Exh.759), I.O. P.I. Ramesh P. Mahale (P.W.79Exh.782)andI.O.A.C.P.AshokTukaramDuraphe(P.W.80 Exh.809). Other police officers are A.S.I. Manoj Manohar More (P.W.06 Exh.410), P.I. Dinesh Bhalchandra Joshi (P.W.14 Exh.440),A.P.I.Mohd.AzamYusufPatel (P.W.48Exh.583),P.S.I. Sambhaji T. Dhamankar (P.W.50Exh.591), A.P.I. Vinayak D. Gaikwad (P.W.51Exh.603A), P.I. Sheetal Vilasrao Raut (P.W.53 Exh.613),P.I.KeshavSakharamShengale (P.W.56Exh.626),A.P.I. Santosh D. Barge (P.W.69Exh.716), P.N. Girish Bhagwan Anerao (P.W.70Exh.719),P.S.I.BabanZiproPawar(P.W.73Exh.741),P.I. Pundalik V. Nigade (P.W.74Exh.743) and A.P.I. Rajkumar DattatrayWaghchaure(P.W.76Exh.751).
23.
The prosecution relied on the testimony of approvers
Kiran Raghu Pujari (P.W.05Exh.379) and Ajimuddin Maulasab Shaikh (P.W.62 Exh.669). To corroborate the testimony of ...19/
approvers,prosecutionreliesonthetestimonyofAdvocateSometS. Shirsat (P.W.02Exh.357),whoisAdvocateforaccusedno.8Hitesh Bhagat in N.D.P.S. case in Alibaug Court and Advocate Suhas TukaramGaikwad(P.W.75Exh.746),whowasAdvocateofdeceased Suresh Bhagat in Writ Petition No.1013/2008 before Hon'ble High Court and who drafted the representation/complaint as per the instructions of deceased Suresh Bhagat and lodged the complaint beforetheCommissionerofPolice,Mumbai.
24.
Prosecution further relies on the testimony of learned
Metropolitan Magistrate Shri A.D. Kshirsagar (P.W.72Exh.736), whorecordedthestatementofwitnessJosephJohnMandanlaland other witnesses. Dr. Smt. Shashikala K. Desai (P.W.22Exh.470), whoexaminedtheaccusedno.1driverPravinShettyonthedayof theincidenti.e.on13/6/2008.R.T.O.InspectorJayrajP.Thanekar (P.W.23Exh.472),whoexaminedboththevehiclesinquestion.
25.
Prosecutionalsoreliesonthetestimoniesoftherelatives
ofthedeceasedi.e.VarshaTusharShah (P.W.17Exh.456),whois thewifeofdeceasedTusharShah,VinodKalyanjiBhagat (P.W.32 Exh.511),whoisthebrotherofdeceasedSureshBhagatandAshok
...20/
Habu Kamble (P.W.45Exh.576), who is the father of deceased KamleshKamble.
26.
In support of their case, prosecution has also examined
the Medical Officers, who carried out the post mortem of the deceasedatCivilHospital,AlibaugandSionHospital.TheyareDr. VijaykumarP.Kurade (P.W.33Exh.531),Dr.ShripadM.Kondekar (P.W.34Exh.535),Dr.SunilGanpatraoBhopale (P.W.36Exh.537), Dr.Anil Shivling Phutane (P.W.37Exh.541) and Dr. Revati Ajay Desai(P.W.46Exh.577).
27.
Prosecutionreliesonthetestimoniesofthewitnessesi.e.
AnandVishramPatil (P.W.07Exh.415),whoisthepartnerofthe approverAjimuddinShaikh,waiterDaulatTukaramBade (P.W.24 Exh.480)andManagerNitinTukaramMhatre (P.W.25Exh.481)of Hotel Sai Kutir, Wadkhal Naka, earlier bodyguard of the accused no.7 Jaya Chheda namely Latish @ Satish N. Shetty (P.W.30 Exh.505),Mr.VinodkumarMenon (P.W.35Exh.535),CityEditorof newspaper'MidDay',photographersMaheshKisanMusale (P.W.49 Exh.586),andVijayNarayanChavarkar(P.W.54Exh.618).
...21/
28.
Prosecution examined the panchas on various
panchanamas.TheyareShaileshShivramPatil (P.W.27Exh.491), Nitin Shravan Dhepe (P.W.28Exh.495), Bhalchandra J. Gharat (P.W.29Exh.501), Shivram Vasant Khawanekar (P.W.31Exh.507) andDhananjayC.Mhatre(P.W.52Exh.608).
29.
Prosecutionexaminedthesubscribersontherecordofthe
mobilecompaniesbutthemobiles,whichwerefoundinpossessionof the accused. They are Vinayak Dinkar Pawar (P.W.10Exh.428), Mohd. Kashif Abdul Majid (P.W.11Exh.432), Rakesh Sawant (P.W.12Exh.434), Amit Pandurang Patil (P.W.19Exh.459),
PandurangPatil(P.W.21Exh.464)andDeepakDevrukhar(P.W.26 Exh.488).
30.
Toprovethecalldetailaswellassubscriberdetailrecords
of the mobiles, prosecution has examined the Nodal Officer of Reliance Company, Rajesh S. Gaikwad (P.W.55Exh.623), Senior Manager, B.P.L. Mobile, Sudhakar Devram Musale (P.W.57 Exh.632), Nodal Officer of Bharati Airtel, Sunil Suhaschandra Tiwari(P.W.60Exh.642),DarshansinghRandhawa,SeniorManager of TATA Tele Services (Old Huges Tele Communication) (P.W.61
...22/
Exh.651), Nodal Officer of Max Touch (Vodafone) Vikas Narayan Phulkar(P.W.63Exh.681),AssistantNodalOfficerofAirtelYogesh Rajapurkar (P.W.64Exh.693) and Nodal Officer of Bharati Airtel ChetanSrirangMore(P.W.66Exh.698).
31.
To prove the case against accused no.4 Suhas Roge,
prosecution has examined witnesses Vinod Madan Naik (P.W.15 Exh.443), Joseph Robert Rodrigues (P.W.16Exh.449) and Sanjay Ramchandra Shirke (P.W.68Exh.711). The prosecution examined Sandeep B. Shirodkar (P.W.59Exh.638), who is the cousin of accusedKiranAmleandresidentofMhapusa,Goa,witnessRahul S.Kurtadkar(P.W.20Exh.463),whoisthedriverofapproverKiran Pujari. 32. To prove the conspiracy of accused Harish Mandvikar,
prosecution has examined the witness by name Joseph Mangesh Nadar (P.W.08Exh.422),SalesManagerofOm CarsMaheshR. Yadav (P.W.09Exh.424),JosephJohnMadanlal (P.W.13Exh.436), Sunil Zilu Jangle (P.W.18Exh.458), Arvind A. Modasia (P.W.39 Exh.548),GaneshJagdishRane(P.W.67Exh.709)andAnthonyRaj NanyaDravid(P.W.77Exh.756).
...23/
33.
To prove the case against accused Hitesh Bhagat, the
prosecution examined his friends. They are Ritesh Pratap Mehta (P.W.03Exh.365), Rahul Rajesh Mehta (P.W.42Exh.564), and AbdullaAmanullaKhan(P.W.43Exh.566).
34.
Tosupportthestayaswellasthetraveloftheaccused
HiteshBhagat,theprosecutionhasexaminedthetravelagentNitin PrabhakarChavan(P.W.04Exh.372),TeamLeaderofKuoniTravels RajendraJ.Kamble (P.W.38Exh.545),ManagerofHotel'Ramada Plaza' Michael Remedios (P.W.40Exh.550), Assistant Manager of Hotel'HyattRegency'BhushanMadhukarRane (P.W.41Exh.556), Managerof'ITCGrand'SatishMadhukarVaidya (P.W.44Exh.570), Manager of 'Grand Hyatt' Tushar Kishor Mali (P.W.47Exh.581), representative of Hotel 'SunNSand', Goa, Preetam C. Mahadik (P.W.58Exh.636)andTraineeManagerofHotel'SunNSand',Goa, AjayBensinghPal(P.W.65Exh.696).
35.
In support of their case, the prosecution relies on the
various documents i.e. complaint/First Information Report (Exh.330), format First Information Report (Exh.330A), representation/ complaint of deceased Suresh Bhagat, dated 13/3/2008,aboutthreatstohislife( Exh.747),certifiedcopyofWrit ...24/
PetitionNo.1013/2008beforeHon'bleHighCourt( Exh.748),English Article regarding the news given by P.W.35 Vijaykumar Menon, Editorof'MidDay'(Exh.536)aswellasxeroxcopyoftheGujarathi 'MidDay' (X53A), accident reports form of motor vehicle Scorpio and the truck issued by P.W.23 J.P. Thanekar ( Exh.473 and Exh.474).
36.
The prosecution relies on the statements u/s. 164 of
Cr.P.C.recordedbytheLd.MetropolitanMagistratesandLd.Chief MetropolitanMagistrateoftheapproverandwitnessesi.e.statement of P.W.05 Kiran Pujari (Exh.340), statement of P.W.62 Ajimuddin Shaikh (Exh.657A), statement of P.W.13 Joseph John Madanlal (Exh.737),statementofP.W.02AdvocateSometShirsat( Exh.359), statement of P.W.03 Ritesh Mehta ( Exh.367), statement of P.W.15 Vinod Madan Naik (Exh.444), statement of P.W.16 Joseph Robert Rodrigues(Exh.883).
37.
The prosecution also relies on the statements of the
witnessesrecordedbytheinvestigatingofficeri.e.portionmarked'A' and'B'ofJosephJohnMadanlal( Exh.752and753),portionmarked 'A' of statement of Sunil Jangle ( Exh.754), portion marked 'A' of
...25/
memorandum panchanama of accused Harish Mandvikar dated 19/6/2008(Exh.760),portionmarked'A'ofthestatementofArvind Modasia(Exh.768),portionmarked'A'and'B'ofthestatementof RakeshSawant(Exh.771andExh.772),portionmarkedAtoCin thestatementofKiranPujari(Exh.806toExh.808),portionmarked 'A'ofsupplementarystatementofJosephJohnMadanlal( Exh.790), portionmarkedAtoGofstatementofAnthonyRajNanyaDravid (Exh.791toExh.797)andportionmarked'A'and'B'ofstatementof GaneshRane(Exh.798andExh.799)toprovethecontradictions.
38.
Theprosecutionfurtherreliesontheinquestpanchanama
of deceased Kamlesh Salunkhe (Exh.726),inquest panchanamaof deceasedValmikPawar(Exh.727),inquestpanchanamaofdeceased Tushar Shah (Exh.728), inquest panchanama of deceased Suresh Bhagat(Exh.729),inquestpanchanamaofdeceasedMilindNamdeo Kadam(Exh.730)andinquestpanchanamaofdeceasedDharmendra KumarSingh(Exh.731).
39.
Theprosecutionalsoreliesonthepostmortemreportsas
wellasadvanceddeathcertificatesofdeceasedKamleshSalunkhe (Exh.532 & Exh.532A), deceased Tushar Shah (Exh.534 &
...26/
Exh.534A), deceased Dharmendra Kumar Singh (Exh.538 & Exh.538A),deceasedMilindNamdeoKadam(Exh.539&Exh.539 A), deceasedValmikPawar (Exh.542&Exh.542A) and deceased Suresh Bhagat (Exh.543 & Exh.543A) as well as post mortem reportofKamleshKambleissuedbySionHospital( Exh.578).
40.
Theprosecutionreliesonthereceiptofthephotographbill
(Exh.587),20 photographsofthedeceased(Exh.589colly.),three photographs of the vehicles in question ( Exh.610 to Exh.612), Compact Disk (C.D.) and five photographs of both the vehicles (Exh.619&Exh.620colly.).
41.
The prosecution relies on the medical papers of the
accused Pravin Shetty dated 13/6/2008 of Vibha Care Home (Exh.471)andcertifiedcopyoftheexemptionapplicationofaccused no.8 Hitesh Bhagat in N.D.P.S. Special Case No.2/2006 before SessionsCourt,Alibaug(Exh.358). 42. Theprosecutionreliesonthememorandumpanchanama
ofaccusedHarishMandvikarandrecoveryu/s.27ofEvidenceActof Rs.8 lakhs from Anthony Raj Nanya Dravid ( Exh.493), arrest panchanama of accused no.1 Pravin Shetty & approver Ajimuddin ...27/
Shaikh (Exh.496 & Exh.496A), personal search panchanama of accusedKiranAmleandseizureofcarbearingno.MH02AP4563, dtd.21/6/2008(Exh.508),arrestpanchanamaofaccusedno.4Suhas Roge (Exh.592), arrest panchanama of accused Kiran Amle (Exh.593colly.),spotpanchanama,dtd.13/6/2008,regardingScorpio &Truck(Exh.609),memorandumandrecoverypanchanamaofRs.4 lakhs,attheinstanceofapproverKiranPujari( Exh.627&Exh.627 A),memorandumandrecoverypanchanamaofMaruticarbearing no.MH04BS9412,dtd.13/7/2008,attheinstanceofaccusedHarish Mandivkar (Exh.628 & Exh.628A), panchanama dtd.13/7/2008 of seizureoftwomobiles,SIMcard,scribblingpapersanditineraryair ticket,etc.from the possession of Panaji Police (Exh.637), panchanamadtd.18/6/2008inrespectofsearchofvehiclei.e.Scorpio & seizure of one 32 bore pistol,6 rounds & two mobile phones (Exh.733),panchanamadtd.13/6/2008ofseizureofthebluecolour Nikebag,chopperandmobile(Exh.734),arrest&personalsearch panchanamadtd.2/7/2008ofapproverKiranPujari( Exh.786),arrest & personal search panchanama of accused Jaya Chheda dated 4/7/2008 (Exh.788) and arrest & personal search panchanama of accusedHiteshBhagat,dtd.8/7/2008,seizureofcashRs.11,39,000/, wristwatchandthreemobiles(Exh.789).
...28/
43.
The prosecution further relies on the house search of
accusedno.1PravinShettyandapproverAjimuddinShaikh,dated 17/6/2008 (Exh.614), house search panchanama of accused no.1 PravinShettydated20/6/2008(Exh.763),seizurepanchanamadated 18/6/2008,ofpapersofMarutiSwiftcarbearingno.MH02AP4563 (Exh.615),memorandumpanchanamaofaccusedHarishMandvikar andrecoveryofRs.23,50,000/( Exh.760&Exh.761),housesearch panchanamaandseizureofthreemobilesfromthehouseofaccused HarishMandvikar,dated20/6/2008( Exh.762),panchanamaofhouse searchofaccusedJayaChheda,dated21/6/2008( Exh.769),recovery ofmobileofaccusedHarishMandvikarfromSantoshGuptadated 22/6/2008 (Exh.604), recovery panchanama of mobile of accused Kiran Amle from the house of P.W.59 Sandeep Shirodkar, dated 23/6/2008 (Exh.717), house search of accused Suhas Roge and recoveryofthreemobilesfromthedickeyofhisActivawhichisin frontofhishousedated21/6/2008(Exh.770). 44. Theprosecutionreliesonthecalldetailreportsaswellas
thecorrespondencebetweentheinvestigatingofficerandrespective mobile companies. They relied on the letter issued by Reliance CommunicationtotheDeputyCommissionerofPoliceinrespectof mobilebearingno.9324260303ofAjimuddinShaikh ( Exh.624),its ...29/
calldetailreports(Exh.625),officecopyoftheletterbyAdditional Commissioner of Police issued to B.P.L. Communication and their reply dated 26/8/2008 (Exh.633 & Exh.634), certified copy of subscriberregistrationformofBPLMobileofPandurangPatilalong withxeroxcopyofhisrationcard,electricitybillanddrivinglicense (X51 & X49 colly.) call detail reports of mobile bearing no.9870557511ofPandurangPatilwhichwasfoundinpossessionof Kiran Pujari (Exh.635), office copy of the letter issued by the AdditionalCommissionerofPolicetoBharatiAirteldated28/7/2008 (Exh.643) and their reply dated 8/8/2008 ( Exh.644), subscriber enrollment form of Advocate Somet Shirsat (Exh.645), subscriber detailreporti.e.AirtelprepaidapplicationformofaccusedKiranB. Amleofhismobileno.9867547490alongwithselfattestedxeroxcopy of driving license (Exh.646), call detail report of mobile no.9892222379 of witness Advocate Somet Shirsat (Exh.647), call detail report of mobile no.9867547490 of accused Kiran Amle (Exh.648), letterissuedbyTATATeleServiceson 9/8/2008 tothe AdditionalCommissionerofPoliceregardingmobileno.9222003157 of P.W.11 Mohd. Qasif (Exh.652), call detail report of mobile no.9222003157(Exh.653)anditscertificate(Exh.654)aswellasits cell Id. address (Exh.655), subscriber detail report of mobile no.9324260303 of P.W.10V.D.Pawar( X44 Exh.429colly.),xerox ...30/
copy of the license of Mohd. Qasif ( X45) and his original license (Article 2) and certified copy of subscriber detail report of Mohd. Qasif(X58).
45.
Theprosecutionfurtherreliesonsubscriberdetailreports
ofaccusedPravinShettyofmobileNo.9967735462( X64)anditscall detail report (Exh.694X64), letter issued by Bharati Airtel Ltd. along with its cell Id address ( Exh.695 colly.), letter issued by Superintendent of Police, Alibaug to the Manager, Vodafone dated 23/6/2008 (Exh.682), copy of letter issued by Additional Commissioner of Police dated 31/7/2008 & 8/8/2008 (Exh.683 & Exh.684),originalprepaidapplicationformofRakeshSawantofhis mobile no.9920960871 along with its self attested copy of driving license (X59), its call detail report and cell site list of mobile no.9920960871 (Exh.685 & Exh.686), subscriber detail report of MobileNo.9930159144whichisinthenameofNarendraN.Roge( X 60)anditscalldetailreport(Exh.687).
46.
Theprosecutionfurtherreliesonsubscriberdetailreport
i.e. prepaid application form of Anthony Raj Nannya Dravid in respectofhismobileno.9833110177(X61Exh.757),xeroxcopyofhis ...31/
passport(Exh.758)anditscalldetailreport(Exh.688),subscriber detail report i.e. colour xerox copy of application form of Orange CompanyofaccusedJayaChhedaalongwithaddressproofandproof ofidentityi.e.xeroxcopyofPANcard(X62),calldetailreportofher mobileno.9833418884(Exh.689colly.),
47.
Theprosecutionfurtherreliesonsubscriberdetailreport
i.e.originalprepaidapplicationformofaccusedHarishM.Ganigain respectofmobileno.9833507523alongwithselfattestedxeroxcopy ofdrivinglicense (X63),itscalldetailreport(Exh.690).Theyalso reliedonthecertificateissuedbyBharatiAirtelinrespectofmobile no.9867547490 and 9967736462 ( Exh.699), call detail report of mobile no.9867547490 (Exh.700), its cell Id report (Exh.701), call detail report of mobile no. 9967736462 (Exh.702), its cell site list (Exh.703)andtheircellsitelistaswellascellsiteaddress (Exh.706 colly.).CopyofletterissuedbyAdditionalCommissionerofPoliceto the Nodal Officer, Bharati Airtel, dated 9/8/2008, in respect of requirementsofdetailsofmobileno.9967736462(X57Exh.720).
48.
The prosecution relies on the muddemal receipt
(Exh.718),officecopyofthewirelessissuedbyinvestigatingofficer G.C. Hiremath to Sr.P.I. dated 14/6/2008 to R.T.O., Alibaug ...32/
(Exh.732), officecopyofcoveringletterdated19/6/2008( Exh.735), office order issued by Joint Commissioner of Police (Crime) for transferofinvestigationtoDCBCID(Exh.783),letterdated1/7/2008 issuedbyLCB(Exh.784),certifiedcopyofthestationdiaryextract (Exh.785), letter dated 3/7/2008 (Exh.787), letter issued by Additional Commissioner of Police for transferring the inquiry of applicationofSureshBhagat(Exh.800),copyofreplyaffidavitfiled inWritPetitionNo.1013/2008(Exh.801),officecopyofletterdated 18/7/2008 issued to Additional Commissioner of Police ( Exh.810), officecopyofletterissuedtoDCP,SBII(Exh.811)andletterdated 12/9/2008(Exh.812).
49.
In support of their case, the prosecution relies on the
documents/hotelbillsinrespectofaccusedno.8HiteshBhagati.e. xeroxcopyofthepassportofP.W.03( Exh.366),hotelbills(Exh.373), reply letter dated 29/7/2008 sent to Additional Commissioner of Police, Crime Branch (Exh.441), departure card (Exh.442), letter dated6/9/2008(Exh.546),letterinformingbooking(Exh.547colly.), 'C' Form (Registration form) ( Exh.551), letter dated 2/9/2008 (Exh.557),card(twopages)(Exh.558A),EmailIdofwitnessRahul Mehtapage517(Exh.565),informationwithcoveringletterdated
...33/
2/9/2008toDCBCIDbyP.W.44(Exh.571),photocopiesofthebills (Exh.573), application along with affidavit by P.W.47 (Exh.582), extractofSunnSandHotelregister(Exh.697).
50.
Besidesthistheprosecutionalsoreliesonthexeroxcopy
oftheairticketsofHiteshBhagatandP.W.03RiteshMehta( Article 1 colly. and Article 1/1), copy of R.C. Book of MH02AP4563 (Article1colly.)andtollreceipt(Article28).
51.
DuringcrossexaminationofP.W.05approverKiranPujari
admittedthedocumentsi.e.panchanamainrespectoftheseizureof thedocumentsfromhispossessionvide Exh.393,insurancepolicyof car along with duplicate (Exh.395), P.U.C. Certificate (Exh.396), visitingcardofKiranPujari(Exh.397),identitycardofKiranPujari ofMumbaiCrimereport(Exh.398),receiptofthelicenseofrevolver (Exh.399),officecopyofletterdated7/9/2007(Exh.400),permission ofrevolver(Exh.401),xeroxcopyofletterdated27/3/2007allegedto be issued by M.L.A. Sanjay Dina Patil ( Exh.402), service book of motor car (Exh.403), affidavit of Giyasuddin and one Yusuf Khan dated15/5/2008(Exh.404andExh.405).
...34/
52.
Duringcrossexaminationofthewitnesses,defencerelies
on thevariousdocumentsi.e.Googleinformationinrespectofthe failure of brakes of the motor vehicle from 'crashforensics.com' (Exh.476 and Exh.477), copy of the insurance policy of Scorpio (Exh.478), certified copy of the chargesheet ( Exh.515), copy of complaintdated21/9/2006filedbyaccusedJayaChheda( Exh.516), copyofcomplaintdated24/6/2009filedbyJayaChheda( Exh.517), copyofapplicationforbringingthelegalheirsonrecordalongwith deathcertificateofManiben( Exh.519colly.),copiesofapplications (RAESuit no.663/1082/2005& RAESuitno.665/1082/2005) ( Exh. 520 colly. to Exh.522 colly.), copy of chamber summons in Suit no.3197/2008(Exh.526),certifiedcopyofSpecialLeaveApplication no.5084/2005againsttheorderinCriminalApplicationNo.4410/2002 (Exh.527 colly.), extract of accidents near the scene of offence (Exh.738), certified copy of order passed in Writ Petition No.1013/2008 (Exh.749), copy of report dtd.16/6/2008 to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alibaug (Exh.773), acknowledgement receipt dated13/6/2008(Exh.776),receiptdtd.13/6/2008regardinghanding overthearticlestoAPIHiremath( Exh.777),letterdated16/6/2008 (Exh.778),letterdated18/6/2008ofPoynadpolicestation( Exh.779) &letterdated18/6/2008issuedbyAPIHiremath( Exh.780).
...35/
53.
Attheend,Ihaveheardextensiveargumentsadvancedby
thelearnedSpl.P.P.andthelearneddefenceCounselfortheparties havealsofiledtheexhaustivewrittennotesofarguments. LearnedSpl.P.P.Ms.KalpanaChavansubmittedthatthe evidenceonrecordclearlyestablishestheprosecutiontheorythatthe accused hatched the conspiracy and thereby committed murder of deceasedSureshBhagatandsixinnocentpersons.Theaccusedno.7 is the mother of accused no.8 and divorcee of deceased Suresh Bhagat. Though accused no.8 was residing with deceased Suresh BhagatinWorli,hewasnotonlyinvisitingtermsbutinclosecontact withhismotheri.e.accusedno.7JayaChheda.Accusedno.4Suhas Rogewasinvisitingtermsandusedtofrequentlygotothehouseof accusedJayaChhedaatPantNagar,Ghatkopar.Byexaminingthe witnesses, prosecution proved that the accused hatched the conspiracyandcontracted/give'supari'toaccusedHarishMandvikar toeliminateSureshBhagatinaccidentwhilereturningfromAlibaug Court. As a part of the conspiracy, on 15/5/2008, with a view to ensurethataccusedno.8HiteshBhagatdidnottravelwithdeceased SureshBhagat,JayaChhedainstructedAdvocateSometShirsatthat accused Hitesh Bhagat is not feeling and to seek the exemption. Againon13/6/2008,sheensuredHiteshBhagat'sabsenceinAlibaug Court by again asking Advocate Somet to seek exemption for the
...36/
attendance in Alibaug Court. While deceased Suresh Bhagat and others were returning, accused no.1 Pravin Shetty drovehis truck from the opposite side and thrust Scorpio and thereby, Suresh Bhagatandsixinnocentpersonsdied.Itwasnotamereaccident,but itwasaplotofintentionallyandknowinglycommittedthemurder. Aftertheincident,accusedno.1PravinShettyranawayfromthespot and reached at Hotel Sai Kutir and called the accused Harish MandvikarandKiranAmle.Atthetimeofincidentaswellasprior totheincident,accusedwereincontinuouscontactwitheachother on their mobiles. Prosecution brought CDR and SDR of their respective phones by examining the Nodal Officers of respective companies.Theevidenceinrespectofmobilesclearlyestablishesthe conspiracyandmurder.Atthesametime,aspercellId,presenceof theaccusedatspecificlocationisalsobroughtonrecord.Thechart (Exh.850) prepared for the ready reference from the substantive evidenceofCDRandCellIdtranspiresthataccusedwereincontact with each other as well as contacted approver Ajimuddin Shaikh, AdvocateSometShirsatandAnthonyRajNannyaDravid.
54.
Learned Spl.P.P. further submitted that though the
panchawitnessesdidnotsupport,thepanchanamasaredulyproved byexaminingtheIOaswellastheapproverandwitnesses.Extra
...37/
judicialconfessionofP.W.04hasbeenprovedbyP.W.15VinodNaik, P.W.16 Joseph Robert Rodrigues. Though P.W.68 Sanjay Shirke turnedhostile,thewitnessadmittedthaton13/6/2008,accusedno.4 SuhasRoge,P.W.15VinodNaikandP.W.16JosephRodrigues,hada meetinginhishouse.Thereby,prosecutionhasprovedextrajudicial confessionofP.W.16.ByexaminingP.W.22Dr.S.K.Desai,ithasbeen broughtonrecordthatduetoheadoncollusion,sevenpersonswere killedaswellasaccusedno.1PravinShettysustainedtheinjurieson hisnoseandforehead.Duetoheadoncollusion/heavyimpact,allthe incumbentsinthejeepdiedastheysustainedtheinjuriestotheir headandthereby,theirbrainswererupturedandpiercedfromthe skull.P.W.03RiteshMehta,P.W.42andP.W.43AbdullaKhanarethe friendsofaccusedno.8HiteshBhagat.Byexaminingthewitnesses i.e.Managersandthetravelagent,ithasbeenbroughtonrecordby theprosecutionthatimmediatelyafterthedeathofSureshBhagat, accusedHiteshBhagathadstayedindifferentHotelsbyhidinghis identity i.e. stayed in different names of his friends i.e. P.W.03, P.W.42 and P.W.43. The complaint (Exh.747) and Writ Petition (Exh.748)ofthedeceasedSureshBhagatarethematerialpieceof evidence inrespect ofcauseofhisdeath,andcanbetreatedasa dyingdeclaration.Thechainofcircumstancesclearlyestablishesthe guilt of the accused. Thus, prosecution has proved that accused
...38/
hatched the conspiracy and committed the murder of deceased SureshBhagat. Inadditiontoherexhaustive arguments,learned Spl.P.P. Ms. Kalpana Chavan filed written notes of arguments (Exh.857).
55.
In reply, learnedSeniorAdvocateShriAdhikShirodkar
foraccusedno.4submittedthatitisanunfortunateaccident,but, prosecutionhasgivenacolourofdeliberatecollusionasapartofthe conspiracy of commission of the murder. As per the statement of P.W.06 ASI More, statements of 5 to 6 eye witnesses have been recorded.But,theprosecutionwithholdtheevidenceofeyewitnesses andsuppressedthematerialevidence.Possibilityofaccidentdueto overtakingcannotberuledout.Whiledrawingthespotpanchanama, topography,situationoftheroad,skidmarksandtyremarkshasnot been brought on record. No sketch map is filed on record. It is broughtonrecordthatdeceasedSureshBhagatwasaddictofopium. ButprosecutionneverpreservedthevisceraofthedeceasedSuresh Bhagataswellasotherdeceased.Noproperexplanationhasbeen givenbytheprosecutionregardingerasionsinFIR.RTOinspector never verified the brake system of both the vehicles. IO never ascertainedwhetherScorpiodriverwasundertheinfluenceofdrug orliquor.MerelybecauseIOPIHiremathcometotheconclusionthat
...39/
driver of the truck is guilty. I.O. never carried out the proper investigation.
56.
Learned Sr. Advocate Shri Adhik Shirodkar further
submittedthatwhiletenderingthepardontoP.W.05KiranPujarias well as P.W.62 Ajimuddin Shaikh, prosecution did not follow the parameters which are required by law. They were straight way grantednoobjectionwithoutanycondition.P.W.05KiranPujariisan extortionistandblackmailer.P.W.62isexaminedatthefagendofthe case.Theirevidenceisexculpatoryandnotinculpatory.Therefore,it isliabletobethrownaway.Atthesametime,thewitnessesonthe point of extra judicial confession are examined at belated stage. ProsecutionfailedtoexplainthedelayinexaminingP.W.16Joseph Rodrigues. Witness Sanjay Shirke is hostile. Testimony of P.W.15 VinodNaikisbasedoninherentimprobabilities.Theirevidenceis hearsayevidence,therefore,itcannotbeaccepted.
57.
Learned Sr. Advocate Shri Adhik Shirodkar further
submitted that P.W.17 Varsha Tushar Shah is a tutored witness. P.W.32VinodBhagatishavinginimicaltermswithdeceasedSuresh Bhagataswellaswithaccusedno.7and8.Ithascomeonrecordthat he approached LCB (Crime), Commissioner of Police as well as
...40/
approachedtheStategovernmentfortheappointmentofSpl.P.P..It was only because Suresh Bhagat has left huge property and to eliminate the share of accused no.7 and 8, malicious investigation has been carried out by the IO at the instance of P.W.32 Vinod Bhagat. The evidence of P.W.02 Advocate Somet Shirsat has no evidentiary value as it is within the ambit of privilege communicationu/s.126ofEvidenceAct.Almostallthepanchasare turnedhostile.Therefore,prosecutionhasmiserablyfailedtoprove the seizure as well as memorandum panchanamas. Complaint of SureshBhagataswellasWritPetitionbearingno.1013/2008cannot be treated as dying declaration because Writ Petition has been disposedofbytheHon'bleHighCourtonthegroundthatallegations are articulated as a defence in N.D.P.S. case. While recording the statements of witnesses u/s. 164 of Cr.P.C., Ld. Metropolitan Magistratehasnotfollowedproperprocedure.Theevidenceonrecord isfullofomissionsandcontradictions.Prosecutionmiserablyfailed toprovethecommissionofconspiracyaswellasfailedtocomplete the chain of evidence. The evidence filed on record is unreliable, therefore, prosecution miserably failed to prove the commission of murder by hatching conspiracy with the other accused. Thereby, prosecutionmiserablyfailedtoprovethechargeslevelledagainstthe accused. IO filed the colourfuland manipulated chargesheet with
...41/
malafideintention.Inadditiontohisexhaustivearguments,learned Senior Advocate Shri Adhik Shirodkar filed written notes of arguments(Exh.859).
58.
Learned Counsel Shri S.R. Pasbola for accused no.7
exhaustively reiterated the arguments regarding the spot and its topography, privilege communication, extra judicial confession, approverandcircumstantialevidence.Theaccidenthasbeenlabeled asahomicidaldeath.Atthemost,itwasrashandnegligentdriving ofthedriverofScorpioandthereby,IOfailedtotakereportofCAof driverofthejeepaswellasSureshBhagatandothersbytakingthe viscera. Prosecution come up with the theory of circumstantial evidencewithcriminalconspiracy.Theyhavemainlyreliedonextra judicialconfessionsandtheevidenceofapprover.Theirtestimonies are suffering from basic infirmities which is called as particupus criminus as they are not inculpatory. The evidence of P.W.35 VinodkumarMenonregardingnewspaperarticleandnewsin'Mid Day'(Gujarathi)isnotsubstantivepieceofevidence.Mediareport doesnothaveevidentiaryvalue.Atthesametime,theprosecution neverexaminedthetranslatorwhotranslatedthenewsfromEnglish toGujarathi.Hon'bleHighCourtdisposedoftheWritPetitiononthe ground that deceased has raised the defence in N.D.P.S. cases.
...42/
Thereby,complaintandWritPetitioncannotbetreatedasadying declaration.
59.
LearnedCounselShriS.R.Pasbolafurthersubmittedthat
as per the prosecution, mobile bearing no.9833418884 and mobile no.9819492925 belongs to accused Jaya Chheda. P.W.80 IO A.C.P. Durapheadmitsthatmobileno.9819492925isinthenameofSharad Avhad,thoughstatesthatitwasusedbyaccusedno.7JayaChheda. Nothingisfiledonrecordbytheprosecutionthatitwasusedbythe accused. Call detail record (Exh.689) is in respect of her mobile no.9833418884. It does not transpires that accused no.7 was in contactwithanyoftheaccused.Thesubscriberdetailrecordarethe xeroxcopies.Theyarenotprovedbytheprosecution.Itcannotbe presumedthatmobileisinthenameofaccusedandthereby,they used the same. Subscriber detail report and the cell Id. are not electronicrecord.Theyarenotexhibitedforprovingthesameasper the provisions of law. Prosecution never provedtheidentityof the user or subscriber, who used the mobile at the relevant time. Subscriber detail record (Exh.645 & Exh.646) are not electronic record.Therefore,thoughtheyaremarkedasexhibit,itcannotbe readinevidenceastheyarenotadmissibleintheevidence.
...43/
60.
Learned Counsel Shri S.R. Pasbola also exhaustively
arguedregardingthesubscriberdetailrecord,calldetailrecordas wellascellIdsoftherespectivemobiles,whichwerefoundinthe possession of the accused. He submitted that it is alleged that subscriber detail record (X64) is of accused no.1 Pravin Shetty, subscriber detail record (X63) is of Harish Mandvikar, subscriber detailrecord(Exh.58&X59)areofP.W.11Mohd.KasifandP.W.12 RakeshSawant.Buttheyareallegedtobeinpossessionofaccused SuhasRoge.Subscriberdetailrecord(X51)isallegedtobeofKiran Pujari,subscriberdetailrecord(X62)allegedtobeofaccusedJaya Chheda and so on. Subscriber detail records is not an electronic recordandtheyarethexeroxcopies.Therefore,itcannotbereadin evidence.Prosecutionreliedoncalldetailrecordsofrespectivemobile numbers i.e. 9892222379, 9324260303, 9870557511, 9222003157, 9920960871, 9930159144, 9920155555, 9867547490, 9833507523, 9833418884, 9967736462 and 9833110177. Almost all call detail recordsdonotbearthevalidcertificatewhichrequiredasperthe provisions of Section 65B (4) of Evidence Act. Except TATA Telecommunication, nobody has filed thecertificate in the format. Possibilityofmanipulationinthesubscriberdetailrecordaswellas call detail record and cell Id cannot be ruled out. The subscriber detail records were filed by the concerned agencies. To prove the
...44/
subscriber detail records, prosecution never called the concerned agencytoprovethesubscriberdetailrecord.ThecellIdandthecall detailsdoesnotmatchwitheachother.Thereisadifferenceinthe calldetails.Prosecutionneverexplainedastowhythesaiddifference occurs.Atthesametime,roamingnetworkisnotshownincalldetail records.CalldetailrecordsdonotreflectcellIds.P.W.63admitted thatExh.686andExh.706aremanuallyprepared.Subscriberdetail record does not bears the date, logo of the Telecommunication Company and signature of authorised person or concerned Nodal Officer.Therefore,thisrecordshouldnotbereliedupon.Atthesame time, though subscriber detail record i.e. X64 of Pravin Shetty is filed on record, prosecution never seized the mobile from the possessionoftheaccusedno.1PravinShetty.Calldetailrecordsof Exh.694andExh.648doesnotmatchwitheachother.Atthesame time, prosecution neverexplainedastowhytheyarenotmatched with each other. It is necessary for the court to satisfy upon the accuracyofthecalls.Onecallreflectsinoneexhibitdoesnotreflect inanothercalldetailrecord.Itwasnecessaryfortheprosecutionto prove use of mobile by the person concerned. Cell Id are not authenticate. They does not bear certificate in prescribed form. Therefore, the inaccurate record of call detail record has no evidentiaryvalue,anddoesnotinspireconfidence.
...45/
61.
LearnedCounselShriS.R.Pasbolafurthersubmittedthat
circumstantialevidenceistobeestablishedindependently.Thereis alwayspossibilityofconjuncturesandsurmises.Nothingisbrought onrecordtoprovethemotiveviz.grabbingofmatakabusinessafter thedeathofSureshBhagat.Hence,heprayedtoacquittheaccused no.7. Inadditiontohisexhaustivearguments,learnedCounselShri S.R.Pasbolafiledwrittennotesofarguments (Exh.863).
62.
Learned Advocate Shri Vilas Naik for the accused no.3
reiteratedtheargumentsadvancedbytheAdvocatesforthedefence regarding spot panchanama, topography, extra judicial confession, privilegecommunication,approveraswellascircumstantialevidence and other objections. He submitted that it is the prosecution case thatoutof7,6werediedonthespot.Thereby,aspertheprovisions ofSection174ofCr.P.C.,itwasnecessaryforinvestigatingofficerto preparetheinquestpanchanamathroughtheExecutiveMagistrate on the spot. Injured Kamlesh Kamble was alive till forwarding to Sion Hospital. Despite of sufficient opportunity, prosecution purposely never recorded his dying declaration. P.W.17 Varsha Tushar Shah is a tutored witness. Whereas P.W.32 Vinod Bhagat pressurizetheinvestigatingagencybyhispoliticalinfluencetograb the property of the deceased Suresh Bhagat. While recording the
...46/
statements of u/s. 164 of Cr.P.C., P.W.72 learned Metropolitan MagistrateShriKshirsagarfailedtofollowtheprocedurelaiddown bylaw.Prosecutionfailedtoprovethepanchanamau/s.27ofIndian EvidenceActandtheotherpanchanamaswhicharedrawnwiththe helpofstockpanchas.Theallegedincidentisnaturalaccidentbut thecolourfulchargesheethasbeenfiledbytheinvestigatingagency by joining the hands with the witnesses with ulterior motive. In additiontohisexhaustivearguments,AdvocateShriVilasNaikfiled thewrittennotesofarguments(Exh.876A).
63.
In reply, learned Advocate Shri M.R. Jethmalani for
accusedno.8submittedthattheevidenceofapproversisnotagainst accusedno.8.Theirtestimoniesarefalseandnotcorroboratedand thereisnotruedisclosure.Thereisnosubstantiveevidenceagainst accusedno.8.Atthemostitisaconspiracybetweenaccusedno.4and accused no.7. There is no single allegation against accused no.8. DuringthecrossexaminationofP.W.05approverKiranPujari,ithas brought on record that accused no.7 is interest protector of his father'sbusiness.HealsoadmittedthathedidnotfeelthatHitesh Bhagatishavinginimicaltermswithhisfatherandtherewereno occasions to meet Hitesh Bhagat except two casual meetings. By examining P.W.03 Ritesh Mehta, it has brought on record that
...47/
feelings of accused Hitesh Bhagaton hearing thesad newsof the deathofthefather.Accusedno.8takedisparatestepstocomebackto India, left the Hotel andreturnedtoMumbaiimmediately.Atthe same time, immediately, they returned to India with an earliest Aeroplane and attended the funeral. This shows the innocence of accusedno.7motheraswellasaccusedno.8hersonHiteshBhagat. They are falsely implicated in this crime. P.W.32 admits that he intendstokeepaccusedno.7and8behindthebar.Hissoletestimony is prejudice and hearsay. Scene of offence is not properly placed beforethecourtinaproperperspective.Thetouchstoneprobability oftheincidentisnotfiledontherecord.
64.
Itistobenotedherethatafterthepartheardarguments
by Senior Counsel Shri M.R. Jethmalani, Advocate Taraq Sayyed filedanapplicationthatSeniorCounselisunabletoattendtheCourt and thereby, learned Advocate Taraq Sayyed continued his argumentsonbehalfoftheaccusedno.8.
65.
Learned Advocate Shri Taraq Sayyed for accused no.8
submittedthattoprovethetravelandstayofaccusedno.8Hitesh BhagatinHotel,theprosecutionhasexaminedeightwitnessesi.e. P.W.04 Nitin Chavan, P.W.38 Rajendra Kamble, P.W.40 Michael
...48/
Remedious, P.W.41 Bhushan Rane, P.W.43 Abdulla Khan, P.W.44 Satish Vaiday, P.W.47 Tushar Mali and P.W.65 Ajay Pal. But, no material evidence is brought on record that during the period accused no.8 Hitesh Bhagat was stayed in the respective hotels. Prosecutionnevercarriedoutidentificationparadeaswellasnever filedanyC.C.T.V.Footagewhichshowsthataccusedwasresidingin therespectiveHotels.AllthesehotelsarehighendedinwhichC.C. Cameras are installed. But, prosecution failed to bring the said camera footage on record. Thereby, it cannot be said that accused suppressed his identity and try to remain abscond. No a single witness identified the accused. P.W.43 Abdulla Khan is a got up witness. The evidence of P.W.43 is false and fabricated. The panchanama dated 13/7/2008 (Exh.637) is of innocuous recovery. EvidenceofP.W.58PreetamMahadik,P.W.65AjayPalandP.W.73 PSI Pawar is not found to be reliable. Though prosecution has examined 80 witnesses,thereisnoincriminatingevidenceagainst theaccused.Therefore,benefitofdoubtistobegiventotheaccused. Hence,heprayedtoacquittheaccusedno.8.
66.
In reply, learned Advocate Shri A.R. Rasal for accused
no.1driverPravinShettyreiteratedtheargumentsoftheAdvocates for the defence. He submitted that the testimony of P.W.06 M.M.
...49/
MoreandI.O.P.W.71G.C.Hiremathiscontradictorytoeachother. The spot of incident is of heavy traffic. Eye witnesses were easily available to the prosecution. Deliberate non examination of eye witnesses is fatal totheprosecution.P.W.01H.C.Mokaltampered theFIR.I.O.P.I.Mahalemadetheinterferenceintheinvestigation wheninvestigationwaswithPoynadpolicestationandwithL.C.B. (Crime). Prosecution deliberately failed to file the log books, visit book, station diary entries and phone register of Poynad police station.Thereisalackofevidenceinrespectofmotiveatthehands ofaccusedno.1.Insuchsituation,cardinalprincipleofinnocenceof the accused no.1 is in his favour. Accordingly, he also filed the exhaustivewrittennotesofarguments(Exh.878).
67.
LearnedAdvocateShriAmitMundefortheaccusedno.5
advanced hisargumentsthatthoughprosecutionhasexamined10 witnessestoprovetheconspiracyand22witnessestoshowthecase of murder, not a single witness whisper against the accused no.5 KiranAmle.Noneofthewitnessspeakthespecificroleofaccused KiranAmle.Thewitnessesonthepointofextrajudicialconfession neveraverredagainsttheaccused.Placeofarrestofaccusedno.1is not mentioned in the arrest panchanama (Exh.496), thereby, it cannotbesaidthathewasarrestedfromthehouseofaccusedKiran
...50/
Amle. Nothing is recovered from accused Kiran Amle. Mere testimony of P.W.59 Sandeep Shirodkar cannot be held that the mobile was belongs to the accused. The recovery of mobile from P.W.59 Sandeep Shirodkar is planted. Mere testimony of P.W.18 SunilJangaleandP.W.67GaneshRaneisnotsufficienttoprovethe guiltoftheaccused.
68.
Learned Advocate Shri Amit Munde further submitted
that I.M.E.I. number mentioned on CDR (Exh.648) as well as on seizurepanchanama(Exh.717)aredifferent.Conversationofaccused no.1driverPravinShettyandtheaccusedno.5asperCDR(Exh.648) isoffourminutesandsevenseconds,isnotsufficienttoprovethe conspiracy.ThecellIdofhismobileisnotshowninCDR(Exh.648). Only circumstance is that his mobile was with accused Harish Mandvikarisnotcorroborativeevidence.Noneofthewitnessesand the investigatingofficerstatedtheroleplayedbytheaccusedno.5 KiranAmle.ItisadmittedonrecordthatExh.694isnotretrieved fromtheroamingnetwork.CellIdextract(Exh.701)arenottaken fromthemastercomputer.CDR(Exh.700)arenotinsequence.The evidenceofP.W.66isfalseandfabricatedasitwasfiledatbelated stage,whoadmittedthatitsfontsarechanged.CDR(Exh.646)isnot dulyproved.Therefore,theevidenceagainstaccusedKiranAmleis
...51/
not found to be trustworthy. In addition to his oral arguments, learnedAdvocateShriAmitMundefiledwrittennotesofarguments (Exh.881).
FIR&SPOT 69. Upon perusal of record as well as upon hearing of the
Advocates,ithascomeontherecordthatonthedayoftheincident, P.W.01 Head ConstableJ.D.MokalwasattachedtoAlibaugpolice station.Atabout13:45hrs.,hereceivedthetelephonicmessagein respectoftheaccidentbetweenjeepandtrucknearVillageShahabaj, Taluka and District Alibaug. Immediately, he communicated the informationtoAPIHiremathandtheybothproceededtowardsthe spotwithotherstaff.Whentheyreachedthespot,theyfoundvehicles i.e.truckno.MH04CA4445andScorpiono.MH04AC2475were separated.SeveninjuredwereforwardedtoCivilHospital,Alibaug. Thereafter, immediately, at about 14:30 hrs., he lodged the report (Exh.330)andregisteredtheoffencevideC.R.No.25/2008.Since,six persons were declared dead by Civil Hospital, Alibaug, crime was registeredu/s.304A,279,337,427,338ofI.P.C.aswellasu/s.184, 134 of Motor Vehicle Act. The testimony of P.W.01 informant J.D. Mokal corroborates his report (Exh.330). During his cross examination,headmittedthatoutofseven,sixweresuccumbedto
...52/
theinjuriesonthespot.LearnedAdvocateShriVilasNaikraisedthe objection that when they found that six persons were died on the spot,itwasthedutyoftheprosecutiontodrawthepanchanamaon thespotu/s.174oftheCr.P.C.,atthehandsofExecutiveMagistrate. It is to be noted here that it is the case of impact between two vehiclesresultingintomultipledeaths.Insuchsituation,itwasthe primedutyofthepoliceofficertosendthevictimstothehospital. Policeofficerisnotanexperttodecidewhethertheyweredeador severelyinjured.Thepoliceofficersthuscorrectlyreactedandwere not wrong in not drawing for the panchanama. Therefore, the objectionraisedbythelearnedadvocateinrespectofthedrawinga panchanamaonthespotisnotsustainable.
70.
Thedefencealsoraisedobjectionthatthereisaerasion
andcorrectionin theReportstatingthatScorpiojeepwascoming from Alibaug to Pen. They raised objections that this has been deliberateactoftheprosecution.But,Idonotfindsosinceitisnot unnaturalthatintherushofthethingsandinhastesomethingis writteninadvertentlyatthefirsttime.Moreover,ithasnorelevance becauseintheformatFIR(Exh.330A)thefactiscorrectlystated.At thesametime,testimonyofP.W.71Sr.P.I.G.C.Hiremathcorroborates thetestimonyofP.W.01J.D.MokalandP.W.06M.M.More.
...53/
71.
Toprovethespotpanchanama(Exh.609),prosecutionhas
examinedP.W.52panchaD.C.Mhatre,whoisadjoiningagriculturist ofthespotofincident.Ithascomeinhisevidencethatwhenhelearn thevehicular accidentnear'FaujiDhaba',hereachedthespot,he sawthattherewasavehicularaccidentbetweenoneScorpioandbig truck. Police carried outthemeasurements of thevehicle andthe areaandpreparedthepanchanama.AnotherpanchaMadhukarPatil wasalsopresent.FrontsideofScorpiowascompletelydamagedas well as there was heavy damage to the front side of the truck. Thereby, he signed the panchanama (Exh.609). In his cross examination,P.W.52panchaD.C.Mhatreadmittedthathereached thespot,atabout3.30p.m.,whenthevehicleswereseparated.He wasonthespotupto6to7p.m.Advocatefortheaccusedshownthe photographsofthetruckaswellasScorpiowhichheadmits(Exh.610 toExh.612).HealsoadmittedthatthetruckaswellasScorpiowere notontheroadbutinthefield.Hefurtheradmittedthattherewere notyremarksorskidmarksontheroadaswellasonthekuccha road. He admitted the topography of the spot in respect of the adjacent companies Dharamtar Creek Bridge, Nippon Damro, SpongeIronCompany,IspatPort,etc..Healsoadmittedthatthereis nodividertotheroad.Itisalsoadmittedinthecrossexamination thatthespotofincidentisofcurveaswellastheslope.Evenduring
...54/
thecrossexaminationofP.W.52D.C.Mhatre,histestimonyremains intact.Thoughthetopographyofthespothasnotbeenbroughtby the prosecution, it has been brought by the defence. Prosecution proved the spot panchanama showing that the driver of the truck accusedno.1PravinShettyhadnotappliedthebrakesandgavethe dashtoScorpiowithaforceinwhichthetyresofScorpiowereburst aswellasthefrontaxelofthetruckwasalsodamagedduetoheavy impact.
72.
Investigating officer P.W.71 P.I. G.C. Hiremath's
testimony is corroborate by the testimony of P.W.52 pancha D.C. Mhatre.Heisthewitnesstothespotpanchanama.Hefurtherstated that photograph (Exh.612) shows the dead body of Suresh Bhagat who was sitting besides the driver. After the registration of the crime,hedrawthespotpanchanamaasanimportantdocumentin accidentcase. Topographyoftheroadinrespectoftheslopesand curvesandthedistancefromtheslopisnecessarytobementioned. Hedeniedthattherewasheavytrafficonthesaidroad.Hefurther admittedthathetriedtoseethetyremarksorskidmarks,butthey were not seen. Even duringthecrossexamination of investigating officerP.W.71G.C.Hiremath,nothinghasbeenbroughtonrecordto
...55/
disprove the spot panchanama (Exh.609). In support of their testimonyprosecutionalsoexaminedP.W.06A.S.I.M.M.More.
73.
(A)LearnedSeniorAdvocateShriAdhikShirodkarplaced
relianceon (i) Keisam Kumar Singh and another v/s. State of Manipur, (1985) 3 SCC 676, in which it has been held, local inspectionbytheCourtisnosubstituteforevidenceorproof. (ii) Ganesh Bhavan Patel & anr. v/s. State of
Maharashtra, (1978) 4 SCC 371, in which it has been held, inordinatedelayinregistrationofthe'F.I.R.'andfurtherdelayin recordingthestatementsofthematerialwitnesses,castsacloudof suspicion on the credibility of the entire warp and woof of the prosecutionstory.
(B)LearnedAdvocateShriVilasNaikplacedrelianceon (i) State of Andhra Pradesh V/s. Punati Ramulu, LAWS(SC)1993289, inwhichithasbeenheld, whenitis found that I.O. deliberately fail to record FIR on receipt of informationofcognizableoffenceofthenatureandhadpreparethe FIRafterreachingthespotafterduedeliberations,consultationsand discussion,theconclusionbecomesinescapablethattheinvestigation ...56/
istainted,thereforeitisunsafetorelyonthetaintedinvestigation. (ii)LaxmanV/s.StateofRajasthan,1997Cri.LJ2718, inwhichithasbeenheld, thesuppressionoftheearlierreportand the delay in the dispatchof allegedFIR to theCourtwithdefinite possibilityspeakthatimprovementandembellishmentandhastried tosetupadistortedversionoftheincident. I have gone through the above cited rulings. The principles laid down in the above cited rulings are not helpful becauselocalinspectionhasnotbeencarriedoutbytheCourt.There isnodelayonreceiptofinformationaswellasdelayindispatchof F.I.R.tothecourtnorthereisanysuppression.
74.
Considering the evidence on record, it is obvious that
P.W.01 H.C. J.D. Mokal lodged the report immediately after the incident. Later on, they prepared the spot panchanama (Exh.609). Prosecution proved the spot panchanama by examining P.W.52 pancha D.C. Mhatre. During the cross examination of the prosecutionwitnesses,itisadmittedthattherewerenoskidmarks on the spot. While drawing the spot panchanama, nowhere it is mentioned that there were skid marks/tyre marks. Thereby, it is crystal clear that driver of the truck no.MH04CA4445, never appliedthebrakesandtherewerenoskidmarksortyremarkson
...57/
thespotofincident.Thiswouldbesobecausehehadgivendeliberate dashtoScorpio.ByexaminingP.W.01HCMokal,prosecutionproved the report (Exh.330). Spot panchanama has been duly proved throughP.W.52D.C.MhatreandIOG.C.Hiremath.
RTOREPORT 75. P.W.23MotorVehicleInspectorJ.P.Thanekarhasdeposed
thataspertheletter ofPoynadpolicestation,dated16/6/2008,he inspected the truck no.MH04CA4445 and Scorpio no.MH01AC 2475. During the inspection of Scorpio, he found that brake connection was broken, steering arm and connection were broken, engine was damaged, gear lever was damaged, front right side chassiswasdamaged,tyresofrearsideswereburst,frontrightside tyre burst, radiator damaged,windscreenglasswasbroken,head lightwasbroken,topwasdamaged,rearglasswasbroken,driver's sitwasbrokenandallfrontshowwasbroken.Vehiclewasnottested onroadbecauseofheavydamage,Therefore,opinioncannotbegiven aboutotherdefects.Accordingly,heissuedthereport(Exh.473).
76.
Ithasfurthercomeinhisevidencethatonthesameday,
heinspectedthetruckno.MH04CA4445andnoticedthatbrake connectionwasbroken,steeringconnectionwasbroken,gearboxwas
...58/
intact,frontrightsidechassisbend,frontaxelseparatedfromthe chassis,frontbrakeconnectionwasbrokenanddieseltankdamaged. Vehiclewasnottestedonroadbecauseofheavydamage.Therefore, opinioncannotbegivenaboutotherdefects.Accordingly,heissued thereport(Exh.474).Inhiscrossexamination,headmittedthathe never visited the spot of incident as well as such accidents are possible while attempt of overtaking by other way. The brake connections of both the vehicles were damaged, therefore, his admissionfornonexaminationoftestdrivehasnorelevance.Inhis lengthycrossexamination,headmittedthevariousreasonsforthe accident.HealsoadmittedthatScorpioisaS.U.V.i.e.Sportsutility vehicle.Though,hewascrossexaminedlengthy,hisreportsaswell astestimonyremainintact.
77.
Uponperusalofthereport(Exh.473andExh.474)aswell
astestimonyoftheP.W.23J.P.Thanekar,itisobviousthatitwasa heavy impact. The theory of overtaking is not found believable becausethereportsinrespectofthedamageofScorpioaswellas TATAtruckclearlyshowsthatitwastheheadoncollusion.Ifanyof the vehicles took overtake, such type of accident could not have happened. The photographs and Compact Disk which are filed on recordbytheprosecutionclearlyshowsthattherewasdamagetothe
...59/
rightsideofScorpioaswellasoftheTruck.Therefore,thepossibility oftheincidenttakingplacewhileovertakingofthevehiclecannotbe believed.
CONDITIONOFVEHICLES 78. It has come in the evidence of P.W.54 Vijay Chavarkar
thatimmediatelyaftertheincident,hereachedthespotandtookthe photographs (Exh.620) and also subsequently prepared the CD (Exh.619). P.W.49 photographer Mahesh Musalesubmitted that as perthedirectionofinvestigationofficerG.C.Hiremath,heobtained 20photographs(Exh.589colly.)andthereby,obtainedthepaymentof Rs.500/ vide receipt (Exh.587). The testimony in respect of the photographs clubbed with the testimony of P.W.49 and P.W.54 is corroborate to each other and thereby, prosecution proved the photographswhicharefiledonrecord.Thephotographswhichwere filed on record, were admitted by the defence in their cross examination.Thereby,thereisnoreasontodisbelievetheevidence filedonrecordbytheprosecution.
MEDICALOFFICERS&POSTMORTEMREPORTS 79. IthascomeintheevidenceofP.W.34Dr.S.M.Kondekar
thatheperformedtheautopsyofthedeadbodyofTusharShah.On
...60/
externalexamination,hefoundthefollowinginjuriesi.e.fractureof pelvisandexternalgenitalembeddedinthat,therewascutinjury separatingthighfromperinum.Onexaminationofpositionoflimbs, hefoundthattherewasevidenceoffractureleftforearm,fracture righthumerus,fracturerighttibiafibula,evidenceofCLWatknee dorsally ventrallymeasurementof5cmx3cmx2cm.,CLWleft thigh3cm.X2cm.X4cm.X2cm.,CLWoverscalp,CLWoverright eyebrow, CLW over left eyebrow with underline fracture, blood comingthroughnoseandear. Oninternalexamination,hefoundfollowinginjuries: There was collection of blood clots in peritoneal cavity, intestinal mesentry showing multiple blood clots all over area, evidenceofinjurytoliveratthejunctionof2/3 rdand1/3rd,evidenceof blood clots in liver capsule, blood clot at the inferior wall of liver, evidence of splenic rupture and blood in kidney capsule and left kidney injury. Causeof thedeathwashaemorrhageshockdueto multipleorganinjuryinroadtrafficaccident.Thereby,heissuedthe postmortemreport(Exh.534).Inhiscrossexamination,headmitted thatonopeningofstomach,hedidnotfindthesmellofalcoholand drug.Therefore,hedidnotfinditnecessarytopreserveviscera.
...61/
80.
ByexaminingP.W.37Dr.A.S.Phutane,ithascomeinhis
evidence that during post mortem of deceased Suresh Bhagat, he foundfollowinginjuriesi.e. (i) Skull vault is open with multiple skull bone fracture. Whole brain was lost. Both eyes lost. Piece of skull bone seen attachedtoscalp. (ii) CLWonrightforearm4x1cm. (iii) Fractureoflefthumerusmiddle/third (iv) Compoundfractureofleftsecondandthirdmetacarpus. (v) FractureofleftsideTibiafibulalowerend. (vi) Fracture dislocation of right knee with CLW anterior laterally10x10cms.Piecesofbonesandmusclesseenthroughthe injury. OnThoraxmultiplecontusionsonchestonbothsides. Oninternalexamination,hefoundfollowinginjuries: (i) Leftmultipleribfractures. (ii) Blood in thoracic cavity on left side with injury to left lung. (iii) Rightlungwascongested. (iv) Leftlungcongestedandinjured (v) Multipleteethloss. Causeof death was traumaticbrain injurywith lossofcerebrum duetomultipleskullbonefracturewithpolytrauma.Accordingly,he issuedthepostmortemnotesaswellastheadvancedcauseofdeath certificate (Exh.543 and Exh.543A). In his cross examination, he admittedthatheisunabletosaywhethervictimsustainedinjury while driving the car. He further admitted that nothing was suspicious,therefore,hedidnotpreservevisceraandbloodsample. ...62/
81.
MedicalOfficersP.W.33Dr.V.P.Kurhade,P.W.34Dr.S.M.
Kondekar,P.W.36Dr.S.G.BhopaleandP.W.46Dr.RevatiDesaihave provedtheadvanceddeathcertificateaswellaspostmortemreport (Exh.532,532A,534,534A,538,538A,539,539A,542,542Aand 578).Opinionoftheprobablecauseofdeathisgivenasshockdueto multiplepolytraumainacaseofroadtrafficaccident.Uponperusal ofallthepostmortemreports,itclearlyappearsonrecordthatall seven deceased sustained the contused lacerated wounds all over body,neck,thigh,etc..Italsoappearsthatthereweredamagedto the frontal bone and there is a damage to the brain of all the incumbentsinScorpio.
82.
During the testimonies of medical officers, it is obvious
that the cause of death are haemorrhage shock due to the poly traumaandtherewasfracturetotheskull.Itisthespecificcaseof theprosecutionthatduetotheheavyimpact,skullvaultofdeceased SureshBhagatwasopenedwithmultipleskullbonefracture.Whole brainwaslost.Botheyeswerelost.Thereby,itisobviousthatitwas theheavyimpactandthereby,allthedeceased/passengersofScorpio sustainedthefracturetotheirskullinwhichtheydiedonthespot. Thenatureandgravityoftheinjuriesaresuchthattheycouldnot haveoccurredinnormalaccidentandcouldhavebesustainedonlyif
...63/
the headon collusion was deliberate. The absence of skid marks clearlyshowsthattherewasnoattemptbythetruckdrivertoapply the brakes which could have been the case, had it been mere accident.Thesecircumstancesclearlyshowsthatitwasnotamere headoncollusionbutitisdeliberateandintentionaldashgivenby thetrucktotheScorpio.
83.
During the cross examination of investigating officer
P.W.71 G.C. Hiremath, defence filed the copy of report of L.C.B., Alibaug,inrespectofadditionofSection302,120BofIPCbefore C.J.M.,Alibaug(Exh.773).Accordingly,permissionwasgrantedfor addition of provisions of Section 302,120Bof Indian PenalCode. TheinjuriesmentionedonthebodyofdeceasedTusharShah,driver ofScorpio,clearlyshowsthathesustainedmultipleinjuries,whereas accusedno.1PravinShetty,whoaswouldbeshownlittlelater,was truck driversustainedtheminorinjuryonhisnoseandforehead. This would not have been the case unless the truck driver deliberately dashed with great force to Scorpio. The injuries sustainedbySureshBhagat,TusharShahandotherswerenotonly grievous but there was damaged to their skull and brains were rupturedorpiercedfromtheskull.Thisalsorulesouttheoryofmere accident.
...64/
84.
InfurthercrossexaminationofIOG.C.Hiremath,defence
was taken that the spot of incident is of heavy traffic as well as accidentprone.Toprovetheircontention,theyfiledtheextractofthe R.T.InformationaccidentsduringtheperiodfromJanuary2005to March2009betweenWadkhalNakatoPoynadRoad(Exh.738).The suggestive information cannot override positive and conclusive circumstantialevidencerulingouttheaccident.
85.
The defence that there was a slope where the incident
tookplace,infactshowsthattheincidentcouldnotbeaccident.That issobecauseScorpiowhichwasgoingfromascendingdirectioncould notplyfast,whereasthetruckcomingfromtheoppositedirection couldbeincontrolofthesituation,coupledwiththefactthatthe driver of the truck was continuously chasing over the phone the positionofScorpio.ItisevidentthathedeliberatelydashedScorpio insteadofkeepinghisvehicleincontrolwhichwouldhavebeenthe caseforavoidingtheaccident.
86.
Theadvocatesfortheaccusedraisedtheobjectionthatthe
visceraofthedeceasedwerenotpreservedandnotexaminedbythe prosecution. During the cross examination, medical officers have givenspecificreplyastowhyviscerawasnotpreservedviz.there
...65/
was no smelling of alcohol. Therefore, the objection raised by the Advocate for the accused has no substance and the same is not maintainable.
INJURIESTOACCD.NO.1DRIVER 87. IthascomeintheevidenceofP.W.22Dr.Smt.S.K.Desai,
whowasattachedtoVibhaCareHomeandexaminedtheaccused no.1driverPravinShetty,on13/6/2008,atabout11.10p.m..When she asked the reason of injury, he told that while unloading the articles from the truck, he sustained injury by the shutter of the truck.Hewasadvisedtoadmitinthehospital,but,herefused.She gave first aid to accused no.1, as the accused refused to admit. Thereby,sheobtainedthesignaturesofP.W.62AjimuddinShaikh& P.W.77AntonyRajNannyaDravid,whowereaccompaniedwithhim. Prosecutionhasfiledthesaidmedicalpapers(Exh.471)onrecord.
88.
Upon perusal of medical papers of Vibha Care Home
(Exh.471),Dr.S.K.Desaiclearlymentionedthehistoryofinjuryi.e. putonthenosebytruckshutterandhadaninjuryonhead.Shealso mentioned that it is contused lacerated wound superficial to deep nose(includingbothalacnasiandnasalseptumadmeasuring8x8 cm.)Shealsofoundabrasionoverthefrontalregion1x1cm.
...66/
89.
Thedefenceoftheaccusedisoftotaldenialaswellasnot
found any injury on hisperson.Whereas,thearrest panchanama/ surrenderform(Exh.496)clearlyshowsthathesustainedhorizontal injuryonhisnoseandthereisabrasionoverhisforeheadandthe nose.Thereby,thedefencewhichhasbeenraisedbytheaccusedhas nosubstance.Onthecontrary,itsupportstheprosecutioncasethat atthetimeoftheincident,accusedno.1PravinShettyalsosustained theinjuryonhisnoseandforehead.Thereby,hewasexaminedby P.W.22 Dr.S.K.Desai. By examining P.W.22 Dr. S.K. Desai, prosecutionprovedthemedicalpapers/injurycertificates(Exh.471).
90.
P.W.62AjimuddinShaikh(approver)admittedthatheand
P.W.77 Anthony Raj Nanya Dravid forwarded accused no.1 Pravin Shetty to the hospital. Doctor gave the first aid treatment and advisedtoadmitinthehospitalbuttheyrefused.Theygotwriting from Anthony that they are not ready to admit him and they are leavingthehospitalontheirownrisk.Headmittedthesaidremarks on Exh.471aswellashissignatureandsignatureofAnthonyRaj Nanya Dravid with their mobile numbers. The mobile numbers of P.W.62AjimuddinShaikhismentionedas9324260303.Whereasthe signature of Anthony and his mobile number is mentioned as 9833110177.
...67/
91.
IthascomeintheevidenceofP.W.77AnthonyRajNannya
Dravidthathismobilenumberis9833110177.Hedidnotsupportthe prosecution. During his cross examination by learned Spl.P.P., he submittedthathedidnotknowAjimuddinShaikh.Hedeniedthat he had taken accused no.1 to the hospital i.e. Vibha Care Home. When his prepaid application form (X61) is shown to him, he admitted copy of his passport as well as his signature on exhibit. Thereby,itisexhibitedasExh.757.Xeroxcopyofhispassportand the signature thereon is admitted by him which is exhibited at Exh.758. When I compared the signature and the handwriting on Exh.471aswellasExh.757,Exh.758,Ifoundthemcloselysimilar. Whereas P.W.62 Ajimuddin admitted his signature on Exh.471. Thereby, prosecution successfully proved that Anthony and Ajimuddinforwardedtheaccusedno.1PravinShettytoVibhaCare Homeforhismedicaltreatmentimmediatelyaftertheincident,but theyrefusedtoadmitforfurthertreatment.Thus,itisobviousthat atthetimeoftheincident,accusedno.1PravinShettyalsosustained injuryonhisnoseaswellasabrasioninjuryonhisforehead.
92.
P.W.24DaulatBade,whowasworkingaswaiterinHotel
SaiKutiratWadkhalnaka,statedthatonthedayoftheincident, accusedno.1PravinShettyhadbeentotheirHotelhavingsustained
...68/
injuries to hisnose. Thereby,heputthescarf/handkerchiefonhis mouth.Bloodwasoozingfromhisnose.Onephonecallwasreceived andthereby,hehandedoverthecalltotheaccusedPravinShetty.
93.
P.W.25N.T.Mhatre,ManagerofHotelSaiKutirdeposed
thatatabout2.30p.m.,onepersoncametoHotelandmadeaphone callfromP.C.O..Theperson,whocametotheHoteltiedhandkerchief tohisnoseandtherebyduetocuriosity,heaskedhimastowhat happenedandthereby,herepliedthatsomebodybeathimbytommy andhehastoinformtohisemployer.Duringthecrossexamination ofboththewitnesses,theirtestimoniesremainsunshaken.Thereby, the testimony of P.W.22 Dr. S.K. Desai, P.W.24 Daulat Bade and P.W.25N.T.Mhatreiscorroboratetotheprosecutioncaseaswellas in respect of the injury sustained by accused no.1 Pravin Shetty. Thereby, ithasbroughtonrecordthatonthedayoftheincident, accusedno.1PravinShettyalsosustainedinjurytohisnoseaswell astotheforehead.Theaforesaidevidenceunflinchinglyestablishes thataccusedno.1PravinShettywasdrivingthetruck.Ihavealready discussedthattheaccusedhaddeliberatelydashedwithtremendous forcetoScorpiowithintentiontokilldeceasedSureshBhagatand theincumbentsinScorpio.Inotherwords,theoryof'simpleaccident' istotallynotacceptableandruledout.
...69/
94.
Duringthearguments,Advocatesfortheaccusedraised
theobjectionthattheinvestigationisfaulty,asithascomeinthe cross examination of P.W.06 ASI More that statements of 5 to 6 persons may have recorded, who has seen the incident. Mere admission by the police officer who did not carry out the investigation,doesnotmeanthatattherelevanttime,eyewitnesses wereavailableonspotandthattheirstatementswererecorded.Itis tobenotedherethatspotofincidentisoftraffic.Ithascomeonthe recordthataccusedno.1PravinShettymadethecallatabout2.30 p.m. from P.C.O. and he was present there upto 5.00 p.m.. The accusedwastherefor2 hrs.andwaswaitinguntilhereceivesthe return call. The return call are seldom received at P.C.O.. The witnesses had glimpses of the accused. They had ample time and opportunitytostoreintheirmindtheidentityoftheaccused.They identified the accusedimmediatelyaftertheincidentin thepolice station as wellas beforetheCourt.Fromthesecircumstancesthe identification by the witnesses even without test identification parade can safely be relied. Thereby, the inference sought to be drawn by the defence for non examination of eye witnesses and identificationparadeismisconceived.
...70/
95.
(a) Learned Senior Advocate Shri Aadhik Shirodkar
placedrelianceon: (i)SyadAkbarv/s.StateofKarnataka,(1980)1SCC 30,inwhichprincipleregardingtheapplicationofmaxim Resipsa loquitur, (ii)IshwarSinghv/s.StateofU.P.,(1976)4SCC355 , inwhichithasbeenheld, Thereisnoexplanationwhytheothers were not examined. Of course, nonexamination of some witnesses wouldnotmatterifthewitnessesexaminedunfoldedtheprosecution case fully. But it is well established that witnesses essential to the unfoldingofthenarrativeonwhichtheprosecutionisbasedmustbe examined. Nonexamination of these witnesses acquires a special significanceinviewofthematerialdiscrepancybetweenF.I.R.and theversionoftheoccurrencegivenbytheprosecutionincourt. (b) on: Learned Advocate Shri Vilas Naik placed reliance
(i) State of M.P. V/s. Kailash, I (2005) DMC 124, in whichithasbeenheld,nonfilingofstatementsoftheeyewitnesses whentheyarealreadyrecordedamountstoafaultyinvestigationby the I.O. was not only negligent but has also willfully suppress the documentsinordertobringfalsecaseagainsttheaccused . ...71/
(ii)
Piginaraji Ranga Rao V/s. State of A.P., 2009
CRI. L.J. 3699, in which it has been held, no test identification paradehadbeenconductedtoestablishtheidentityoftheaccusedin suchcaseaccusedentitleforacquittal. (c) (i) LearnedAdvocateShriRasalplacedrelianceon: Awadhesh and anr. V/s. State of Madhya
Pradesh,AIR1998S.C.1158, inwhichithasbeenheld, placeof occurrenceisabusypublicplacewhereDistrictMagistrate,Supdt.of police etc. reaching the spot in few minutes after the occurrence. Neither of them or any independent witness examined by the prosecution.Therebytheprosecutioncaseisdoubtfulandconviction ofaccusedisimproper. (ii) Kanan&Ors.V/s.StateofKerala,AIR1979S.C.1127,
(iii) ShaikhUmar&Anr.V/s.StateofMaharashtra, AIR1998S.C.1922 (iv) StateofMaharashtraV/s.SukhdeoSinghaliasSukhaand Ors.,AIR1992S.C.2100 (v) ThankayyanV/s.StateofKerala, 1994S.C.C.(cri)1751,
inwhichithasbeenheld,belatedidentificationinCourtitsvalidity and when accused already shown to witness and later on identificationparadewascarriedoutismeaningless.
...72/
Ihavegonethroughtheprincipleslaiddownintheabove cited rulings. The principles of the law in respect of Res ipsa loquitur,nonexaminationofeyewitnessesaswellasonthepointof test identification parade are settled. The principles however, laid downintheabovecitedrulingsisnothelpfultotheaccusedasthe factsarenotsimilartothecaseinhand.Infact,theprincipleof Res ipsa loquitur which means things speaks for themselves, goes againsttheaccusedandhelpstheprosecution. EVIDENCEOFP.W.02ADV.SOMETSHIRSAT&PRIVILEGE COMMUNICATION 96. It has come in the evidence of P.W.02 Advocate Somet
Shirsat that he was junior of Advocate Raju Sawant, who filed vakalatnamaonbehalfofaccusedno.8,inAlibaugSessionsCourtin N.D.P.S. Case no.2/2007. He further submitted that accused no.8 Hitesh Bhagat, his father deceased Suresh Bhagat and other five wereaccusedinthesaidproceeding.Priortothedateofthehearing, mother of the accused Jaya Chheda used to inform him whether accusedno.8Hiteshwillattendthecourtornotandifabsent,he used to file the exemption applications informing the Court. On 15/5/2008,saidcasewasfixed.AdvocateSometShirsatsentSMSto Hitesh in response to which Hitesh informed by SMS that he is
...73/
hospitalized. Thereby, on 15/5/2008, he informed his colleague AdvocateMaheshtofileexemptionapplicationonbehalfofaccused Hitesh. On13/6/2008,hewenttoSessionsCourt,Alibaug.Hefiled
anexemptionapplication(Exh.358)onbehalfofaccusedno.8Hitesh. Atabout10.30a.m.,hereceivedthecallfromaccusedSuhasRoge andmadeinquiryabouthisattendanceinthecourt.Againat12:45 p.m.,accusedSuhasRogecalledhimandmadeinquiryregardingthe accused,whowerepresentandthestatusofthematter.Towhichhe informed about the grant of exemption application on behalf of Hiteshaswellasrejectionofdischargeapplication.Histestimonyis corroborate by his statement (Exh.359), which was recorded by learnedMetropolitanMagistrate,23rdCourt,Esplanade.
97.
LearnedSeniorAdvocateShriAdhikShirodkaraswellas
allthelearneddefenceAdvocatesraisedtheobjectionthatasperthe provisions of Section 126 of Evidence Act, communication between theadvocateandhisclientisprivilegedcommunication.Assuch,the testimonyofP.W.02SometShirsatiswithintheambitofSection126 ofEvidenceActandhasnoevidentiaryvalue,ashehasnotobtained, expressorimpliedconsentfromhisclienti.e.accusedno.8Hitesh.
...74/
98.
TheprovisionsofSection126ofEvidenceActreadsthus: S.126.Nobarrister,attorney,pleaderorvakilshallat any time be permitted, unless with his client's express consent,todiscloseanycommunicationmadetohimin thecourseandforthepurposeofhisemploymentassuch barrister,pleader,attorneyorvakil,byoronbehalfofhis client, or to state the contents or condition of any document with which hehas become acquainted in the course and for the purpose of his professional employment,ortodiscloseanyadvicegivenbyhimtothis client in the course and for the purpose of such employment: Providedthatnothinginthissectionshallprotect fromdisclosure (1)anysuchcommunicationmadeinfurtheranceof anyillegalpurpose; (2) any fact observed by any barrister, pleader, attorneyorvakil,inthecourseofhisemploymentassuch, showing that any crime or fraud has been committed since the commencement of his employment. It is immaterial whether the attention of such barrister, pleader,attorneyorvakilwasorwasnotdirectedtosuch factbyoronbehalfofhisclient. Nobarristers,attorney,pleaderorvakilshallany timebepermittedto: (1)disclose(i)anycommunicationmadetohimby oronbehalfofhisclientor(ii)anyadvicegivenbyhimto his client in the course and for the purpose of his employment; (2)tostatethecontentsorconditionsof anydocumentwithwhichhehasbecomeacquaintedin thecourseandforthepurposeofhisemployment.
...75/
Thesectiondoesnotprotectfromdisclosure (1)anycommunicationmadeinfurtheranceofany illegalpurpose; (2) any fact observed in the course of employment showing that any crime or fraud has been committed sincethecommencement. Privilege communication means confidential
communicationpassingbetweentheclientandhislegaladvisorand made forthepurposeofobtainingorgivinglegaladvise.Itisthe settledprincipleoflawthatthecommunicationmadeinfurtherance ofcriminalpurposeisnotprotectedfromdisclosure.Thatapartthe communication by the client with Advocate about adjournments cannotbesaidtobeprofessionalorlegaladviseandtherefore,isnot privilegedcommunicationintheeyeoflaw.Moreover,communication cannotbesaidtobeprivilegedasagainstaccusedSuhasRoge,since hewasnotclientofP.W.02Adv.SometShirsat.Infactnotconcerned with criminal case. The undue and detail inquiry by the said Advocate over the phone about the status of matter clearly shows that accused Suhas Roge was party to the conspiracy and was directlyconnectedwithplanningofcarryingoutthemurder.
99.
LearnedCounselShriS.R.PasbolaandLearnedAdvocate
ShriVilasNaikplacedrelianceon: ...76/
(i)MandesanV/s.StateofKerala,1995CRI.L.J.61, inthiscaseithasbeenheld, communicationbetweenthe accusedandhisadvocateisnotadmissibleinevidence.Merefailure onpartoftheaccused/clienttoclaimprivilegedoesnotmeltdownthe principleofwaiver. (ii) K.PonnammalV/s.A.Loganathan, LAWS(MAD)20097311,
in which it has been held, privilege communication is mandateaswellasprotectiontotheclient.Thereforeadvocateiscan notpermittedtogivetheevidenceinCivilsuit. The principle laid down in above cited rulings is not helpfultothedefenceasP.W.02AdvocateSometShirsathasnever disclosedanyprofessionalcommunication.
100.
LearnedSpecialP.P.placedrelianceon: (i) S.Anthonyv/s.G.S.Naidu, 1967Cri.L.J.1527 in which it is held, Privilege is intended only to
protectinterestofclientinrespectofanyactionorprosecutionforany prior act or offence. Privilege is not intended for committing any offence.
...77/
(ii)
K.C.Sonrexav/s.StateofUttarPradesh, 1963(1)Cri.L.J.38,
in which it is held, Privilege could be claimed only by those clients who have already completed the crime and seek legal advicefordefencebutitisnotopentothosewhocommitsubsequent crimeswhichmaybedescribedasfuturewrongdoing. Theseprinciplesareapplicabletothecaseinhandasthe factsareinrespectoffilingofexemptionandhadinstructionsofhis clientdoesnotmeanthatithascomewithintheambitofprivilege communication.Atthesametime,AdvocateSometShirsat didnot discloseanyconfidentialityofthecase.Thereby,theobjectionraised bytheAdvocatesfortheAccusedhasnosubstance.
APPROVER 101. It has come in the evidence of P.W.05 Approver Kiran
Raghu Pujari that after the grant of pardon, Chief Metropolitan Magistraterecordedhisstatement.Whilerecordingthestatement, heelaboratelystatesabouthisbusiness,raidsbyjoiningthehands with one Pradeep Ruganeclaimedtobeinfluentialperson.Atthe instigation of Pradeep Rugane, he made phone call on residential phonenumber ofdeceasedSureshBhagat,whichwasattendedby Krishna Bhagat, wife of accused Hitesh Bhagat, over the phone. ...78/
P.W.05KiranPujariaskedKrishnaBhagattocallback.On2 ndday, accusedHiteshBhagatmadethecallandagreedtomeetatHotelTaj atColaba.AccusedHiteshBhagat,JayaChheda,SuhasRogecame tomeethim.PradeepRuganeandAshishBhosalewerealsopresent. Inthatmeeting,accusedHiteshBhagatpaidhimRs.1lakh.Onthe nextday,SuhasRogecalledP.W.05KiranPujariatthehouseofJaya Chheda at Pant Nagar, Ghatkopar. At the relevant time, Jaya Chheda,HiteshBhagatandSuhasRogewerepresent.Theytoldhim that accused Hitesh Bhagat and Suresh Bhagat were not looking matakabusinessproperly.Lateron,SuhasRogecametoP.W.05at his Airoli office for informing about Suresh Bhagat's mataka businessandtoldhimtoarrangetheraidwiththehelpofpolice.At hisinstigation,policeconductedtheraidoperationatLonawalaoffice aswellasofficesituatedatVashi.Thereby,JayaChhedaandHitesh Bhagatpaidhimtheamountsaswellasthegiftsandthesameis continued from time to time. From accused Suhas Roge and Jaya Chheda he gathered the information of whereabouts of deceased SureshBhagatandcommunicatedtothepolicewhenhewaswanted invariouscases. 102. Ithasfurthercomeinhisevidencethat,whendeceased
SureshBhagatfiledWritPetitionbeforeHon'bleHighCourtagainst them.Thereby,SuhasRogecalledhimatthehouseofJayaChheda. ...79/
Accordingly, they appeared before the office of Detection Crime Branch, Unit VII and their statements were recorded. Thereafter, theywenttothehouseofJayaChheda.Attherelevanttime,Jaya Chheda told them that Suresh Bhagat had finished the mataka business. Accused SuhasRogetoldthathewillensurepermanent solution for Suresh Bhagat. At that time, Jaya Chheda told that Tumhi nusate bolta, hatat bangadya ghalun ghari basa . Suhas Rogestatedthat hewilleliminateSureshBhagatbyfakeaccident whilecomingfromAlibaugCourt,butaccusedHiteshBhagatshall notremainpresentatAlibaugCourt.Thereby,JayaChhedatoldthat Tumhifaktbolta,kahikaratnahi.ThenaccusedSuhasRogeasked himforthehelp,ifanyproblemarise.Hesaidyesandhewentto hishouse.
103.
It has further come in the evidence of P.W.05 Approver
KiranRaghuPujarithaton13/6/2008,atabout2.30to3.00p.m., whenhewasproceedingtoMantralaya,hereceivedphonecallfrom SuhasRoge.Heinsistedhimtomeeturgently.ThenhemetSuhas RogenearRaniBaug,Byculla,within10to15minutes.Hesatin MarutivanofSuhasRogeandonemansittinginMarutivanofRoge wasshiftedtothecarofP.W.05KiranPujari.P.W.05KiranPujari and accused Suhas Roge proceeded in Suhas Roge's van towards
...80/
Mantralaya. At that time, Suhas Roge informed him that Suresh Bhagat died in the accident by dash of the truck while returning fromAlibaugCourt.Uponwhichheaskedhimwhetherreallyhehad doneso.Herepliedaffirmatively.AccusedSuhasRogefurtherstated thatnowheandJayaChhedacansleephappily.Healsotoldthat accused Hitesh Bhagatissentabroad.Suhas Rogeaskedhimthe help,ifany.WhentheyreachednearHutatmaChowk,againhesatin hisowncarandthepersonfromhiscarwentalongwithSuhasRoge. In the evening,he saw the news that Suresh Bhagat died. After hearingthenews,hegotfrightenedandthereby,heavoidedtomeet SuhasRoge. 104. During his cross examination, he admitted that all his
previousbailapplicationswerefiledasperhisinstructionsandin thoseapplications,heclaimedtobeaninnocent.Headmittedthathe hadnotreceivedanymoneyfromSureshBhagat,butreceivedthe amount from Hitesh Bhagat, Suhas Roge and Jaya Chheda. He admitted that in his pardon application word if suggesting that conditionalpardonandsoughtiswronglymentionedbyhimandthe saidapplicationisinhishandwriting. 105. In his cross examination, he admitted the discussion
between accused Suhas Roge and Jaya Chheda that he will see ...81/
permanent solution for Suresh Bhagat and accused Jaya Chheda statesthatTumhinusatebolta,hatatbangadyaghalungharibasa . Instead of denial, he reiterate the talks between the accused no.4 SuhasRogeandaccusedno.7JayaChheda.Thereby,hesupportsthe prosecutioncase.
106.
It was the defence of the accused that P.W.05 approver
KiranPujariisanextortionist,blackmailerandnotreliable.Thereby, hewascrossexaminedonthepointofthedocumentsfoundinhis possession.Towhichheadmittedtheinsurancepolicy(Exh.395)and PUC certificate (Exh.396), his visiting card which embossed with national emblem (Exh.397), identity card (Exh.398), government receipt for the use of revolver (Exh.399), office copy of letter to permission to carry revolver (Exh.400), permission for revolver (Exh.401),xeroxcopiesofletterMLASanjayDinaPatil(Exh.402), servicebookofthecardbearingno.MH43M4030(Exh.403)aswell asaffidavitofoneGayasuddinaswellasYunusKhan(Exh.404and Exh.405).Hefurtheradmittedthathewasreceivingblackmoneyby blackmailingothers.
107.
Ithasfurthercomeinthecrossexaminationofapprover
P.W.05KiranPujarithatPandurangPatilisthefatherofhisfriend
...82/
AmitPatilandphoneno.9870557511isinthenameofPandurang Patil.AmitPatilishischildhoodfriend.Heusedthesaidmobilefor thesafetyandalsoforhisprivacy.Hefurtheradmitsthatheusedto provideinformationtothepolice,RationingAuthorities,Corporation andtotheMinistersaswellasheusedtoreceivetheamountfrom thepoliceasainformer.Hefurtheradmittedthaton12/7/2008,he handedoverRs.4lakhswrappedinsareefromcupboardinhishouse. HefurtheradmitsthereceiptofRs.1lakhforprovidinginformation regarding Lonawala raid. During his cross examination, his testimony remained unshaken. His statement (Exh.340) was recorded by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate corroborates the testimony.ExtrajudicialconfessionofaccusedSuhasRogeaswellas reprimandbyaccusedJayaChhedahasalsocomeintheevidenceof P.W.05 Kiran Pujari. At the relevant time, accused Suhas Roge declared hisintentiontoeliminateSureshBhagatandaskingthe helpfromKiranPujaritowhichheshownhisreadiness.Accordingly, onthedayoftheincident,accusedSuhasRogeinformedhimabout theplaceofdeathofSureshBhagatwhilereturningfromAlibaugto which P.W.05 Kiran Pujari shown readiness to help them, which showshisinvolvementintheconspiracyofcommissionofmurderfor valuable consideration. In view of the above defence that P.W.05's evidenceisonlyexculpatoryisdevoidofmerits.
...83/
108.
P.W.20 Rahul Kurtadkar deposed that approver Kiran
Pujariishisfriendsincehischildhood.Heservedwithhimashis driver. Prior to one year, he left the said job. He used to go with Kiran Pujariat Nashik,Pune,etc..Heusedtogotothehouseof accusedJayaChhedaatGhatkopar.Healsotravelledwithherfor Daman,Gujarat.HeisalsoknowingaccusedSuhasRogebecauseof KiranPujari.On13/6/2008,atabout11.00a.m.,hereceivedphone callfromaccusedKiranPujariandcalledhimtoproceedtoMumbai. As per their discussion, he stood near Airoli bridge. Kiran Pujari camethereinhisVernaCar.Hetookthechargeofsteeringofthe saidcar.WhentheyreachednearRaniBaug,KiranPujarireceived phonecall,wherebecauseheparkedhisvehiclebythesideofthe road.After5to7minutes,oneMaruticarcamethereandparked behindtheircar.OnepersonfromMaruticarcameintheircarand KiranPujarisatinMaruticar.Whilechangingtheseat,KiranPujari directedhimtofollowMaruticar.Accordingly,hefollowedMaruticar andreachednearFountain.Thereafter,KiranPujaricamebackin VernacarandthepersonsatinhiscarwenttositinMaruticar.At the relevant time, Suhas Roge was driving the said Maruti car. Thereafter,theyproceededtowardsMantralaya.After23hrs.,they came back. He was having mobile bearing no.9224588912. Accordingly,policerecordedhisstatement.
...84/
109.
InhiscrossexaminationbyAdvocatePasbolaforaccused
no.7,P.W.20RahulKurtadkaradmittedthatapproverKiranPujari ishismasteraswellasfriend,therefore,heishelpinghimineach kindofworkincludingcarryinghistiffintojail.Heneverstatedthe nameofthepersonwhosatintheircarfromMaruticarbecausehe wasunknowntohim.Inhiscrossexaminationalsoheadmittedthat on13/6/2008,heandKiranPujariwenttoRaniBaug.Heisunableto saythedatewhenhewenttoGujaratwithJayaChhedawithKiran Pujari.ButhehadtakentheminSkodacar.Hefurtheradmitted thatafter23days,hecametoknowthatKiranPujariwasarrested. Despite of his detailed cross examination, his testimony remained unshaken. By examining P.W.20 Rahul Kurtadkar, prosecution provedthatonthedayoftheincident,KiranPujarireachedRani BaugattheinstanceofaccusedSuhasRoge.Ithasalsocomeonthe record that when they reached near Rani Baug, approver accused KiranPujarisatinMaruticarofaccusedSuhasRogeandanother personfromhiscarsatinthecarofKiranPujari,whichwasdriving by P.W.20 Rahul Kurtadkar and subsequently they changed the positionnearFountain.Thecircumstanceclearlyshowsthatonthe dayoftheincident,therewasameetingbetweenaccusedSuhasRoge and approver Kiran Pujari from Rani Baug to Fountain, at about
...85/
2.30to3.00p.m..Theirinvolvementinthecrimeisthusclearfrom theevidence.
110.
Approver P.W.62 Ajimuddin Shaikh states that accused
HarishMandvikarwashiscolleague,whentheywereworkingwith 'JayElectricals'.HeusedtogivethetrucktoHarishMandvikarand others on occasion of Ganpati and Dahi Handi. He also got acquainted with Raju, Ganya, Santosh and Balan as they used to takethepartinDahiHandi.AnandVishramPatilishispartnerin thebusiness,sincetheyear2003.Intheyear2005,theypurchased truckinquestionbearingno.MH04CA4445.Inthesecondweekof May2008,accusedHarishMandvikarcalledhimonphoneandmade inquiry about the truck/dumper.Hedemandedthedumperbuthe shown inability on account of driver. Thereby, Harish Mandvikar statedthathewillarrangethedriver.Whenheaskedthereason,he repliedthatonepersons'handsandlegsaretobebroken.Hedenied to hand over the truck. By that time, accused no.1 driver Pravin Shettycametotakethetruck.P.W.62Ajimuddinaskedhimwhether they really needed the truck to break the hands and legs of any person.Accusedno.1PravinShettydeniedthesameandassuredhim tokeepfaith.Thereby,onpreviousdate,atabout9.10a.m.,hetook thetruckandreturnintheevening.
...86/
111.
ApproverP.W.62AjimuddinShaikhfurtherdeposedthat
on 13/6/2008,atabout10.00a.m.,hereceivedthephonecallfrom accusedHarishMandvikartohandoverthetrucktoaccusedPravin Shetty. In the meanwhile, accused Pravin Shetty came on the motorbikewithGaneshRanetotakethetruck.Whenherefusedto handover,heassuredthatnothinguntowardwillhappen.Hetook thephotocopyofhisdrivinglicenseandhandedoverthetruck.When P.W.62 Ajimuddin asked the reason for requirement of truck, he replied that they are bringing the machine from Chiplun on hire. Accordingly,healsoinformedAnandPatil.Lateron,atabout2.00 p.m.,accusedHarishMandivkarinformedhimthattruckmetwith anaccidentonAlibaugPenRoad.Whenheaskedabouttheinjuryto anybody,herepliedthatsevenpersonswerekilled.Thereby,hegot annoyed,accusedHarishMandvikarrepliedthatnottoworryandhe willtakecareofallthelosses.Healsotoldhimthathewassayingof killingofoneperson,whereashekilledsevenpersons.
112.
P.W.62 Ajimuddin furtherdeposedthaton 13/6/2008,at
about4.00p.m.,P.W.77AnthonyRajandP.W.67GaneshRanecame tohishousewithclothbagcontainingRs.10lakhs,onaccountofloss causedtohim.Butherefusedtotakethesameonthegroundthat
...87/
instead of one, seven personswerekilledbythetruck.Policealso contactedhimonhismobileasthetruckmetwithanaccidentand driverranaway.HealsoinformedtheincidenttohispartnerAnand Patil.WhenhetriedtomeetaccusedHarishMandvikarathishouse, hedidnotmeet.Thenhewenttothehouseofaccusedno.1driver PravinShettyandtookhimtothehospitalinShastriNagar,Borivali ashesustainedtheinjuries.Inthemeantime,P.W.77AnthonyRaj NannyacametothehospitalandtalkedwiththenurseinEnglish and refusing to admit him in the hospital. They both signed the hospitalpapersandreturnedtothehome.Whentheyreturnedtothe housewithaccusedPravinShetty,heinformedaccusedno.1Pravin thatonthenextday,theyhavetogotoAlibaugpolicestation.At about1.45a.m.,policecametohishouse.Whentheymadeinquiry withP.W.62Ajimuddin,policewenttothehouseofaccusedPravin Shetty, buthe wasnotpresentinthehouse.Oninquirywithone adjoining boy by name Baban, he told that accused Pravin Shetty was taken by accused Kiran Amle at his house. Therefore, they reachedtothehouseofaccusedKiranAmleandbroughttheaccused PravinShetty.
113.
Inhiscrossexamination,P.W.62Ajimuddinadmittedthat
heinformedthepolicethathewasentangledandfalselyimplicated
...88/
in this case. He admitted his mobile no.9324260303 which is displayedonthetruck.HedoesnotknowP.W.10VinayakPawar,who is the original subscriber of the said mobile. On the contrary, he statedthatitwaspurchasedbyhimfromshopinTelliGallibuthe failedtostatethedetails.Hefurtheradmittedthathethoughtthat accused Harish Mandvikar was talking for breaking of someone limbs, but, he was not aware about the killing. He admitted that Magistraterecordedhisstatement.HedeniedthataccusedPravin ShettywashisemployeeonmonthlysalaryofRs.5,000/andRs.100/ per day entry license. He admitted that he gave ornaments of 15 tolasandcashofRs.10lakhsduringthemarriageofhisdaughter. Despite of his detail cross examination of the accused/approver AjimuddinShaikh,histestimonyremainsunshattered.
114.
ItisobviousthatP.W.62Ajimuddinistheowneroftruck
no.MH04CA4445andhehandedoverthetrucktoaccusedPravin Shetty at the request of accused Harish Mandvikar. It is also admittedthathismobileno.9324260303wasalsodisplayedonthe truck.AnandVishramPatilishissleepingpartner.Ithascomeon therecordthatonthedayofincident,heinformedhispartnerabout thesendingoftrucktoChipluntobringthemachineandafterthe accident.ItisnotthatP.W.62Ajimuddinwasroutinelyinformingthe
...89/
movement of the truck to his partner. This shows that he had informed the same only with a view that on police inquiry, his partnerAnandPatiltellstothepoliceasperhisplan.Thereby,it appearsonrecordthatonthedayoftheincident,heinformedthe same to his partner, if police made the inquiry with him. His testimonyiscorroboratedbyhisstatement(Exh.657A).
115.
Ithasalsocomeontherecordthatimmediatelyafterthe
incident i.e. at 4.00 p.m., accused Harish Mandvikar sent P.W.77 AntonyRajNannyaDravidandP.W.67GaneshRaneathishouse andofferedanamountofRs.10lakhsandthesamehasbeenrefused by him. His testimony remains unchallenged and found to be trustworthy.
116.
P.W.07AnandPatilstatedthatheispartnerofapprover
P.W.62AjimuddinShaikhinbusinessoftruck,whichwashandled exclusivelybyP.W.62Ajimuddin.Sincetheyear2002,hecontributed theamountforpurchaseofthetruck.Thetruckinquestioni.e.MH 04CA4445isownedbyhimandapproverAjimuddinandthesame washandedovertoaccusedPravinShetty.Ithasfurthercomeinhis evidence that on the day of the incident, approver Ajimuddin
...90/
informedhimabouttripofthetruckanditshirechargesRs.5000/. His testimony corroborates the version of approver Ajimuddin Shaikh.
117.
Learned Advocate Shri Adhik Shirodkar raised the
objection that the testimonies of P.W.05 Kiran Pujari and P.W.62 Ajimuddin Shaikh are exculpatory and do not inculpatory. The testimoniesofboththeseapproversarenotcorroborateinmaterial particularsandthereby,itcannotbereliable.Heplacedrelianceon: (i) TanvibenPankajkumarDivetiav/s.StateofGujarat, (1997)7SCC156, inwhichithasbeenheld: Courthastobewatchfuland
avoidthedangerofallowingthesuspiciontotaketheplaceoflegal proofforsometimes,unconsciouslyitmayhappentobeashortstep betweenmoralcertaintyandlegalproof.Ithasbeenindicatedbythis Courtthatthereisalongmentaldistancebetweenmaybetrueand must be true and the same divides conjectures from sure conclusions. (ii) K.Hashimv/s.StateofT.N., (2005)1SCC237, inwhichithasbeenheld: Section114illustration (b) provides that the court may presume that the evidence of an accomplice is unworthy of credit unless corroborated, may is not ...91/
mustandnodecisionofcourtcanmakeitmust.Thecourtisnot obligedtoholdthatheisunworthyofcredit.Itultimatelydepends uponthecourt'sviewastothecredibilityofevidencetenderedbyan accomplice.Theruleisthatthenecessityofcorroborationisamatter ofprudenceexceptwhenitissafetodispensewithsuchcorroboration, whichmustbeclearlypresentinthemindofthejudge. Therefore,if theevidenceoftheaccompliceisfoundcredibleandcogent,thecourt canrecordaconvictionevenontheuncorroboratedtestimonyofan accomplice. (iii) SarwanSinghRattanSinghv/s.StateofPunjab, 1957Cri.L.J.1014, in which it has been held : approver's evidence has to satisfy a double test. His evidence must show that he is a reliable witnessandthatisatestwhichiscommontoallwitnesses.Ifthistest issatisfiedthesecondtestwhichstillremainstobeappliedisthatthe approver'sevidencemustreceivesufficientcorroboration.Thistestis special to the cases of weak or tainted evidence like that of the approver. (iv) AlSaleha Beigs/o.Abdul Gani Beigv/s.State &
Ors., 2008 ALL MR (Cri) 802, in which it has been held : no objection bytheprosecutionfortenderingthepardon would notbe sufficient.Prosecutionshouldjointherequestmadebytheaccusedfor ...92/
reasonsstatingastowhypardonisnecessaryandthattheconviction oftheotheraccusedisnoteasywithoutapprover'stestimony.Without followingtheprocedure,pardonisgranted,accusedisentitledtoseek therevisionandtherevisioncanbeentertained. I have gone through the above cited rulings. The principleslaiddownintheseauthoritiesareestablishedprinciplesof law that if the evidence of accomplice found credible and cogent, court can record a conviction even on uncorroborated testimony of accomplice.TheprinciplecitedsupralaiddowninAlSaleha'scaseis inrespectofrevisionandtherefore,itisnothelpfultothedefence. Moreover,IhaveshownthatthetestimonyofP.W.05KiranPujari and P.W.62 Ajimuddin is not exculpatory and their evidence has establishedtheirroleinthecrime.
118.
Learned Advocate Shri S.R. Pasbola placed reliance on
followingrulings: (i) Rampal Pithwa Rahidas & Others V/s. State of
Maharashtra, 1994 S.C.C.(Cri.) 851, in which it has been held, though the approver is a competent witness, his evidence must be corroborated in material particulars by direct and circumstantial evidence.Oncethetestimonyofapproverisfoundtobeunworthyof credenceitcanberejectedoutright. ...93/
(ii)
Rakesh Kr. Singh V/s. State of Assam, 2003 CRI
L.J.3206, inthiscaseaccused/approverPW6Shikha Barthakur, sisterinlawofaccused,inherstatementneverstatesthatherdirect orindirectinvolvementinthecrime,therebyherentirestatementwas exculpatory and she did not incriminate herself in any manner. Therebyitwasheldthatgrantofpardontoherisnotproper. (iii) VemireddySatyanarayanReddy&OtherV/s.State ofHyderabad,1956S.C.379((S)AIRV.43,C.67May),Inthiscase appellantsandotherswerecommunist,chargedforthemurderofone congress worker. Theyareheldguiltyonthebasisof testimonyof accomplicePW14whowitnesstheincidentandaccompanywiththe accused,afteraquarrelwithhisparents.Therebyhecannotbeheld asaaccompliceandhistestimonycannotberelied.
(iv)
Joga Gola V/s. State of Gujarat, 1982 S.C.C.(Cri.)
141, in which it has been held, the testimony of the approver is whollyexculpatoryandfalselyimplicatingtheotherscannotberelied. (v) Narain Chandra Biswas & Others V/s. Emperor,
AIR 1936 Culcutta 101, in which it has been held, accomplice witness is not concerned with the crime but his participation is limitedtotheknowledgethatcrimeistobecommitted.Hecannotbe calledasaaccomplice. ...94/
(vi)
Piara Singh V/s. State of Punjab, AIR 1969 S.C.
961, in which it has been held, an accomplice is undoubtedly a competentwitness.Hisparticipationinthecommissionofoffenceis tobeestablishedinmaterialparticularsbyindependentevidence. (vii) BabuliV/s.StateofOrissa,AIR1974S.C.775, in which itis held, theapproverwastenderedpardonataverylate stage of the trial, that is after 31 witnesses were examined. The prosecution has laid itself open to the criticism that pardon was tenderedtooneoftheaccusedatthefagendofthetrialinaneffortto fillupthelacunainitscase. I have gone through the above cited rulings. The principles laid down are undisputed. The rulings, however, are inapplicablesinceonthefactsithasbeenestablishedinthiscase that,theevidenceofapproverisincriminating.
119.
LearnedCounselShriS.R.Pasbolaalsoplacedrelianceon
the value to be given to the testimony of accomplice witness i.e. (a)KrishnalalNaskarandothers,etc.V/s.TheState,1982CRI.L.J. 1305 (b) Rameshwar S/o Kalyan Singh V/s. State of Rajasthan, A.I..R. (39) 1952 S.C. 54, (c) Shamsher Khan V/s. State (NCT of Delhi), AIR 2000 S.C. 3662, (d) Ravinder Singh V/s. State of Haryana, AIR 1975 S.C. 856, (e) Niranjan Singh V/s. State of ...95/
Punjab,1996S.C.C.(Cri)939,(f)BhuboniSahuV/s.TheKingAIR (36)1949PrivyCouncil257,(g)KhagendraGahanV/s.TheState, 1982CRI.L.J.487,(h)RenukaBai@Rinku@Ratan&Anr.V/s. State of Maharashtra, 2006(4) Crimes 46 (SC), (i) Sarvanabhavan andGovindaswamyV/s.StateofMadras,1966Cri.L.J.949(Vol.72, C.N. 286) = AIR 1966 S.C. 1273 (V 53 C 245), (j) Sarwan Singh RattanSinghV/s.StateofPunjab,AIR1957S.C.637(V44,C95 Oct.),(k)DagduandOrs.V/s.StateofMaharashtra,AIR1977S.C. 1579,(l)TheStateofBiharV/s.BasawanSingh,AIR1958S.C.500 (V.45 C. 73), (m) Sheshanna Bhumanna Yadav V/s. State of Maharashtra,AIR1970S.C.1330. The principles laid down in the above cited rulings are undoubtedlysettledbutdonothelpthedefenceasthefactsinthe presentcaseandcitedsupraarenotsimilarasdiscussedearlier.
120.
LearnedCounselShriS.R.Pasbolaalsoplacedrelianceon (i) RamNarainV/s.StateofRajasthan., AIR1973S.C.1188=1973S.C.C.(Cri.)545, in which it has been held, conviction does not become
illegalmerelybecauseitisbasedonuncorroboratedtestimonyofan accomplice. TheCourtshouldfirstevaluatetheapprover'sevidence and if the same is found uninspiring and unacceptable then ...96/
corroborationwouldbefutileandunnecessary. (ii) ChonamparaChellappanV/s.StateofKerala, 1979S.C.C.(Cri)1029, in which it has been held , corroboration of evidence of accomplicewitnessinrespectofmaterialparticularisonlynecessary, itshouldnotbetainted.Corroborationistobeprovedbytheevidence ofindependentandreliablewitnesses. (iii) BalwantKaurV/s.UnionTerritoryofChandigarh, 1988S.C.C.(Cri.)1, inwhichithasbeenheld,independentcorroborationin respectofmaterialparticularsofevidenceofaccompliceneededasa ruleoflawandpractice.Accusedcouldnotbeconvictedsolelyonthe basisofuncorroboratedtestimonyofaccompliceandaccusedentitled tobenefitofdoubt.
(iv)
RameshwarS/oKalyanSinghV/s.StateofRajasthan, AIR(39)1952S.C.54,
inwhichithasbeenheld ,corroborationisaruleofnecessityto relyonthetestimonyofaccomplice.
(v)
DataRam&OthersV/s.StateofRajasthan, 1977Cri.L.J.1428,aswellasin ...97/
(vi)
BhivaDouluPatilV/s.StateofMaharashtra AIR1963S.C.599(V50C93), in which it has been held, court should not ordinarily
convictunlesstheevidenceoftheapproveriscorroboratedinmaterial particularsquatheaccusedandifmorethanone,quaeachaccused.
(vii) Lalchandetc.V/s.StateofHaryana, AIR1984S.C.226, in which it has been held, evidentiary value of the testimonyofapproverafterthelapsof20monthscannotberelied. Ihavecarefullygonethroughtheabovecitedrulings.The principleslaiddownaresettledprinciplesofLaw.But,theyarenot helpfultotheaccusedinthepresentsetofcircumstancesasthefacts aredifferentasshownearlier.
121. (i)
LearnedAdvocateShriVilasNaikplacedrelianceon: SureshSakharamNangareV/s.StateofMaharashtra, CriminalAppealno.1606of2008, inwhichithasbeenheld,whenthereisnodirectevidence
showing the complicity of the appellant/accused and he has been convicted on the sole evidence of approver as to his presence and participation in the crime. It will not be safe to rely on the sole ...98/
testimonyofP.W.7theapproverwhichlackscorroboration. (ii) SarwanSinghV/s.TheStateofPunjab, AIR1957SC637=1957SCR953, in whichithasbeenheld, theappreciationofapprover's evidencehas tosatisfythedoubletesti.e.heisreliablewitnessand hisevidencereceivessufficientcorroboration. I have gone through the above cited rulings. The principleslaiddownintheabovecitedrulingsarenotapplicableto thecaseinhandasthefactsofthecaseinhandarenotsimilar.
122. citations:
Spl.P.P. Ms. Kalpana Chavan relied on following
(i)
MrinalDasV/s.StateofTripura, 2011LAWS(SC)966,
in which it is held, "the statement of approver inspires confidenceincludingtheconspiracypartwhichgetsfullsupportfrom the narration of the occurrence given by the eye witnesses more particularlyastothedeploymentofsomeoftheoffendersforreporting to others about the movement of the victim hence there is nothing wronginacceptinghisentirestatement."
...99/
123.
LearnedSeniorAdvocateShriAdhikShirodkar,Advocate
ShriS.R.PasbolaandSpl.P.P.Ms.KalpanaChavanplacedreliance on: (i) SureshChandraBahriv/s.StateofBihar, 1995Supp(1)SCC80 1995SCC(Cri)60=AIR1994S.C.2420 in which it has been held corroboration in material particularsaswellasitsnature,extentandcredibilityisnecessary. At the same time approver must satisfy the double test of reliability/credibility and corroboration in material particulars to provetheconspiracyaswellasingredientsofthecommissionofthe crime.WhileappreciatingtheevidenceCourtshouldbeslowtodepart fromtheruleofprudence. Aspersection306(4)ofCodeofCriminalProcedurethat approvershallnotbesetatlibertyduringtheterminationofthetrial against the accused persons and the detention of the approver in custodymustendwiththetrial.Section306(4)clause(b)castsaduty onthecourttokeeptheapproverunderdetentiontillthetermination ofthetrialandthustheprovisionsarebasedonstatutoryprinciples ofpublicpolicyandpublicinterest,violationofwhichcouldnotbe tolerated.Butonethingisclearthatthereleaseofanapproveronbail maybeillegalwhichcanbesetasidebyasuperiorcourt,butsucha releasewouldnothaveanyeffectonthevalidityofthepardononce ...100/
validlygrantedtoanapprover. The essential ingredient of the offence of criminal conspiracyistheagreementtocommitanoffence.Inacasewherethe agreementisforaccomplishmentofanactwhichbyitselfconstitutes anoffence,theninthateventnoovertactisnecessarytobeprovedby theprosecutionbecauseinsuchafactsituationcriminalconspiracyis establishedbyprovingsuchanagreement. TheobjectofSection306thereforeistoallowpardonin cases where heinous offence is alleged to have been committed by several persons so that with the aid of the evidence of the person granted pardon the offence may be brought home to the rest. The basisofthetenderofpardonisnottheextentculpabilityoftheperson towhompardonisgranted,buttheprincipleistopreventtheescape of the offenders from punishment in heinous offences for lack of evidence. Consideringtheprincipleslaiddowninthe citedsuprait hasbeenheldthatreleaseofanapproveronbailmaybeillegalbutit doesnotaffectthevalidityofgrantofpardon.Buttheprincipleisto prevent the escape of the offenders from punishment in heinous offencesforlackofevidence.Thereby, theprinciplesareverymuch helpfultotheprosecutionthanthedefence.
...101/
124.
The evidence of P.W.05 Kiran Pujari is in respect of
conspiracybetweentheaccusedSuhasRoge,JayaChhedaaswellas HiteshBhagatbyjoiningthehandswithHarishMandvikaraswell asothers.Histestimonyiscorroboratedbyhisstatement(Exh.340) inmaterialparticularsandthesameremainedunshatterduringhis detailcrossexamination.ThetestimonyofP.W.62AjimuddinShaikh isinrespectoftheconspiracybetweenaccusedHarishMandvikar, KiranAmleandaccusedno.1PravinShetty,driver.Hisevidenceis also found to be cogent, reliable and in consonance with his statement (Exh.657A) recorded by the Ld. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. The evidence of both these approvers is found to be credibleandcogentcoupledwiththeevidencefiledonrecordbythe prosecution,thoughtheywereexaminedatbelatedstage.
EXTRAJUDICIALCONFESSIONBYACCUSEDNO.4SUHAS ROGE: 125. TheevidenceofP.W.15VinodMadanNaik,P.W.16Joseph RobertRodriguesandP.W.68SanjayRamchandraShirke,areonthe pointofextrajudicialconfessionoftheaccusedno.4SuhasRoge.It hascomeintheevidenceofP.W.16JosephRodriguesthatsince1981, heisresidingatMalbarHillwithhissisterandworkingasacar mechanicaswellasdoingajobofdriver.HemettheaccusedSuhas RogeinHangingGardenatAshramofGagangiriMaharaj.Thereby, ...102/
he was acquainted with accused Suhas Roge and their friendship grew.WhenaccusedSuhasRogeaskedhimforhelp,healsoshown hiswillingnesstocooperate.AccusedSuhasRogetoldhimthatheis bodyguard of Suresh Bhagat (Mataka king) and the accused Jaya ChhedaisthewifeofSureshBhagat.Hestatedthathewenttothe houseofaccusedJayaChhedawithaccusedSuhasRogefor6to7 times.HefoundthattherewasenmitybetweenaccusedSuhasRoge and Suresh Bhagat on account of control of mataka business. Thereby, accused no.4 was removed by Suresh Bhagat as a bodyguard.
126.
It has further come in the evidence of P.W.16 Joseph
RodriguesthataccusedSuhasRoge,JayaChheda,KiranPujariand HiteshBhagatwereintendingtotakeoverthematakabusinessof SureshBhagat,asheoverheardthesaidconversation,whenhewas drivingtheirvehicle.ThoughaccusedHiteshBhagatwasresidingat Worli,heusedtocomeatthehouseofJayaChhedaatGhatkopar.He alsousedtoleaveKiranPujariatMulund.Atonetime,whenhewas proceedingtoKhandala,heheardtheconversationwithKiranPujari inrespectofraidbyNarcoticUnitinthehouseaswellasofficeof SureshBhagat.KiranPujariwaswithhimandhewastalkingwith somebody and suggesting to take the search of the opium on the
...103/
kitchen'splatform.Thereby,hecametoknowthatopiumwasfound atthehouseofaccusedSureshBhagat.After23days,whenhewas alsodrivingthevehicleofSuhasRoge,whentheywereproceeding towardsGhatkopar,KiranPujariinformedhimthatSureshBhagat wasarrestedinopiumcase.
127.
It has furthercomein hisevidencethatafter1or1
years, accused Suhas Roge called him at Hanging Garden and introducedHarishMandvikar,whoisa'Bhai',residingatKandivali, Borsapada.After10to15days,KiranPujari,SuhasRoge,Harish MandvikarreachedthehouseofJayaChheda.Thereafter,forabout one hour, accused Suhas Roge and Kiran Pujari sat in the car stationed near one canteen for tea. At the relevant time, he overheardthetalksabouteliminatingSureshBhagat.
128.
Ithasfurthercomeinhisevidencethatintheyear2008,
intheevening,hegotphonecallfromaccusedSuhasRogeandcalled himatthehouseofSanjayShirkeatTinBattiarea.WhereP.W.15 VinodNaikwasalsopresent.SanjayShirkewenttobringthedrinks. They were watching the news of the said accident on T.V. At the relevanttime,accusedSuhasRogetoldthathehadcausedtheso called incident of accident with the help of accused Harish
...104/
Mandvikar. He stated as ye maine Harish Mandvikar ko supari dekar karvaya (I have done it by giving contract to Harish Mandvikar).Afterhearing,hegotfrightenedandproceededtothe house.Onthenextday,atabout6a.m.,hereceivedthephonecall fromSuhasRogetocomewiththevehicleatabout7a.m,ashewas standing at Chandralok Building. Thereafter, they proceeded to Bhayender.AccusedSuhasRogecalledHarishMandvikar.Thenthey tookteaandthereafter,SuhasRogeaskedhimtobringthebagfrom TATASumo.Whilecarryingthebag,heopenedthechainandsaw thebundlesofcurrencynotesofRs.1000/denomination.Hehanded overittotheaccusedHarishMandvikar.Thereafter,theyproceeded towards Ghatkopar and Harish Mandvikar proceeded towards Mulund. At the same time, Kiran Pujari was awaiting at Mulund checknakawithhisvehicle.AccusedSuhasRogesatinthevehicleof Kiran Pujari and directed him to follow them for about 1 km.. Thereafter,accusedSuhasRogeleftthecarandsatinhiscarand proceededtowardsWalkeshar.After45daysi.e.afterthearrestof accusedSuhasRoge,P.W.16JosephRodriguesreceivedthephone call from one lady to leave Mumbai, otherwise threatened to eliminatehim.Therefore,hewenttoAjmer(Rajasthan)andthento Kolhapur.Thereafter,hereceivedthephonecallfromhiswifethat police were calling him. Thereby, on 1/11/2009, he returned to
...105/
Mumbai and on 4/11/2009, appeared before ACP Duraphe. On 9/11/2009, he went to Magistrate Court and gave the statement beforetheMagistrate.
129.
In his cross examination, P.W.16 Joseph Rodrigues
admittedthatheisresidinginParvatiNagarhutmentareawhichis ownedbythecustoms/collector.Hiswifeishandicapped.Hereturned toMumbaiafter17monthsoftheincidentofthreats.Inhiscross examination,healsoadmittedthatheprosecutedintheyear2007 u/s.365,342,323,504,506r/w.34ofIndianPenalCodeinwhich SanjayShirke wascoaccused,forkidnappingandbeatingthegirl andherfriend.Saidmatterwascompromised.Hefurtheradmitted that he saw the news of the death of Suresh Bhagat on T.V. on 13/6/2008.HeheardtheconversationofkillingofSureshBhagatin the month of January and February 2008. From that time till watchingT.V.,hedidnothearanythingaboutthesaidconspiracy.He isacquaintedwithVinodaswellasSanjayShirkeastheirfamilies areinvisitingterms.Afterhearingthenews,hecametoknowthatit wasanincidentofmurderandthereby,hewassurprised.Buthedid notdisclosethesaidfacttoanybody.
...106/
130.
Inhisfurthercrossexamination,headmittedthatheis
acquaintedwiththeemployee/driveroftheaccusedashewascalling him for their meetings. He heard the conversation of taking over matakabusinessintheyear200506.Healsoadmittedthatitwas hisfeelingthathecametoknowthatSuhasRogefalselyimplicated SureshBhagatinopiumcaseanditwashiscasethatSuhasRoge, Jaya Chheda, Kiran Pujari and Hitesh Bhagat were cheating. He alsoadmittedtheconversationbetweenKiranPujariandSuhasRoge whiletakingteaabouttheeliminationofSureshBhagatbyaccused andthereby,hefeltthatSuhasRogeandKiranPujariaredangerous personsanditwouldbebettertodisassociatefromthem.Despiteof that,hevisitedthehouseofSanjayShirkeonthedayoftheincident ashewascalled.Alltheseadmissionsinthecrossexaminationdo not falsifythewitnessandontheotherhandamounttoadmission even by the defence. Such type of the admissions were given by P.W.16 in his cross examination when he was cross examined by Advocateforaccusedno.3andAdvocateforaccusedno.7.Allthese admissions do not anyway derogate the testimony of witness. The conductofthewitnessappearstobenatural.Thereby,itisobvious that instead of destroying his examinationinchief, defence has strengthenedhistestimonytocorroboratehisstatement(Exh.883).
...107/
131.
IthascomeintheevidenceofP.W.15VinodMadanNaik
thatheisknowingtheaccusedSuhasRogewhenhewasworkingin Sahitya Sangh Mandir as electrician and doorkeeper. He is also knowingtheaccusedSuhasRogeashisbrotherwaslookingafterthe panshopofhismaternalaunt'sson.Heusedtoworkwithaccused Suhas Rogein AshramofGagangiriMaharajaselectrician.Heis having mobile no.9969504899 which was given by accused Suhas Roge.On12/6/2008,accusedSuhasRogecalledhimwithchiseland hammer and to burn the magic dolls as guided by the enchanter (mantrik).On thenextdayi.e.13/6/2008,hewenttothehouseof accusedSuhasRogeandthenproceededtothehouseofJayabhabhi (accused Jaya Chheda) at Ghatkopar. He used to visit her house varioustimes.Atabout6.30p.m.,shehandedovertwobagswrapped in the newspaper in plastic carry bag. Accused Suhas Roge paid Rs.1000/ and informed him to proceed towards 'McDonald' at Borivali,bytaxi.Atabout7.30p.m.,hereachedandstoodthere.One boy came there and asked him whether he came there as per directionofaccusedSuhasRoge.Thepersontoldthatwhetherheis Gotya and asked P.W.15 Vinod Naik to make phone call to Suhas Roge.Upon confirmationoverthephonefromaccusedSuhasRoge, hehandedoverthecarrybagtoGotya,asperearlierinstructions. Thereafter,hereturnedtoAshramat10.30p.m..
...108/
132.
P.W.15 Vinod Madan Naik further states that at about
10.30p.m.,SanjayShirkeandaccusedSuhasRogecamethere.Then theyproceededtothehouseofSanjayShirkewheretheyconsumed liquor. While watching news on T.V. channel that mataka king Suresh Bhagat along with seven persons died in the accident. AccusedSuhasRogetoldthat Amhiaamchyadushmanalakhalas kele (Weeliminatedourenemy).Thereafter,at2.30a.m.,accused SuhasRogeproceededtohishouseandhecametoAshram.Onthe next day i.e. on 15/6/2008, he went to Khandeshwar with accused Suhas Roge and his wife Nainabhabhi. While returning, accused askedhiswifetogotothehomeandtheybothproceededtowardsthe houseofaccusedno.7JayaChheda.After5to6days,helearntthat accused no.4 has been arrested in the case of murder of Suresh Bhagat.Headmittedthecorrectnessofhisstatementrecordedbythe Magistratedated20/9/2008(Exh.444).Itistobenotedthatthisis practicallynotdeniedtotheabovetestimonyofthewitness.
133.
During his cross examination, he admitted that the
incident of handing over the bundles to Gotya took place on 13/6/2008. But he never disclosed the said fact to anybody till recordingofhisstatement.Heusedtotakeliquorifanybodyserves.
...109/
Onthatday,hedidnotdrinkheavily.HefeltthatSuhasRogemight havedonethesaidincidentwhenheutteredthewordthat Amhi aamchya dushmanalakhalaskele (Weeliminatedourenemy).He neverinformedthesaidfacttoanybodyfrom13/6/2008to5/8/2008 tillpoliceaskedhim.Alltheseadmissionsarecrystalcleartoshow thatthetestimonyofP.W.15VinodNaikremainednotonlyintactbut thesamehasbeenonlyreiteratedinhiscrossexamination.
134.
Duringhiscrossexamination,hevolunteerthatheused
togowithSuhasRogeatthehouseofaccusedJayaChheda.Nobody wasaccompaniedthem.HewasnotenteringthehouseofJayaand usedtositinhiscar.Policedidnotaskhimabouttheblackmagic i.e.burningofdollsandthereby,heneverstatedso.Theyreachedthe houseofSanjayShirke,atabout10.00p.m.andtheywerepresenttill 1.30a.m.Heagainadmittedthathewasnotfrightenedafterhearing thewordsofSuhasRogethat Amhiaamchyadushmanalakhalas kele (We eliminated ourenemy).They didnotaskaccused Suhas Rogeaboutthesaidtalkandheignoredthesaidtalk.Itisadmitted thatP.W.15VinodNaikwassuspendedfromGovernmentserviceand working as an electrician and that too, sometimes with accused SuhasRoge.Heusedtoaccompanytheaccusedasandwhencalled. It also appears on record that on payment of Rs.1000/ by Suhas
...110/
Roge,hereachedtwobundlesofcurrencynotestooneGotya.Atthe sametime,attheinstanceofaccusedSuhasRoge,hewenttothe houseofSanjayShirke.Questionaroseastohowsuchmancandare toaskaccusedSuhasRogeregardingtheincident.Histestimonyis foundtobecogent,reliableandtrustworthy.Thereisnoreasonto disbelievethesame.Theevidenceprovestheextrajudicialconfession givenbyaccusedno.4SuhasRogetotheaforesaidtwowitnesses.
135.
ByexaminingP.W.68SanjayShirke,ithascomeonthe
recordthatsincebirth,heisresidingatMalbarHillandlooksafter thebusinessofsaloonofhisfather.Heisalsolookingthebusinessof tours and travels. When in the year 199495, Swamiji came to AshramofGagangiriMaharaj,MalbarHill,heandaccusedSuhas Rogewerevolunteers.HeisalsoasocialworkerandcontestedBMC aswellasStateAssemblyelections.Headmittedthathearranged telephone booth to one Jahida Khan @ Rodrigues, who is handicapped and residing in Malbar Hill, who is wife of P.W.16 Joseph Rodrigues, whois mechanic. Since theyear 200304, heis knowingthem.AccusedSuhasRogewasrunningnewspapernamely MumbaiCrimewhereashewasworkingasExecutiveEditor.He usedtocontactwithSuhasRogebuthedidnotknowthetelephone number.
...111/
136.
Thewitnessfurtherdeposedthaton13/6/2008,hewasat
MalbarHill.HereadthenewspaperthataccusedSuhasRogewas arrested by police. He was called at Crawford market. He did not remember whether his telephone was recorded by the police and madeinquiryaboutP.W.16JosephRodrigues.Hestatedthatitmight havehappenedthaton13/6/2008,atabout9.30to10.00p.m.,Suhas RogecametohishouseinhisMarutivan.Hedidnotsupportthe prosecutionandtherefore,learnedSpecialP.P.crossexaminedhim afterthepermissionfromtheCourt.
137.
DuringhiscrossexaminationbylearnedSpecialP.P.,he
admittedthathedidnotrememberwhetherVinodNaikcametohis house.WitnessJoseph,hiswifeanddaughtermighthavecometohis houseastheywerehavingvisitingtermswithhisfamily.Itdidnot happen that news stripMatakaKingSuresh Bhagatkilledin an accidentwasrunningonthetelevisionanditdidnothappenthat Suhas Roge overwhelmingly raised hands and said that he had finishedhisenemy.Healsodeniedthatthereafter,hewenttobring the snacks and cold drinksforSuhasRoge. Hedidnotremember whetherhebroughtsnacksandcolddrinksforSuhasRoge,Vinod
...112/
NaikandJosephRodrigues.Hedidnotknowtherelationbetween SuhasRogeandJayaChhedaaswellastheywererunningmataka business.Hedeniedtherecordingofhisstatementofportionmarked A and B. But during examinationinchief of investigating officer P.W.80ACPA.T.Duraphe,thisportionmarkedAandBwasreferred anditwasmarkedasportionmarkedAandBasitwasrecordedas perthesayofP.W.68SanjayShirke.Headmittedthatthecasewas lodgedagainsthiminrespectofsonofJosephhavingconsumedTik 20.
138.
By examining P.W.80 ACP A.T. Duraphe, prosecution
provedthestatementofP.W.68SanjayShirke.TheportionmarkedA and B of the statement of Sanjay Shirke has been proved by the investigating officer A.T. Duraphe. P.W.68 Sanjay Shirke did not support the prosecution. It is to be noted here that he is not a layman.HeispoliticianandcontestedtheelectionofStateAssembly aswellasCorporation.Heisalsoexecutiveeditorofthenewspaper Mumbai Crime which was run by accused Suhas Roge. His admissionthatonthedayoftheincident,accusedSuhasRogemight havevisitedhishouse,lendssupporttothevisittohishouse.
...113/
139.
(A)LearnedSeniorAdvocateShriAdhikShirodkarplaced
relianceon: (i) Sahadevanandanotherv/s.StateofTamilNadu, (2012)6SCC403, in which it has been held, where the prosecution reliesuponanextrajudicialconfession,thecourthastoexaminethe samewithagreaterdegreeofcareandcaution. (B)LearnedCounselShriS.R.Pasbolaplacedrelianceon: (i) SKYusufV/s.StateofWestBengal,
(2011)11S.C(Cri)754=2011ALLMR(Cri)2365(S.C.), inwhichithasbeenheld, Extrajudicialconfessionmust keep in mind that it is a very weak type of evidence and requires appreciationwithgreatcaution.Itmustbeestablishedtobetrueand madevoluntarilyandinafitstateofmind.Thewordsofthewitness mustbeclear,unambiguousandclearlyconveythattheaccusedisthe perpetratorofthecrime.Itcanbeacceptedandcanbethebasisofa convictionifitpassesthetestofcredibility. (ii) SunilRaiAliasPauyaandOrsV/s.Union
Territory,Chandigarh, (2012)1S.C.C.(Cri)543=(2012)1S.C.C.(Cri)543, in which it has been held, extrajudicial confession statementmadeorallybeforeapersonwithwhommakerofconfession ...114/
hasnointimaterelationship. Insuchcaseconfessionalstatementis notaverystrongpieceofevidenceandinanyeventitcanonlybeused forcorroboration. (iii) PanchoV/s.TheStateofHaryana, (2011)10S.C(Cri)165, inwhichithasbeenheld,extrajudicialconfessionmade bytheaccusedtothepersonofintimacyafterthedelayanddelayis notexplainedinsuchcaseevidenceisnotcredible. (iv) StateofM.P.V/s.PaltanMallah&Ors, 2005Cri.L.J.918SC, inwhichithasbeenheld,extrajudicialconfessionofco accusedandhisconfessionthattheothercoaccusedgavehimmoney tomurderthedeceased/victim. Howevernosubstantiveevidenceis againsttheotheraccused.Insuchcasenoconvictioncanbebasedon extrajudicialconfessionofcoaccused. (v) C.K.RaveendranV/s.StateofKerala, 2000Cri.L.J.497, inwhichithasbeenheld, prosecutionwitnessfailedto reproduce extrajudicial confession made to him in exact words or even in the words as nearly as possible. Further his statement showingthatheconsumedliquoralongwithaccusedandthereafter accused disclosed the entire incident to him. Statement byaccused ...115/
cannotbesaidtobevoluntaryandtruthfulone.Ontheotherhandit is outcome of consumption of liquor, both the witness as well as accused.Thussaidextrajudicialconfessionhastobeexcludedfrom purviewofconsiderationforbringinghomethecharge. (vi) S.ArulRajaV/s.StateofTamilNadu, (2010)3S.C.C.(Cri)801=(2010)8S.C.C.(Cri)233, inwhichithasbeenheld ,extrajudicialconfessionisa weakpieceofevidence.Thoughitcanbemadethebasisofconviction, duecareandcautionmustbeexercisedbythecourtstoascertainthe truthfulnessoftheconfession.Rulesofcautionmustbeappliedbefore acceptinganextrajudicialconfession. Beforethecourtproceedsto act on the basis of an extrajudicial confession, the circumstances under which it is made, the manner in which it is made and the personstowhomitismademustbeconsideredalongwiththetwo rulesofcaution:first,whethertheevidenceofconfessionisreliable andsecond,whetheritfindscorroboration.
(vii) AjaySinghV/s.StateofMaharashtra, (2008)1SCC(Cri.)371=2007AIRSCW3845, inwhichithasbeenheld, whiledealingwithastandof extrajudicial confession, court has to satisfy that the same was voluntaryandwithoutanycoercionandundueinfluence,aswellas ...116/
person to whom confession is made should be unbiased and not inimicaltotheaccused. The principles laid down in the above cited rulings are that,extrajudicialconfessionrequiresappreciationwithgreatcare andcautionregardingthevoluntaryandfitstateofmind.Nothingis brought on record that at the relevant time, that neither accused SuhasRogenorthewitnesseswereunderintoxication.Thereby,the principleslaiddownintheabovecitedrulingsarenothelpfultothe accused as the facts in hand and facts in the cited supra are not identical.
140.
Ld. Counsel Shri S.R. Pasbola submitted that while
examiningtheP.W.16JosephRodrigues,prosecutionneverexplained thedelayinaproperperspectiveandthereforehistestimonycannot bereliedupon.Hence,heplacedrelianceon: (i) Lahu Kamlakar Patil & Anr. V/s. State of
Maharashtra, 2013(1) Bom.C.R. (Cri) 631 S.C., (ii) Jagjit Singh AliasJaggaV/s.StateofPunjab,(2005)3S.C.C.689, (iii) Maruti Rama Naik V/s. State of Maharashtra, (2003)10 S.C.C. 670, (iv) State of Punjab V/s. Gurdeep Singh, LAWS(SC)19999114 and (v)Surajit Sarkar V/s. State of West Bengal, 2013 CRI. L.J. 1137 (S.C.). ...117/
inwhichithasbeenheld,delayinexaminationofwitness itselfnotfataltotheprosecutionbuttakentogetherwithotherfacts whichdemandexplanation. Ihavegonethroughtheabovecitedrulings,inwhichit hasbeenheldthatwhenthereisadelayinexaminationofwitnesses, prosecutionhastoexplainthedelay.Thewitnessi.e.P.W.16hadgone to Ajmer and Kolhapur,therefore,thedelayis properlyexplained. ThedelayinrecordingstatementofP.W.15cannotbesaidtobeperse fatal.Therefore,theprincipleslaiddowninabovecitedrulingsare nothelpfultotheaccusedasthefactsaredifferent.
141.
Learned Senior Advocate Shri Adhik Shirodkar placed
relianceon: (i) RamCharanandothersv/s.TheStateofU.P., 1968CRI.L.J.1473SC, in which it has been held, if a statement of witness is previouslyrecordedunderSection164,CriminalProcedureCode,it leadstoaninferencethattherewasatimewhenthepolicethoughtthe witnessmaychangebutifthewitnessstickstothestatementmadeby him throughout, the mere fact that his statement was previously recordedunderSection164willnotbesufficienttodiscardit.The Court,however,oughttoreceiveitwithcautionandifthereareother ...118/
circumstances on record which lend support to the truth of the evidenceofsuchwitness,itcanbeactedupon. BalakRamandanotherv/s.StateofU.P., 1974CRI.L.J.1486SC, in which it has been held, the evidence of witnesses (ii) cannot be discarded merely because their statements were recorded underSection164.Theirevidencemustbeapproachedwithcaution. Suchwitnessesfeeltiedtotheirpreviousstatementsgivenonoathand havebutatheoreticalfreedomtodepartfromtheearlierversion.A prosecution for perjury could be theprice of that freedom. It is,of course, open to the courttoaccepttheevidenceofawitnesswhose statement was recorded under Section 164, but the salient rule of cautionmustalwaysbeborneinmind. Boththesecitationsareinrespectofevidentiaryvalueof statementofwitnesseswhenpreviouslyrecordedu/s.164ofCodeof CriminalProcedureanditssettledposition.P.W.16JosephRodrigues andP.W.15VinodMadanNaikhavenotresiledfromtheirprevious statements.Therefore,theprincipleslaiddownin citedsupraarenot brandedinthiscase.
142.
Ld.Spl.P.P.Ms.KalpanaChavanplacedrelianceon: (i) StateofU.P.V/s.M.K.Anthony, AIR1985SC48, ...119/
in which it is held, "if the evidence about extrajudicial confessioncomesfromthemouthofwitness/witnesseswhoappearto beunbiased,notevenremotelyinimicaltotheaccused,andinrespect ofwhomnothingisbroughtoutwhichmaytendtoindicatethathe may have a motive for attributing an untruthful statement to the accused;thewordsspokentobythewitnessareclear,unambiguous and unmistakably conveythattheaccused istheperpetratorofthe crime and nothing is omitted by the witness which may militate against it, then after subjecting the evidence of the witness to a rigoroustestonthetouchstoneofcredibility,ifitpassesthetest,the extrajudicial confessioncan beacceptedandcanbethebasisofa conviction.Insuchasituationtogoinsearchofcorroborationitself tendstocastashadowofdoubtovertheevidence.Iftheevidenceof extrajudicialconfessionisreliable,trustworthyandbeyondreproach thesamecanberelieduponandaconvictioncanbefoundedthereon.
(ii)
AjaySinghV/s.StateofMaharashtra, 2007AIRSCW3845,
in which it is held that, "human mind is not a tape recorderwhichrecordswhathasbeenspokenwordbyword.Though itisnotnecessarythatthewitnessshouldspeaktheexactwordsbut therecannotbevitalandmaterialdifference. Whiledealingwitha ...120/
standofextrajudicialconfession,Courthastosatisfythatthesame wasvoluntaryandwithoutanycoercionandundueinfluence. (iii) R.KuppusamyV/s.State(Ambeiligai), 2013AIRSCW1293, in which it is held, "conviction on the basis of extrajudicial confessiontoVillageAdministrativeOfficer(VAO)madeimmediately after accused threw daughter in well. VAO not inimical towards accused.Deathofdaughterconfirmedbymedicalevidence.Presence ofaccusedinvillageattherelevanttimeandextrajudicialconfession corroboratedbyevidenceonrecordispropertoconvicttheaccused. I have gone through the above cited rulings. The principles laid down in the above cited rulings are perfectly applicabletothecaseinhandasthesameappearsasthewitnesses areunbiasedandnothavinginimicalterms,therefore,foundtobe reliable.
143.
It is to be noted here that by examining P.W.15 Vinod
Madan Naik, P.W.16 Joseph Robert Rodrigues and even P.W.68 Sanjay Ramchandra Shirke, to an extent prosecution proved the extra judicial confession of accused Suhas Roge in respect of his involvementinthemurderofdeceasedSureshBhagat.Thereisno varianceintheirstatements.Thereisnothingtoshowthattheextra ...121/
judicialconfessionwasmadeinvoluntarilyorinunfitstateofmind. Theconfessionisunambiguousandclearinterm.Theevidencelaid bytheprosecutioninrespectofextrajudicialconfessionofaccused no.4SuhasRogeisthusfoundtobecogentandreliable.
RECOVERYOFMOBILEOFACCUSEDNO.5KIRANAMLE 144. Toarraigntheaccusedno.5KiranAmle,prosecutionhas
examined his cousin P.W.59 Sandeep Bhiku Shirodkar, resident of Mapusa, Goa. It has come in the evidence of P.W.59 Sandeep ShirodkarthataccusedKiranAmleissonofhisaunt.On18/6/2008, he had come to Goa and stayed at his house along with his two friends. They stated him that they had gone to Shirdi and while returning,theycamegotoGoa.WhenaccusedKiranAmlecameto hishouse,hehadgivenhismobilehandsetofNokiawhichdidnot havethebatteryandSIMcard.Hegavethesaidmobiletopoliceby drawingpanchanama(Exh.639).Healsoidentifiedthesaidmobile (Article 11) which was produced by him. By examining P.W.59 Sandeep Shirodkar, prosecution proved the seizure of mobile of accusedKiranAmleunderpanchanama(Exh.639). Theprosecution has also examined P.W.69 API S.D. Barge and proved the seizure panchanama (Exh.639/717) of mobile of Kiran Amle from the possessionofSandeepShirodkar.
...122/
145.
At the time of the arguments, Ld. Advocate Shri Amit
Munderaisedtheobjectionthatmobile(Article11)whichwasseized fromthepossessionofP.W.59SandeepShirodkardoesnotbearsSIM andbattery.IMEInumbermentionedonArticle11ismismatched with call detail record. The other subscribers whose mobiles have beenusedbytheaccusedarethewitness.Withoutanyincriminating evidence of conspiracy, accused no.5 is impleaded as an accused. Whileevaluatingtheevidence,ithascomeontherecordthatmere mismatchedofonenumberinthemobiledoesnotaffecttherecordof call details. P.W.59 is his cousin. There is no reason to P.W.59 Sandeeptotellthelieagainsthim.Heproducedthemobilewhich doesnotbearsSIMaswellasbatteryasitwasnothandedoverby theaccused.Therefore,themobile(Article11)whichhandedoverby accused no.5 Kiran Amle has been produced by P.W.59 Sandeep Shirodkar. It has come on therecord that while handing over the mobile,accusedKiranAmledeliberatelynothandedoverSIMaswell asbatterytosuppressthematerialfact.Thesubscriberdetailrecord ofaccusedno.5KiranAmleisalsohavingchangeinthenameofhis father.Insteadof'Baban'deliberatelyithasmentionedas'Bharat'. Therebyitcanbeinferredthatsincebeginning,hehastakendue caretosuppresshisidentityforoneorotherreasonbecauseprepaid
...123/
application form bears his photograph. On the contrary circumstances brought on record by the prosecution clearly shows that at the time of incident, accused Harish Mandvikar used his mobilethattoo,withhisconsentandthereby,withinashortperiod, he went to Mhapusa (Goa) and handed over to P.W.59 Sandeep Shirodkar. Thereby, the grounds raised by the Advocate for the accusedinthedefenceofaccusedKiranAmlehasnosubstance.All theseobjectionsarefoundtobebaseless.
RELATIVESOFTHEDECEASED 146. The prosecution has examined the relatives of the
deceasedviz.P.W.17VarshaTusharShah,whoisthewifeofdeceased TusharShah,P.W.32VinodKalyanjiBhagat,whoisthebrotherof deceasedSureshBhagatandP.W.45AshokHabuKamble,whoisthe father of deceased Kamlesh Kamble. P.W.17 Varsha Tushar Shah deposedthatshemarriedTusharShahon16/12/2007andresidingat Worli with her inlaws. Her husband was businessman. Deceased SureshBhagatwasmaternaluncleofherdeceasedhusband.Onthe dayoftheincidenti.e.on13/6/2008,matterwasfixedforhearingin AlibaugCourt.ShereceivedphonecallfromtheservantofSuresh BhagatandinformedthatTusharisseriousandinformedaboutthe accident.On14/6/2008,deadbodyofTusharwasbroughttothehome
...124/
and she also learnt that Suresh Bhagat was also no more. Two months prior to the incident, herhusbandwasundertension and usedtoremainserious.Whensheasked,hestatedheronacondition nottodiscloseanybodythatheisgettingthreatsonphonecallfrom Suhas Roge, Jaya Chheda, Kiran Pujari, Chintu @ Hitesh Bhagat and Arun Gawali, to leave the company of Suresh Bhagat. Her husbandalsoinformedthatSuhasRogeandKiranPujarithreatened himonthepointofpistol (pistolsarpelagadiyatha) toleavethe company of Suresh Bhagat, otherwise he will be eliminated . Her husband also informed that Suresh Bhagat already filed the complainttothepolice.
147.
P.W.17 Varsha Shahin her crossexamination bySenior
AdvocateShriAdhikShirodkarforaccusedno.4admittedthatwhen shecametoknowaboutthecomplaintmadebySureshBhagat,she thoughtthatsamewillbebeneficial.Atthesametime,shefeltthat thereisadangertothelifeofherhusbandandSureshBhagat.She did not disclose the said fact to her inlaws as she had promised TusharShahoftheconfidentiality.Incidentofpointingofpistolon the part of the accused Suhas Roge took place in the Hotel at Mumbai. Afterhearingtheincidentofpointingoutthepistol,she wasfrightened.ShefurtherdeniedthatonlyKiranPujaripointed
...125/
outthepistolontheheadofherhusbandTusharShahintheHotel in Mumbai and threatened him. She further admitted that her husband Tushar was also running a business of Gems and colour stones under the name and style M/s. Kalyan International. Her husbandandfatherinlawhasnoconcernwiththematakabusiness ofSureshBhagat.
148.
Inhercrossexamination byAdvocateShriPasbola,she
admitted that her husbandTusharwasaccusedin NDPSCaseat Alibaug.HewasroamingaroundSureshBhagatandaccompaniedin thecourt,policestations,lawyers'officeetc..Sheaskedherhusband whether Suresh Bhagat mentioned the fact of threats in the complaint or not and her husband informed that it was not mentionedso.Sheadmittedthatnothreateningcallswerereceived byTusharinherpresence.Shecametoknowfromherinlawsthat therewasquarrelonaccountofmatakabusinessbetweenaccused Jaya Chheda and Suresh Bhagat. In spite of her detail cross examination,hertestimonyremainedintact.
149.
ByexaminingP.W.17VarshaTusharShah,ithascomeon
therecordthatdeceasedTusharShahwasalsotheaccusedinNDPS caseinAlibaugCourt.DeceasedTusharShahalsoaccompaniedwith
...126/
deceasedSureshBhagatandatthetimeoftheincident.Thefactin respectofthreateningofherhusbandbyKiranPujari&SuhasRoge to leave the company of Suresh Bhagat otherwise he will be eliminatedremainsonrecordwhichisalsoastrongcircumstanceon record against accused Suhas Roge,Kiran Pujari,Jaya Chheda & HiteshBhagat.
150.
P.W.32 Vinod Kalyanji Bhagat is a brother of deceased
Suresh Bhagat. It has come in his evidence that deceased Suresh BhagatandoneJayantilalarehistwobrothers.Theyarehavingone sisterbynameVandana.HisfatherKalyanjiwasrunningmataka business which was continued by his brother Suresh Bhagat. His brother Suresh Bhagat was also running chemical and jewellery business.RelationshipbetweenhisbrotherSureshandhiswifeJaya were spoiled. She was having illicit relations with accused Suhas Roge.Theirmarriage,however,endedindivorce.AccusedJayawas havingilleyeovermatakabusiness.Priortotheincident,hewentto Canada.Beforehisdeparture,hisbrotherSureshbecamefrightened and informed the reason that Jaya Chheda, Hitesh Bhagat,Suhas Roge and Kiran Pujari were threatening him to hand over his property. They falsely implicated his brother in various cases.
...127/
Thereby,hemadecomplaintbeforeCommissionerofPoliceaswellas filedWritpetitionbeforeHon'bleHighCourt.
151.
In his cross examination, he admitted that during the
periodfrom199497hisrelationwithhisbrotherSureshwerenot cordialduetomisunderstanding.Lateron,itwaspatchedup.They werehavingvisitingterms.Defencewasalsotakenthathewasalso implicatedincaseofNarcoticActandarrestedfromtimetotime.He also admitted the dispute between them on account of cross complaints against each other and that too, between him and deceased Suresh Bhagat as well as against accused no.7 Jaya Chheda. It has also brought on record that Suresh Bhagat also lodged the complaint against him. His cousin Jayesh Sangoi also lodgedthecomplaintofextortionagainsthim.Headmittedthefiling ofWritPetitionbearingno.20/2010.Headmittedthatheopposedthe bail application of accused no.7 Jaya Chheda and accused no.8 HiteshBhagatasheisintendingthataccusedshallremainbehind the bar. It is the defence of the accused that another brother VasantbhaiisalsomurderedinwhichishisniecePratimaAmboreis anaccused.Duringcrossexamination,defencehasfiledthecertified copiesaswellascopyofthechargesheet,complaint,applicationof
...128/
their cases as well as cross complaints which are at Exh.515 to Exh.527.
152.
Ithasfurthercomeinhiscrossexaminationthatafterthe
death of Suresh Bhagat, he and his niece Tanujaben filed the petitions before Small Causes Court, as a legal heirs of deceased Suresh Bhagat. After the death of deceased Suresh, he meet investigatingofficer,PoynadpolicestationaswellasL.C.B.(Crime). He filed an application to the State of Maharashtra for the appointment of Special Public Prosecutor in this matter and also undertakentopaythefeesoftheSpecialPublicProsecutor.
153.
Upon perusal of the testimony of P.W.32, it reveals on
recordthattherelationsbetweenP.W.32VinodBhagatanddeceased SureshBhagatwerealsostrainedandnotcordial.DeceasedSuresh BhagataswellaswitnessVinodBhagatwereimplicatedinvarious casesunderNDPSAct.Accusedaswellasthewitnesseswerehaving strainedrelations.Itdoesnotmeanthathistestimonyisliabletobe thrown away. On the contrary, it is proved that relation between deceasedSureshBhagatandaccusedno.7JayaChhedaaswellas Hitesh Bhagat were strained andaccusedwerehavingilleyeover
...129/
matakabusinessbyjoiningthehandswiththeaccusedSuhasRoge andKiranPujari.Thisfactremainsintact.
154.
IthascomeintheevidenceofP.W.45AshokHabuKamble
thaton thedayof theincidenti.e.on13/6/2008,hisdeceasedson KamleshKamblewaspresentinAlibaugCourt.Attherelevanttime, hewasstandingoutsidethecourtbecausehissonwasattendingthe date in the Court. Date was given at about 12:45 p.m.. He was standingnearScorpioinwhichKamlesh,Valmik,SureshBhagatand otherthreepersonssatandhewenttoBusstand.Atabout2p.m.,he receivedcallinformingthatKamleshreceivedinjuryintheaccident. Therefore, he reached at Civil Hospital and saw that his son was lying onthe stretcherandsustainedbleedinginjuriesonhishead etc.. He was advised for higher medical treatment at Mumbai. Therefore,hewasforwardedtoSionHospitalbyAmbulance.Onnext day i.e. on 14/6/2008, he received dead body of his son. Despite sufficientopportunities,Advocatefortheaccuseddeclinedtocross examine him. Therefore,his testimony remains unchallenged. By examiningP.W.45AshokKamble,thefactsbroughtonrecordthaton 13/6/2008,deceasedSureshBhagat,hissonKamleshandotherfour attended Alibaug Court. They left Alibaug at 12:45 p.m.. Immediately, within one hour, he received the message of
...130/
accident.His son died on the next day due to the impact of the accident.Thisfactremainsunchallenged.
155.
Allthesetestimoniesoftherelativesofthedeceasedco
relateeachotherinrespectofthedeathofSureshBhagat,Tushar ShahandKamleshKamble.
ARREST&RECOVERIES 156. Prosecution relied on various panchanamas i.e. arrest
panchanama,recoveryofmobiles,variouscars,recoveryofRs.23.50 lakhsandRs.8lakhsattheinstanceofaccusedHarishMandvikar u/s.27ofEvidenceAct,Rs.4lakhsfromapproverKiranPujari,etc.. In support of their case, prosecution examined P.W.27 Shailesh ShivramPatil(Exh.491).Hedeposedthaton14/7/2008,hecameto CrawfordMarketforpurchaseofsomeagricultureimplements.One policeHavildaraskedhimforhelpbyactingasapanchaandtook himtoCrimeBranch.Saidofficeissituatedonthefirstfloor.One muslim person was another pancha. One accused was saying that someamountiskeptinthehouseofhisfriend.Accusedlaidthemin SaibabaNagar,Kandivali(W),inthehutmentarea.Itwashaving nettypedoor.Oneboyopenedthedoorandpoliceaskedthatboyto handovertheamount.Hesawtheamount,however,hecannottell
...131/
thedetails.Thepolicetooktheamountandlefttheplace.Thereafter, they returned to Crime Branch where he signed the panchanama (Exh.492).Hefailedtostatethecontentsofthepanchanama.Inhis cross examination by Ld. Spl.P.P., he admitted that accused also signedthepanchanamaandpanchanamawaswrittenbythepolice. Healsoadmittedthatpersontookoutthecashfromironcupboard andhandedovertothepolice.Hesignedthepanchanama(Exh.493 colly.)becauseitwascorrect.InhisfurthercrossexaminationbyLd. AdvocateShriVilasNaik,hestatedthatpanchanamawasreadover to him. Both the panchas made the signatures simultaneously. Though, he did not fullysupport theprosecution,headmitted his signatureontheseizurepanchanama(Exh.493)aswellasseizureof cashbythepolicefromSaibabaNagar,Kandivali(W)andthattoo,at the instance of the accused no.3 Harish Mandvikar. The material piece of evidence is that he is supporting to the prosecution and admitted its execution. Therefore, his testimony is found to be reliableandtrustworthy.
157.
P.W.28 Nitin Shravan Dhepe deposed that he is an
agriculturistandalsocarriesbusinessofconstructionofcompound wall in his village. He is having coconut and betel nuts farm/orchards. On 15/6/2008, when he was at Alibaug S.T. Stand,
...132/
policecalledhimatCrimeBranchofficeforpanchanama.Whenhe wentthere,atabout8to8.30p.m.,twopeoplewerepresent.Thenhe signedthepanchanama.Againonthesecondday,hewascalledfor7 to8times.TheywenttoMumbaiasperthecallofthepolice.Hewas sittinginthevehicle.Twopersonswerewiththem.Heaccompanied bypoliceandanothertwopanchas.Hesigned8panchanamason2/3 differentdates.Thosedatesmaybe15,16,17,18June2008.Outof that he once came to Mumbai. When he came from Mumbai, he signed one panchanama. He does not know the contents of the panchanama. Therefore, he did not support the prosecution, therefore,learnedSpecialP.P.crossexaminedhim.Headmittedhis signatureonthepanchanamadated18/6/2008,19/6/2008,20/6/2008, 21/6/2008 and 22/6/2008. He admitted that on 17/6/2008, he was calledbyAlibaugCrimeBranchOffice.AnotherpanchaBhalchandra Gharat accompanied him. Even during the cross examination, he denied the search of the house of the accused/approver Ajimuddin Shaikh as well as his personal search. He admitted that on 18/6/2008, he was called API Raut of Alibaug. He denied that on 19/6/2008, police called him at police station and accused Harish Mandvikarwaspresent.HedeniedtherecoveryofRs.23.50lakhsat theinstanceoftheaccusedHarishMandvikar.Healsodeniedthe recovery of three mobiles from the house of accused Harish
...133/
Mandvikar.Healsodeniedthepanchanamadated20/6/2008atthe houseofoneParubaiMhatre.Healsodeniedthepanchanamaofthe houseofaccusedJayaBhagat@JayaChhedaon21/6/2008aswellas seizure of the papers. He also denied the seizure of mobiles from Activa. He also denied the seizure of Nokia mobiles from time to time. Inhiscrossexaminationbyadvocate,headmittedthathe
signedthepanchanamaunderfearofthepolice.
158.
P.W.29 Bhalchandra Jagannath Gharat deposed that on
16/6/2008, API More of LCB called him for panchanama of the accidentofthetruck.Healsosignedthepanchanamaon16/6/2008. Someofthemwereinprintedform.On25/6/2008andon26/6/2008, policeobtainedhis5to6signaturesintheofficeofLCB,Alibaug.He admitted his signatures on the panchanama 15/6/2008, 17/6/2008, 18/6/2008,19/6/2008,20/6/2008,21/6/2008and22/6/2008.Duringhis crossexaminationbytheSpecialP.P.,hedeniedtherecoveryonthe respective dates. On the contrary, during cross examination by Advocate for the accused, he admitted that he was the pancha in S.C.3/2010 which is of accused Babloo Shukla and others. He admittedhisgoodrelationswithPIShriV.K.More.Headmittedthat thereisslopeandcurveonthesaidroadbetweenDharmatarCreek bridgetoFaujiDhaba.
...134/
159.
P.W.27, P.W.28 and P.W.29 are the witnesses on the
various panchanamas of arrest of accused Pravin Shetty and approver Ajimuddin Shaikh dated 15/6/2008, house search panchanama of both of them dated 17/6/2008, production panchanamaofMarutiSwiftcarbearingno.MH02AP4563dated 18/6/2008, memorandum panchanama and recovery panchanama (Exh.761 & Exh.762) at the instance of Harish Mandvikar dated 19/6/2008and20/6/2008,housesearchpanchanamaofaccusedno.3 Harish Mandvikar dated 20/6/2008 regarding recovery of three mobile phones, house search panchanama of accused no.1 Pravin Shettydated20/6/2008,housesearch panchanamaofaccusedno.7 Jaya Chheda dated 21/6/2008, panchanama of the recovery of muddemalproducedbySantoshGuptadated22/6/2008,recoveryof mobilehandsetofaccusedKiranAmlefromP.W.59S.S.Shirodkar dated22/6/2008,recoveryofthreemobilehandsetsattheinstanceof accused Suhas Roge from Activa motorcycle dated 31/6/2008 and recovery of Rs.8 lakhs under memorandum panchanama at the instance of accused Harish Mandvikar dated 14/7/2008 from the houseofAnthonyRajNanyaDravid.Although,thesepanchashave merelyadmittedtheirsignatures.Thepanchanamasaredulyproved by P.W.78 I.O. V.K. More, P.W.62 approver Ajimuddin Shaikh, IO
...135/
P.W.53PISheetalRaut,P.W.56IOK.S.Shengleaswellasatthe instance of witness P.W.16 Joseph Rodrigues, P.W.77 Anthony Raj NanyaDravidandP.W.59SandeepShirodkar.Though,thepanchas didnotsupporttheprosecution,allthepanchanamashavebeenduly provedbytheinvestigatingofficers.
160.
(A)LearnedAdvocateShriVilasNaikplacedrelianceon: (i) Mohd. Hussain Babamiyan Ramzan V/s. State of
Maharashtra,1994(100)CRLJ1020BOM, inwhichithasbeenheld, itisexpectedthatI.O.willtakeindependentpanchwitnessesandif knowingly he has taken pliable witness as a panch entire raid becomes suspicious and it would not be sufficient to base the conviction. (ii) Benard Chapanga V/s. The State of Maharashtra,
2003(2)ALDCri121=2004(Supp)Bom.C.R.183 , inwhichithas been held, witness had already acted as a panch in some cases cannotbestampedasliar. Actingasapanchwitnessinprevious casesdoesnotbyitselfandalonedisentitlehimofcreditworthiness. His evidence has been examined with proper approach guarded by normalhumanexperienceandprudenceofprudentperson.Thereby theprinciplelaiddownintheabovecitedrulingisnothelpfultothe accused but it helps the prosecution though the panchas are ...136/
previouslyactedasapanch. (B)LearnedSpl.P.P.Ms.KalpanaChavanplacedreliance on: (i) The State of Maharashtra v/s. Prakash Dhawal Khairnar(Patil)&Ors.,2001ALLMR(Cri)222 ,inwhichithas beenheld,Thereticenceonthepartofpeopletobecomeawitness,of which judicial notice can be taken, leaves the Investigating Officer withnootheroptionbut,torepeatedlyhavethesamepersonsasa pancha. In view of fact that nobody volunteers to act as panch in policecaseinvestigatingofficerisleftwithnooptionbuttousethe samepersonasapanch. (ii) Anter Singh v/s. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2004 SupremeCourt2865,inwhichithasbeenheld, ifpanchwitnesses turnhostile,whichhappensveryoftenincriminalcases,theevidence ofthepersonwhoeffectedtherecoverywouldnotstandvitiated. (iii) LachhmanRamandothersv/s.StateofOrissa, 1985SCC(Cri)263,inwhichithasbeen held, testimonyofthe panchaswillnotbecomedoubtfulmerelyontheirfailuretoidentify theaccused. (iv) State Govt. of NCTof Delhiv/s. Sunil & Anr.,
2001(1)Crimes176,inwhichithasbeenheld,Nonattestationof seizurememobyindependentwitnessescannotbegroundtodisbelieve ...137/
recoveryofarticlesseizedconsequentuponstatementofaccused.No requirementeitherunderSection27EvidenceActorunderSection 161 Cr.P.C. to obtain signature of independent witnesses. When recovery is effected pursuant to statement of accused document prepared by I.O. need not necessarily be attested by independent witnesses.Courthastobelieveversionofpolicetobecorrectifitis otherwiseshowntobeunreliable.
Ihavegonethroughtheabovecitedrulings.Theprinciple laiddowninabovecitedrulingsisperfectlyapplicabletothecasein hand.Itisnotedthatnobodyvolunteerstoactasapanchainpolice case.Thereby,investigatingofficerisleftwithnooptionbuttouse the same person as a pancha. In the light of the principles cited supra by the learned Spl.P.P., the citations submitted by the AdvocateVilasNaikarenothelpfulinthepresentcase.
161.
There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the
investigatingofficerswhentheycarriedouttheinvestigationwhile dischargingtheirduties.Thereby,Iamoftheopinionthatthoughthe panchasdidnotsupporttheprosecutioncase,itdoesnotaffectthe evidencewhichlaidbytheprosecutionandthereby,itisfoundtobe ...138/
reliableandtrustworthyandthereby,prosecutionsuccessfullyproved the panchanamas of spot (Exh.609), seizure of pistol and mobiles from Scorpio (Exh.733), seizure of mobiles (Exh.604, Exh.717, Exh.762 & Exh.770), seizure of amount of Rs.8 lakhs from the possessionofP.W.77AnthonyRajNannyaDravid(Exh.493),recovery of Rs.23.50 lakhs from the possession of P.W.39 Arvind Modasia (Exh.760&Exh.761)aswellasrecoveryofRs.4lakhsfromthehouse ofapproverKiranPujari(Exh.627&Exh.627A),seizureofMaruti SwiftcarandMarutiZencar(Exh.508,Exh.615&Exh.628),search panchanama of approver Kiran Pujari, accused no.7 Jaya Chheda andaccusedno.8HiteshBhagat(Exh.786,788&Exh.789).
CALL DETAIL RECORD (CDR) & SUBSCRIBER DETAIL RECORD(SDR) 162. Itisthecaseoftheprosecutionthataccusedhatchedthe
conspiracyforcommittingthecrimeforwhichtheyusedthemobiles intheirpossession,evenofthemobilesaresubscribedbyothers.The list of the name of the accused/witness as well as their mobile numbers and its subscriber with International Mobile Equipment Identification(IMEI)numberisgivenasunder:
...139/
Sr. No.
Nameof MobileNo. CDR SDR IMEINo. (as Nameof the (Exh.) (Exh.) mentionedinthe Subscriber panchanamas&/or accused/ asfoundonthe witness handsets) whoused the mobile A.No.1 Pravin Shetty 9967736462 Ex.694 X64 Self
Art. No.
1.
2.
Approver 9324260303 Ex.625 X44/ Ajimuddin Ex.429 Shaikh
V.D.Pawar (PW10) Kiran Amle Art.11 (A.no.5) Art.06
3.
A.no.3 9867547490 Ex.648 Ex.646 35532014381472 Harish & Mandvikar Ex.700 A.No.3 9833507523 Ex.690 Harish Mandvikar X63
352936023018566 Self
4.
A.No.4 Suhas Roge
9222003157 Ex.653
X45 X58 X59 X60 X49/ X51
ESNof13BB68 Moh.Kashif Art.13 (P.W.11) 352936023911810 R.R.Sawant (P.W.12) 353660010118408 N.N.Roge Art.08 358997011074171 P. H. Patil Art.30 (PW21) Self (used Art.11 byA.no.3) Self
9920960871 Ex.685 9930159144 Ex.687 5. Approver 9870557511 Ex.635 Kiran Pujari A.no.5 Kiran Amle A.no.7 Jaya Chheda
6.
9867547490 Ex.648 Ex.646 35532014381472 & Ex.700 9833418884 Ex.689 X62
7.
...140/
Sr. No.
Nameof MobileNo. CDR SDR IMEINo. (as Nameof the (Exh.) (Exh.) mentionedinthe Subscriber panchanamas&/or accused/ asfoundonthe witness handsets) whoused the mobile A.no.8 Hitesh Bhagat 9920155555 352913029438973 Self
Art. No.
8.
9.
P.W.02 9892222379 Ex.647 Ex.645 Adv.S.S. Shirsat P.W.77 9833110177 Anthony Dravid Ex.688 Ex.757/ Ex.758/ X61
Self
10.
Self
163.
At the time of the arguments, learned Spl.P.P. Ms.
Kalpana Chavan submitted the chart along with application (Exh.850),showingthenamesoftheaccused,mobilenumberwhich they used, in whose name mobile number stands and the witness examinedaswellastheirdetailsofcontactsi.e.onthebasisofcall detailrecordbetweenthem.
164.
P.W.10VinayakD.Pawarstatedthatthoughtheprepaid
applicationform(X44/Exh.429)hashissignature,hisPANcardand electricitybillisthere,heisnotusingmobileno.9324260303.P.W.62 approverAjimuddinShaikhdeposedthathepurchasedthemobilein ...141/
localmarketandusingthesame.ByexaminingP.W.55NodalOfficer R.S.Gaikwad,prosecutionprovedtheletterissuedbyI.O.(Exh.624) anditscalldetails(Exh.625).Thoughcalldetailrecorddoesnotbear the certificate in the prescribed form u/s.65(B) of Evidence Act, prosecution examined P.W.55 R.S. Gaikwad, Nodal Officer of RelianceMobileandprovedthecalldetailrecord.
165.
IthascomeintheevidenceofP.W.11Mohd.KashifAbdul
Majid that subscriber detail record (X45) and xerox copy of his licensedoesnotbearshissignature.HeadmittedthatArticle2ishis originaldrivinglicense.HeadmittedthathewasrunningSTDbooth andusedtosaleSIMcards.Thoughhedeniedthesignatureonbare comparisonofsignatureonArticle2drivinglicenseandsignatureon hissubscriberdetailrecord(X45andX58)arefoundcloselysimilar. By examining P.W.61 Darshansingh Randhawa, prosecution has broughtonrecordxeroxcopyofhissubscriberdetailrecord(X58). TheletterissuedbyP.W.61inrespectofhissubscriberdetailrecord is at Exh.652. Senior Executive of TATA Communication issued a certificateinrespectofthesaidtelephoneno.9222003157standingin thenameofP.W.11Mohd.Kashif.Itwasfoundinthepossessionof SuhasRoge.Itisestablishedthataccusedno.4SuhasRogeusedthe
...142/
mobile no. 9222003157, though it is in the name of P.W.11 Mohd. Kashif.
166.
It has come in the evidence of P.W.19 Amit Pandurang
Patil that Kiran Pujari is his childhood friend. P.W.21 Pandurang PatilisfatherofP.W.19AmitPatil.Copyoftheletterissuedbythe AdditionalCommissionerofPoliceinrespectofsubscribercallrecord and call detail record of mobile no.9870557511 is at Exh.633. SubscriberdetailrecordofP.W.21PandurangPatilareatX51andX 49 colly. The reply letter issued by the Nodal Officer P.W.57 SudhakarMusaleisatExh.634andcalldetailrecordareatExh.635. P.W.19 Amit Patil and P.W.21 Pandurang Patil as well as P.W.05 approver Kiran Pujari admitted that approver Kiran Pujari was using the mobile bearing no.9870557511 which is in the name of Pandurang Patil. Thereby, prosecution succeeded to prove the correspondence between the investigating officer and the Telecommunicationcompanyaswellassubscriberdetailrecordand calldetailrecordofmobileno.9870557511.
167.
IthascomeintheevidenceofP.W.26DeepakDevrukar
that he knows accused Suhas Roge and he is using the mobile bearingno.9930159144.Calldetailrecordof9930159144arealsoat
...143/
Exh.687 and the same has been proved by P.W.63 Nodal Officer VikasPhulkarofMaxTouch/Vodafone.Thereby,ithascomeonthe recordthataccusedSuhasRogewasusingthesaidphonebearingno. 9930159144. The prosecution also relied on the original form of subscriberdetailrecordofthesaidphonei.e.9930159144.Itisinthe nameofNarendraN.Roge.TheresidentialaddressofNarendraRoge andtheresidentialaddressoftheaccusedSuhasRogearethesame. ByexaminingP.W.26DeepakDevrukar,ithasbroughtonrecordthat thoughmobileno.9930159144wasinthenameofNarendraRoge, accusedSuhasRogewasusingthesame.
168.
IthascomeintheevidenceofP.W.12RakeshSawantthat
heknowsaccusedSuhasRoge.Beforeabout4years,theymetinthe AshramofGagangiriMaharaj.Sometimes,hewasworkingwithhim asadriver.Hedidnotsupporttheprosecution,therefore,learned Spl.P.P. cross examined him. During his cross examination, he admitted that original prepaid application form (X59) bears his photograph.Butitdidnotbearshissignature.Exh.687isinrespect ofthemobileno.9920960871whichisinpossessionoftheaccused SuhasRoge.PortionmarkedAandBofhisstatementhasbeenduly proved by P.W.78 I.O. PI V.K. More. They are at Exh.771 and
...144/
Exh.772.Thereby,thoughhedidnotsupporttheprosecution,ithas been duly proved by the investigating officer that mobile no. 9920960871purchasedinthenameofRakeshSawantandthesame wasusedbyaccusedSuhasRoge.
169.
By examining P.W.63 Nodal Officer Vikas Phulkar,
prosecutionprovedcopyoftheletterissuedbytheSuperintendentof Police, Raigad (Exh.682), copy of the letter issued by Additional Commissionerof Policeregardingcalldetailrecordandsubscriber detailrecord(Exh.683&Exh.684).Healsofiledthecalldetailrecord of mobile no.9920960871 which is at Exh.685 and its subscriber detailrecord(X59)andcellIdatExh.686.Hefiledsubscriberdetail record of mobile no.9930159144which isin thenameof Narendra Roge (X60). He filed its call detail record (Exh.687). Mobile no. 9833110177pertainstoP.W.77AnthonyRajNannyaDravidandits subscriberdetailrecordisatX61(Exh.757).Itscalldetailrecordis atExh.688.HealsonarratedthecellIdpertainstoBorivali,Andheri andPanvel.
170.
Ithasfurthercomeinhisevidencethatmobilebearing
no.9833418884belongstoaccusedJayaChhedaandthexeroxcopy ofthesubscriberdetailrecord(X62).Hefiledthecalldetailrecordof
...145/
mobile no. 9833418884 (Exh.689 colly.). In her statement u/s. 313 Cr.P.C.,accusedno.7JayaChhedaadmittedhermobilenumber.
171.
It has further come in the evidence of P.W.63 Nodal
OfficerVikasPhulkarthatprepaidapplicationform(X61)isinthe nameofAnthonyRajNannyaDravidanditscalldetailrecordareat Exh.688. By examining P.W.77 Anthony Raj Nannya Dravid, prosecutionprovedthattheprepaidapplicationform(X61)bearshis signatureaswellashisphotographandthexeroxcopyofpassport (Exh.757and758).Thereby,prosecutionprovedthatattherelevant time, witness Antony Raj Nannya Dravid was using mobile no. 9833110177.Ithasbroughtonrecordthatonthedayoftheincident, mobile no. 9833110177 was in possession of Anthony Raj Nannya Dravid.Healsofiledthecellsiteaddress(Exh.706colly.).
172.
It has further come in the evidence of P.W.63 Nodal
OfficerVikasPhulkarthatprepaidapplicationformX63isinthe nameofHarishGaniga@HarishMandvikar.Healsofiledcalldetail recordofmobileno.9833507523atExh.690,whichwasusedbythe accusedno.3HarishMandvikar.ThoughP.W.63wascrossexamined in detail, his testimony has not been shattered in respect of the
...146/
subscriber detail record and call detail record of accused Harish Mandvikar.
173.
IthascomeintheevidenceofP.W.60NodalOfficerSunil
Tiwari that Additional Commissioner of Police issued a letter on 28/7/2008(Exh.643)andsoughtinformationinrespectofmobileno. 9892222379,9867736462and9867547490.Accordingly,herepliedthe letter(Exh.644)andissuedsubscriberdetailrecordof9892222379is of Adv. Somet Shirsat,9867736462is in thename of Mohd. Kasif andmobileno.9867547490isinthenameofaccusedKiranAmle.He also furnished the original subscriber detail record/mobile form of Adv.SometShirsat(Exh.645)andAirtelprepaidenrollmentformof accusedKiranAmle(Exh.646).HealsofiledcalldetailrecordofAdv. Somet Shirsat (Exh.647) and call detail record of mobile no. 9867547490 of accused Kiran Amle dated 13/6/2008 (Exh.648). He gavethelocationofcellIdofrespectivecalls.Heisunabletoreply whethertheofficecopyofthelettertheAdditionalCommissionerof Police(X57)hasbeenreceivedbytheirofficeornotandthesame hasbeenprovedbyP.W.70G.B.AneraowhichisatExh.720.Despite his detail cross examination, his testimony remained unshaken. Nothingadversehasbeenbroughtonrecordagainsttheevidence.
...147/
174.
It has come in the evidence of P.W.61 Darshansingh
Randhawa that he issued a letter to Additional Commissioner of Policeinrespectofsubscriberdetailrecordandcalldetailrecordof mobileno.9222003157(Exh.652),itscalldetailrecord(Exh.653)and its certificate (Exh.654) issued by Dattatray Sawant, Security Executive.Healsoadmittedthesubscriberdetailrecord(X58andX 45colly.).HealsofileditscellId(Exh.655)andthereby,heproved thesubscriberdetailrecordandcalldetailrecordinrespectofmobile no.9222003157.
175.
P.W.60 S.S. Tiwari and P.W.64 Yogesh Rajapurkar have
provedthecalldetailrecordofmobileno.9967735462anditscellId (X64/Exh.694). He also stated about the location of cell Id by his letter (Exh.695 colly.). Thereby, prosecution proved the call detail recordaswellascellIdanditslocationofmobileno.9967735462 whichwasinthepossessionofaccusedno.1PravinShetty.
176.
P.W.60SunilSuhaschandraTiwari,P.W.61Darshansingh
Randhawa,P.W.63VikasNarayanPhulkarandNodalOfficerP.W.66 Chetan Srirang More have proved call detail record (Exh.700) of mobileno.9867547490(whichisinthenameofaccusedKiranAmle), cellIdrecord(Exh.701),calldetailrecordofmobileno.9967736462
...148/
(Exh.702)anditscellId(Exh.703),cellsitelist(Exh.706)alongwith its certificate (Exh.699) which is required u/s. 65 (B) of Indian EvidenceAct.
177.
Thereby, by examining Nodal Officers P.W.55, P.W.57,
P.W.60.P.W.61,P.W.63,P.W.64andP.W.66,prosecutionhasproved thesubscriberdetailrecordandcalldetailrecord,locationofcellId oftherespectivephonesatthetimeofincidentandthereby,proved thecommunicationbetweentheaccusedthroughthesemobilesfrom timetotime.
178.
Upon perusalof calldetailrecordofP.W.02Adv.Somet
Shirsat(Exh.647),itisrevealedthaton14/5/2008,daypriortothe date of hearing (earlier date) in Alibaug Court, P.W.02 Advocate Somet Shirsat sent two SMS to mobile no. 9920155555 which is belongstoaccusedHiteshBhagat.Whereason13/6/2008,atabout 12:24and12:31:15hrs.,hereceivedtwocallsfromSuhasRogebyhis mobilebearingno.9222003157.Atthesametime,calldetailrecord (Exh.653)pertainingtomobileno.9222003157showsthathemade twocallstomobileno.9892222379whichbelongstoAdvocateSomet Shirsat.Thereby,boththesedocumentscorroboratethetestimonyof P.W.02 Advocate Somet Shirsat that on the day of the incident,
...149/
accused Suhas Roge made inquiry regarding the presence of the accusedinAlibaugCourt.
179.
ItisadmittedbyP.W.62approverAjimuddinShaikhthat
mobilebearingno.9324260303washismobile.Themobileofaccused KiranAmlebearingno.9867547490waswithHarishMandvikar.On 12/6/2008, he received phone call on his mobile at 14:01:28 hrs. Thereafter,healsoreceivedthecallsat12:23:27hrs.,12:25:14hrs., 12:26:51 hrs. and 13:25:49 hrs.. Thereafter, approver Ajimuddin Shaikhmadethecallonhisphoneat16:42:28hrs.and17:05:58hrs.. While comparing these calls with call detail record (Exh.648) of mobileofaccusedKiranAmlebearingno.9867547490,itisrevealed thaton13/6/2008,atabout12:20:42hrs.,1:19:41hrs.,4:36:19hrs., 4:59:46hrs.,thereweretwooutgoingsandtwoincomingscallsonhis mobile. On the same day, accused Harish Mandvikar was in continuouscontactwithaccusedPravinShettybymakingthecallsat 8:33:06 a.m., 10:01:19 a.m., 10:39:53 a.m., 10:51:55 a.m., 10:45:33 a.m., 10:14:53 a.m., 10:00:10 a.m., 10:32:11 a.m., 10:33:45 a.m., 10:53:54 a.m., 11:02:35 a.m., 12:56:23, 12:58:42, 11:20:58, 11:29:47, 11:43:15, 11:58:01, 12:08:04, 12:21:55, 12:35:57 p.m., 01:02:51 p.m., 01:01:43p.m.,01:04:14p.m.and01:12:32p.m..Itisalsorevealedthat atthesametime,hewasalsoincontactwithAnthonyRajNanya
...150/
Dravidonhismobileno.9833110177.ThisshowsthataccusedHarish MandvikarandKiranAmlewereinconstanttouchwithAjimuddin Shaikh,PravinShettyaswellaswithAnthonyRajNanyaDravid. Thecalldetailrecord(Exh.690)ofmobileno.9833507523ofHarish Mandvikar shows that he received phone call from accused Suhas Rogeonhismobileno.9920960871,on11/6/2008,at22:04:48hrs.as wellason13/6/2008at10:18:49hrs.and15:52:26hrs.
180.
Uponperusalofcalldetailrecord(Exh.688)ofmobileno.
9833110177 of Anthony Raj Nanya Dravid, it is revealed that he receivedaswellasmadecalltoHarishMandvikaronhismobileas well as the mobile of Kiran Amle (mobile phone no. 9867547490) between 8:21:21 hrs., 9:27:22 hrs., 10:31:23 hrs., 10:56:33 hrs., 10:48:53hrs.,11:26:30hrs.,11:38:30hrs.,13:56:37hrs.,14:50:58hrs., 14:54:57 hrs., 15:06:14 hrs., 15:10:41 hrs., 15:15:51 hrs., 15:58:19 hrs.,16:07:19hrs.,16:53:60hrs.,16:55:48hrs.,18:57:51hrs.,21:04:49 hrs.,21:10:47hrs.,22:20:10hrs..Thisshowsthatonthedayofthe incident, accused Harish Mandvikar was also in contact with AnthonyRajNanyaDravid.
...151/
181.
OnperusalofcalldetailrecordofaccusedJayaChhedaof
mobile no. 9833418884, it appears that on 12/6/2008, she received oneincomingcallat15:24:26hrs.andshecalledtheAdvocateSomet Shirsatonhismobileat19:34:37hrs.,Itisrevealedfromthecall detailrecord (Exh.689)thatshemadecontactwithaccusedSuhas Rogeonhismobileno.9930159144at1:59:03hrs.and3:00:22hrs..
182.
Uponperusalofcalldetailrecordofmobileno.9930159144
(Exh.687) (which was with Suhas Roge), it is revealed that on 15/5/2008,at21:18:57hrs.,hereceivedthephonefromKiranPujari aswellason13/6/2008,hemadephonecalltoapproverKiranPujari on his mobile no.9870557511, at 13:52:54 hrs. & 13:56:32 hrs, 17:23:29 hrs., 17:39:13 hrs. 17:46:06 hrs.& 20:06:04 hrs..While comparing the same with call detail record (Exh.635) of mobile no.9870557511,it is also found that Kiran Pujari made call on 15/5/2008,at 21:19:03 hrs.as well as on 13/06/2008,he received call fromSuhasRogeat13:52:48hrs.,13:56:26hrs.,17:23:24hrs.,17:39:08 hrs.,17:46:02hrs.&19:02:16hrs..Thereby,itisbroughtonrecord thataccusedSuhasRogecontactedwithKiranPujarion15/5/2008as wellason13/6/2008fromtimetotime.
...152/
183.
Thecalldetailrecord(Exh.694)pertainingtomobileno.
9967736462 of Pravin Shetty shows that on 13/6/2008, he was receiving the calls from mobile no. 9867547490 (which belongs to Kiran Amle), between 8:33:06 a.m., 10:01:19 a.m., 10:39:53 a.m., 10:45:33 a.m., 10:51:55 a.m., 10:53:54 a.m., 11:25:16 a.m., 11:47:32 a.m., 12:12:21 p.m., 10:00:10 p.m., 10:31:30 p.m., 10:32:11 p.m., 10:33:45p.m., 11:02:35p.m.,11:14:53p.m.,12:02:18p.m.,12:26:12 p.m..Thereafter,at1:00:40p.m.,1:2:58p.m.,1:6:00p.m.,12:40:14 p.m., 01:07:08 p.m., 01:08:41 p.m., 01:16:49 p.m.. This shows that since morning 8.33 a.m., accused Pravin Shetty was receiving instructionsfromHarishMandvikarfromtimetotimeatdifferent places.
184.
Itisrevealedfromcalldetailrecord(Exh.700)ofmobile
bearing no. 9867547490 that on 13/6/2008, he was in contact with 9833110177ofAnthonyRajNanyaDravidat11:20:13hrs.,01:50:21 p.m., 02:59:58 p.m., 04:46:51 p.m., 04:47:48 p.m., 04:49:32 p.m., 11:32:14a.m.,02:44:41p.m.and02:48:39p.m..Atthesametime,he is also in contact with Ajimuddin Shaikh on his mobile no. 9324260303 at 12:20:42 p.m., 01:49:41 p.m., 04:3619 p.m. and 04:59:46p.m...Atthesametime,healsocontactedwithmobileof
...153/
accused Pravin Shetty bearing no. 9967736462 between 12:56:23 p.m., 12:58:42 p.m., 11:29:47 a.m., 11:43:15 a.m., 11:58:01 a.m., 11:08:04 p.m., 12:21:55 p.m, 12:35:57 p.m, 01:02:51 p.m., 01:01:51 p.m., 01:12:32 p.m. and thereafter, there was no contact between mobileno.9867547490and9967736462.Thiscircumstancesupports the prosecution case that after the incident, there was no contact between mobile of Pravin Shetty and mobile of Kiran Amle which wasinpossessionofHarishMandvikar.Possibilityoflossorfalling downhismobileimmediatelyaftertheincidentcannotberuledout.
185.
Itisthecaseoftheprosecutionthatimmediatelyafterthe
incident,therewasnocontactbetweenthemobileofPravinShetty bearingno.9967736462,afternearabout1:12:30p.m..Thereafter, accusedPravinShettyranawayfromthespotandwenttotheHotel Sai Kutir. Call detail record (Exh.700) shows that at about 5:5:14 p.m.,hecalledonthelandlineno.2143320558P.C.O.ofHotel'Sai Kutir'.IthascomeintheevidenceofP.W.24DaulatBadeandP.W.25 Nitinthatonecallhasbeenreceivedtothepersonwhocoveredhis facebybandage/handkerchiefandtheyhandedoverthereceiverto accused no.1 Pravin Shetty. Thereby, the testimony of P.W.24 and P.W.25supportedbycalldetailrecord(Exh.700).Insuchsituation,it
...154/
isobviousonrecordthatattherelevanttime,i.e.05.05p.m.,accused PravinShettyreachedHotelSaiKutir,WadkhalNaka.
186.
The CDR (Exh.700) also shows cell Id of different
incoming & outgoing calls. By examining P.W.66 Chetan More, prosecutionhasfiledthecellIddetailsonrecordandcellId.address (Exh.701)aswellascalldetailrecordofmobileno.9967736462of accused no.1 (Exh.702) which were issued by Bharti Airtel, Pune, which bears incoming calls from 9867547490, between 12:58:41 to 1:12:31 p.m. in which it is mentioned that mobile no. 9967736462 whoselocationat1:12:31p.m.wasgateno.36/2A,A/PatPostWave Wadkhal,TalukaPen,DistrictRaigad.Thisclearlyshowsthatatthe timeoftheincident,accusedno.1wasdrivingthesaidvehiclewithin the cell Id of Wave Wadkhal,Taluka Pen,District Raigad. The call detail record (Exh.700&Exh.702) andcellIdaddress(Exh.701& Exh.703)areissuedalongwithcertificate(Exh.699).
187.
It is also revealed from the record that mobile no.
9867547490belongstoaccusedKiranAmle.HemadecalltoPravin Shettyat1:12:32.Attherelevanttime,theircellIdwas50783.As
...155/
per Exh.701, cell Id address of 50783 is open plot of Mr. Gopal Mhatre,Surveyno.36,Raigad.Itistobenotedherethatallthese cell Id are of different companies as they are having different numbers.Ithascomeintheevidencethatonthedayoftheincident, accusedHarishMandvikartookSwiftcarofbearingno.MH02AP 4563 of J.M. Nadar and Kiran Amle was driving the same. This shows that by using the mobile of Kiran Amle, accused Harish MandvikarwasgivinginstructionstoaccusedPravinShetty.Thecell Idofmobileno.9867547490whichisbelongstoKiranAmlebetween 11:20:58 a.m. to 1:12:32 p.m. shows that they were chasing the vehicleScorpioofSureshBhagatfromAlibaugandreachednearthe spotandallalongweregivinginstructionstoaccusedPravinShetty. Allthesecircumstancesclearlyestablishedthatattherelevanttime, accused Kiran Amle was accompanied with accused Harish Mandvikarandheisalsooneoftheconspirator.Theyweregiving instructionstoaccusedno.1PravinShetty.Allthepropositionsmade bytheprosecutionwhichclearlyinsupportoftheircase.
188.
(A)LearnedAdvocateShriAmitMundeforaccusedno.5
placedrelianceon: ThecopyofCriminalAppealNo.932of2012 TheStateofMaharashtrav/s.PaulsonJosephPatitra
...156/
Thiscriminalappealisarisesonthebasisoftheorderof grantofbailbytheSpecialCourtunderMCOCActinwhichithas beenheldthatbyusingthesaidSIMcouldonlybyincidentalandthe samewasnotseemtobereasonable.Suchfindingsarepassedwhile consideringthevalidityofthebailandnotonthefinaldecisionofthe case.Therefore,theprinciplelaiddownintheabovecitedrulingis nothelpfultotheaccusedatthisstage,asthefactsaredifferent. (B) Learned Advocate Shri S.R. Pasbola, as well as Ld. Spl.P.P.Ms.KalpanaChavanplacedrelianceon: (i) State(NCTOFDELHI)V/s.NavjotSandhuAliasAfsan
Guru, 2005 SCC (Cri) 1715, = 2005 AIR SCW 4148, in respect of admissibility and accuracy of telephonic record as well as on the pointofconspiracy.Inwhichithasbeenheldthat: (I) Whenmenenterintoanagreementforanunlawful
end, they become adhoc agents for one another and have made a partnershipincrime. Theveryagreement,concertorleagueisthe ingredientoftheoffence.Itisnotnecessarythatalltheconspirators mustknoweachandeverydetailoftheconspiracy. (II) Printouts taken from the computers/servers by mechanical process and certified by a responsible official of the serviceprovidingcompanycanbeledinevidencethroughawitness whocanidentifythesignaturesofthecertifyingofficerorotherwise ...157/
speakofthefactsbasedonhispersonalknowledge.Irrespectiveofthe compliance with the requirements of Section 65B, which is a provisiondealingwithadmissibilityofelectronicrecords,thereisno bartoadducingsecondaryevidenceundertheotherprovisionsofthe EvidenceAct. Ihavegonethroughtheprincipleslaiddownintheabove citedruling,inwhichithasbeenheldthatitisnotnecessarythatall theconspiratorsmustknoweachandeverydetailofconspiracy,as well as the evidentiary value of the call detail report and the subscriberdetailreport.Theprinciplelaiddownintheabovecited rulingisperfectlyapplicabletotheprosecutionthanthedefence.
189.
Iamalsoguidedbytheprinciplelaiddownin DeeptiAnil
Devasthali&anotherv/s.StateofMaharashtra,2009ALLMR(Cri) 3547, inwhichaccusedwerearrestedandconvictedonthebasisof otherevidenceaswellastheevidenceofcelldetailsofaparticularcell phone.ByexaminingtheofficeroftheTeleCommunicationcompany, particularsoftheincomingandoutgoingcallshasbeenprovedandit was held that they are preserved and printed electronically and thereby,possibilityofmanipulationofhumanbeingisoverruled. Theprinciplelaiddowninabovecitedrulingissquarely applicabletothecaseinhandsinceduringthetrialprosecutionhas ...158/
examined the Nodal Officers of the respective tele communication company as a witness and proved the subscriber detail record maintainedbythetelecommunicationcompanyaswellascalldetail reports and cell Id of the respective cell phones. Thereby, the evidencefiledonrecordbytheprosecutionhasbeendulyproved.
190.
Considering the evidence on record in respect of
subscriberdetailrecord,itisobviousthataccusedno.1PravinShetty neverdisputedhissubscriberapplicationform(X64).Accusedno.7 JayaChhedaadmittedinherstatementofaccusedu/s.313ofCodeof CriminalProcedurethatshewashavingmobileno.9833418884.Itis alsoadmittedthatatthetimeofarrestmobileno.9920155555was seized from the possession of the accused no.8 Hitesh Bhagat. Approver P.W.05 Kiran Pujari and P.W.62 Ajimuddin Shaikh admitted mobiles in their possession. Bharati Airtel and TATA Telecommunication issued the certificate u/s. 65(B) of Indian EvidenceAct.Thecalldetailrecordclearlyshowsthaton15/5/2008, 12/6/2008and13/6/2008,accusedwereincontactwitheachotheras wellaswithwitnessesbeforetheincidentandaftertheincident.The use ofmobilebytheaccusedatspecificcellIds.i.e.locationsalso showsthattheywerepresentonthespoti.e.atrespectivelocations, atdifferenttimings.
...159/
191.
ThecredibilityoftheCDRisinmyviewunquestionable
sincethereisinbuiltguarantyofthesamebeingcorrectunlessthe system itself is tampered which is not any one's case herein. The entries in CDR are system generated. Plantation of questioned entriesthereinisordinarilynotpossibleunlessmanipulationisdone attimesandrelevantentriesfromtimetotime.Itisnoone'scase that relevant entries are manipulated and planted earlier and subsequententriesinCDR.Samedifferenceisinisolatedcaseinthe timingsinCDRcouldbeduetotimelagwhichsometimesrequirefor theestablishment of therecordinthesystem.AlltheseCDRand SDR as well as cell Id record completed the chain of evidence to corroborate the prosecution case. Thereby, prosecution has establishedtheconspiracyandtheguiltoftheaccused.
SOMEMORECIRCUMSTANCES&CONSPIRACY 192. Toshowtheconspiracybetweentheaccused,prosecution
hasexaminedP.W.13JosephJohnMadanlal,whorunsaSTDbooth sincelast10years.Ithascomeinhisevidencethatheknowaccused HarishMandvikarsinceyear2005ashehadsettledthedisputeof thecricket.HealsogavehimSRAprojectinwhichbuildergavehim amount of Rs.3 lakhs as an advance, out of which he paid half
...160/
amounttoHarishMandvikar.WhenHarishMandvikarwasarrested byPunepolice,heaccompaniedhisbrotherAshishMandvikarforhis releaseonbail.HealsoaccompaniedhisbrotherAshishMandvikar in the year 2000, when MPAD proceeding was initiated against accusedHarishMandvikar.On20/6/2008,hewascalledbyAlibaug police and recorded his statement. In the year 2008, he was also called by PI Mahale of Unit I and recorded his statement. On 14/8/2008,hewasforwardedtoMetropolitanMagistrate,23 rdCourt, Esplanadewherehisstatementwasrecorded.Thoughheadmitted hisrecording ofstatementsatthreetimes,hedidnotsupportthe prosecution. Thereupon, learned Spl.P.P. was permitted to cross examinehim.DuringhiscrossexaminationbylearnedSpl.P.P.,he denied the contents of portion marked A in his statement dated 12/7/2008thatinthemonthofJanuary2008,hereceivedRs.2lakhs fromBhaui.e.SuhasRogeandalsodeniedthecontentsofportion marked'A'and'B'inhisstatementdated20/6/2008thathemade phonecalltoBhau(SuhasRoge)onaccountofdemandofcashatthe instigation of Harish Mandvikar for his household expenses and thereby, he paid Rs.2 lakhs as well as portion marked 'B' that accused Suhas Roge paid Rs.2 lakhs as per his telephone when accusedHarishMandvikarwasarrestedinMPDAcase.Thoughhe didnotsupporttheprosecutioninhisfurthercrossexaminationby
...161/
learnedSpl.P.P.,headmittedthatafterrecordingofhisstatement beforeMagistratehesignedthesame.
193.
The prosecution has examined P.W.76 API R.D.
Waghchaure,whostatedthatthestatementofP.W.13JosephJohn MadanlalwasrecordedasperhissayandportionmarkedAandB (Exh.752 and Exh.753) are recorded as per his statement. The prosecutionalsoexaminedtheinvestigatingofficerP.W.79P.I.R.P. Mahale.HeadmittedthatwhilerecordingthestatementofP.W.13 JosephJohnMadanlal,hestatedthatinthemonthofJanuaryand February2008,hedemandedRs.2lakhseachfromBhaui.e.accused SuhasRogeandthereby,saidportionmarksareprovedbyP.W.79 investigating officer R.P. Mahale (Exh.790). Then learned MetropolitanMagistrateA.D.Kshirsagarrecordedthestatementof witnessP.W.13JosephJohnMadanlalu/s.164ofCr.P.C..Thoughit wasnotnecessarytoexamineMetropolitanMagistrateforrecording ofstatementu/s.164ofCodeofCriminalProcedure,prosecutionhas examinedhimasP.W.72A.D.Kshirsagar,whohasstatedthatthe statement was recorded as per the version given by the witness Joseph John Madanlal.ByexaminingP.W.72A.D.Kshirsagar,the then Metropolitan Magistrate has proved statement u/s. 164 of
...162/
Cr.P.C.dated14/8/2008(Exh.737).P.W.13JosephMadanlaladmitted his signature on Exh.737. During cross examination of P.W.72 MetropolitanMagistrateA.D.Kshirsagar,nothingadversehasbeen brought on record. Thereby, prosecution proved the testimony of P.W.13JosephJohnMadanlalinrespectofdemandofamountfrom time to time from accused Suhas Roge at the instance of accused HarishMandvikarandacceptanceofamountofRs.2lakhs.Learned Advocatefortheaccusedraisedtheobjectionthatprocedurefollowed bytheMetropolitanMagistratewhilerecordinghisstatementisalso improper. Therefore, his statement (Exh.737) cannot be read in evidence. P.W.13 Joseph John Madanlal admitted that during the inquiry,hewasforwardedtotheCourtofMetropolitanMagistrate, 23rdCourt,Mumbai.LearnedMetropolitanMagistrate,whorecorded statement as per his say and thereby, he put his signature on Exh.737.ItisclearthataccusedHarishMandvikarhasacceptedthe amountfromSuhasRogefromtimetotimefortheobviousreasons bestknowntohim.
194.
It is the testimony of P.W.08 Joseph Nadar that he is
running a business by name 'Freeze Point' at Borivali. He knew HarishMandvikarbecausehewasfriendofhiselderbrother,whois runningSTDboothnexttohisshop.HepurchasedMarutiZencar
...163/
bearingNo.MH04BS9412before4 years.Duringtheinquiry,he admittedthaton13/7/2008( sic13/6/2008)and15/5/2008,hehanded overhisMaruticartoaccusedHarishMandvikar.Thereby,police(PI Shengle) seized the same by panchanama dated 13/7/2008 which bearshissignature.ThesaidMarutiZencarhasbeenreturnedto himonabondofSupratnama.
195.
During his cross examination by learned Advocate Shri
Vilas Naik for accused no.3, his testimony remained unshaken. Thereby,itisclearthaton15/5/2008aswellason13/6/2008,accused HarishMandvikarusedhisMarutiZencarbearingno.MH04BS 9412andthattoo,whilecommissionofthecrime.
196.
IthascomeintheevidenceofP.W.09MaheshR.Yadav
thatheissalesmanagerofOmCarsatBorivali(West).Itisthe showroom of second hand carscumworkshop. Police made the inquirywithhimforthetransactionofSwiftcarbearingno.MH02 AP4563inthemonthofAugust2008.ItwassoldtoaccusedHarish Mandvikar for Rs.3,45,000/ outof whichhepaidsomeamountin cashandsomeamountbybearercheque.Atthetimeofhandingover the vehicle, signature of purchaser i.e. accused Harish Mandvikar wasobtainedbyhim.TheoriginalR.C.book,copyoftheinsurance
...164/
andthetransferform(Article1)areshowntohimandheidentified the same. He identified the accused Harish Mandvikar before the Court. Even after the purchase of car, the documents of the ownershiparestandsstillinthenameofpreviousowner.
197.
It has further come in the evidence of P.W.09 Mahesh
Yadav that one Jatin C. Modi was the owner of the car bearing no.MH02AP4563.R.C.book,insurancecovernoteandthetransfer formarefiledonrecordasArticle1.Theformsbearsthesignatureof registered owner. The delivery challan shows that motor vehicle bearing no.MH04AP4563 was purchased by one Malai Parekh. Another delivery challan is also in the name of Harish Ganiga, residentofBorasaPada,Poisar.ItalsobearsthesignatureofHarish. In his cross examination by Advocate Vilas Naik, he stated that accused Harish Mandvikar is social worker, working in Kandivali. Despite of cross examination by the Advocate for the accused, testimony ofP.W.09 M.R.Yadavremainedunchallenge.Thus,itis provedthataccusedHarishMandvikarpurchasedsecondhandcarof one Modi through 'M/s. Om Cars'. Upon perusal of signature of accusedHarishMandvikarwithhisprepaidapplicationform(X63), Ifoundthathissignaturetallieswithprepaidapplicationform(X
...165/
63).Thereby,thetestimonyofP.W.09MaheshYadavcorroboratesthe prosecutioncase.
198.
Itistobenotedthatthesaidsecondhandcarwasfound
inpossessionofaccusedKiranAmle,atthetimeofhisarrest.Itbe also noted that prior and after the incident, accused Harish MandvikarpaidthevalueofcartoM/s.OmCarsincash.Accused HarishMandvikarismerelyelectriciananddoesnothavesourceof incometohaveabigamountinexcessofRs.3,45,000/.Therefore,it can be inferred that the amount which has been received while hatchingtheconspiracyhasbeenutilizedforthepurchaseofsaidcar. All these circumstances clearly shows the participation of accused HarishMandvikaraswellasaccusedKiranAmleinthecrime.
199.
ThewitnessP.W.18SunilZiluJanglehasbeenexamined
bytheprosecutionisthecableoperatorofKandivali,Poisar.Ithas comeinhisevidencethatheisknowingaccusedHarishMandvikar sincelast15to16yearsasheisresidinginhisareai.e.IndiraNagar. Hismobilenumbersare9892958046and9892252346.Healsoknows AnandTailorandKiranAmlebecausetheyarehavingtailoringshop andcablebusiness.AccusedPravinShettyisresidingintheirareain rentedhouse.On13/6/2008,whenhewasinthehouse,AnandTailor
...166/
cametohim,atabout4.30to5.00p.m.andtoldthataccusedno.1 met with an accident. He told him to give message to Ganya @ Macchion phone. Therefore,hetriedtocontacthim.Headmitted thataccusedHarishMandvikarandhehimself,areaccusedinthe caseofbeatingwhichisregisteredatKandivalipolicestation.Hedid notsupporttheprosecution,therefore,learnedSpl.P.P.permittedto crossexaminehim.DuringhiscrossexaminationbylearnedSpl.P.P., hedeniedthephonecalltoManojastherewasmessagetoaccused PravinShettytomakephonecalltoaccusedHarishMandvikar.He alsodeniedthatManojtoldhimthataccusedKiranAmlemighthave accompaniedHarishMandvikarandtherefore,theycalledhimand hemadephonecallonhisAirtelhandsetanditwastakenbyHarish. Though,hedidnotsupporttheprosecution,histestimonyinrespect of knowing the accused Harish Mandvikar, Anand Tailor, accused PravinShettyandKiranAmleissupportingthefactthattheyallare residingwithinthesamevicinityandtheyareknowingeachother.It has come in his evidence that on the day of the incident, Anand TailorcametohishouseandinformedthataccusedPravinShetty met with an accident and he tried to approach accused Harish MandvikaraswellasGanya(P.W.67)aswellasonthedayofthe incidence,KiranAmleaccompaniedwithaccusedHarishMandvikar.
...167/
200.
P.W.67GaneshRanedeposedthatsincehischildhoodhe
is residing in Kandivali (West). He is having mobile bearing no.9167759111. He is also knowing accused Harish Mandvikar, AshishMandvikar,accusedPravinShettyandKiranAmleasthey arethemembersofDahiHandiMandal.Tobreakdahihandi,they used to proceed by bus, bike and truck. But he did not know the ownerofthetruck.HeknowsRajNanya,whoisalsothememberof DahiHandiMandal.On13/6/2008,hewasinthehouse.Hecameto knowthatthetruckmetwithanaccident.Hedidnotsupportthe prosecution, therefore, learned Spl.P.P. sought permission to cross examinehim.Duringhiscrossexamination,hedeniedthatonthe dayoftheincident,whenhewenttothehouseofaccusedHarish Mandvikar,hedirectedhimtoreachtheaccusedPravinShettyon the motorcycle of accused Kiran Amle to the house of accused Ajimuddin Shaikh. It did not happen that at about 2.00 p.m., he receivedphonecallofRajNannyaandrequestedhimtowaitinthe Hotel.HealsorefusedwhenRajNanyacamethere.Hewashaving onebagandinformedthatbagcontainedRs.10lakhsanditistobe given to the accused Ajimuddin Shaikh and it has been given to accused Harish Mandvikar and the same has been refused by AjimuddinShaikhonthegroundthatinsteadofone,sevenpeople werekilled.HealsodeniedthethenmeetingwithaccusedHarish
...168/
MandvikaratthehouseofKiranAmleandhekepttheamountathis house.HefurtherdeniedthataccusedHarishMandvikaraskedhim togonearHotelMcDonaldandheacceptedthebundlesfromone GotyaattheinstigationofaccusedSuhasRoge.Hedeniedportion marked A and B of his statement which are duly proved by investigatingofficerP.W.79P.I.Mahale.Though,hedidnotsupport theprosecutioncaseregardingthecircumstances,thedateofoffence i.e. 13/6/2008 as well as knowing of accused Kiran Amle, Harish Mandvikarhascomeonrecordbytheprosecution. Itisthesettled principle of law that even if the witness did not support the prosecution and supports some part of the contents, thereby, his testimony should not be totally discarded. The portion of his testimony found reliable is in respect of the circumstance of the incidentonthedayoftheincidentaswellasthemessagegivenby theaccusedPravinShettythroughAnandTailorandaccusedKiran AmlewaswiththeaccusedHarishMandvikar.
201.
P.W.77 Anthony Raj Nannya Dravid, resident of Poisar,
Kandivali,Mumbai,statedthatheisresidingatBorsaPadasince last 20 years. He knows the accused Harish Mandvikar because HarishMandvikaristhememberofDahiHandiClubandtheyused to play cricket. In theyear2007,theywenttoPune with accused
...169/
HarishMandvikar,ManojGaikwadandGaneshRanetoattendthe birthdayoftheirfriendandattherelevanttime,quarreltookplace overduetodashingthevehicle.Onthatcount,offencewasregistered against them. He admitted that on 9/6/2008, accused Harish Mandvikarmethim.Hismobilenumberis9833110177.Onthatday, no amount has been given by Harish Mandvikar for keeping. On 13/6/2008, he had not received a phone call over his mobile from anybody.HenevergonetothehouseofAjimuddinShaikhalongwith Ganesh Rane. He also denied that on 14/7/2008, accused Harish Mandvikarhadcometohishouse.Healsodeniedthatheknowsthe accused Pravin Shetty. He did not support the prosecution and therefore,learnedSpl.P.P.waspermittedtocrossexaminehim.
202.
In his cross examination by learned Spl.P.P., P.W.77
AnthonyRajNannyaDravidadmittedthatSr.P.I.Mahalecalledhim in the office of DCBCID, in connection with this case and made inquiry with him. But he did not know whether he recorded the statement. He denied handing over of Rs.10 lakhs by Harish Mandvikar@Ganigaandthesamewaskeptinthecupboardinhis house.Healsodeniedthaton13/6/2008,atabout2.30p.m.,whenhe waspresentatSatyanagar,Chikuwadi,Borivali(W),hereceivedthe callofKiranAmleoverhismobilebearingNo.9833110177andatthat
...170/
time,accusedHarishMandvikarinstructedhimtogivetheamount of Rs.10 lakhs to Ajimuddin Shaikh. He also denied that he is knowingAjimuddinShaikhbecausetheywereusinghistruckatthe timeofDahiHandifor2/3occasionsandhemethimatthetimeof Eid Festival of January 2007 as well as went to his house for condolenceonaccountofdeathofhissisterinlaw.Healsodenied thatonthedayoftheincident,atabout3.00p.m.,heandGanesh wenttothehouseofAjimuddinShaikhtohandovertheamountof Rs.10lakhsasinstructedbytheaccusedHarishMandvikar,buthe wasnotpresent.Therefore,theywaitedandlateron,theyofferedthe amountwhichwasgivenbyHarishMandvikar.
203.
DuringcrossexaminationofP.W.77AnthonyRajNannya
Dravid,seizurepanchanama(Exh.493)dated14/7/2008wasshownto P.W.77 Anthony Raj Nanya Dravid to which he identified his signature on the panchanama. The witness replied that police obtainedhissignatureonablankpaper.Exh.493isapanchanama u/s. 27 of the Evidence Act has been drawn by the investigating officerattheinstanceofaccusedHarishMandvikarinwhichitis mentioned that during inquiry i.e. on 14/7/2008, accused made voluntarystatementandlaidthematthehouseofwitnessRajNanya andaccordingly,amountwasseizedfromhishouse.Afterdrawing
...171/
the panchanama, police obtained his signature on the recovery panchanama (Exh.493). Though P.W.77 refused his signature on Exh.493, it cannot be said that it has been obtained by the investigatingofficeronablankpaper.Whenhisevidencehasbeen read with the evidence of investigating officer P.W.56 PI K.S. Shengle, his contention cannot be discarded. Thereby, prosecution proved the seizure panchanama of Rs. 8 lakhs from the house of P.W.77AnthonyRajNannyaDravidandthattoo,attheinstanceof accusedHarishMandivkar.
204.
In his further cross examination by Spl.P.P., P.W.77
Anthony Raj Nannya Dravid denied that he had taken accused Pravin Shetty to the hospital and he signed the medical paper (Exh.471). When his prepaid application form (Exh.757) and xerox copy of passport (Exh.758) was shown to him, he identified his signatures thereon. A bare perusal of signature on prepaid applicationform(Exh.757),xeroxcopyofthepassport(Exh.758)with signature on medical paper (Exh.471) and signature on recovery panchanama(Exh.493colly.),showsthattheytallywitheachother. Thereby, the denial by P.W.77 Anthony cannot be accepted. No plausible explanation has been given by the witness under which
...172/
circumstances he gave signature on blank paper i.e. seizure panchanama(Exh.493).
205.
It is also seen that signature of accused Harish
Mandvikar on memorandum panchanama as well as recovery panchanamaofamountofRs.8lakhs(Exh.493colly.)aresimilarto hissignatureonVakalatnama,pleaandthestatementofaccusedu/s. 313 of Cr.P.C.. In view of the above, it can be inferred that investigatingofficerseizedtheamountofRs.8lakhsattheinstance of accused Harish Mandvikar and the same was seized from the house of P.W. 77 Anthony Raj Nannya Dravid. During the investigation,investigatingofficerPIMahalerecordedthestatement of P.W.77 Anthony, on 14/7/2008. He admitted the first 34 paragraphsofhisstatementbutdeniedtherestoftheparagraphs, which are portions marked A to G. The prosecution proved the portionmarksthroughinvestigatingofficerPIMahale,whichareat Exh.791 to 797. Though P.W.77 Anthony Raj did not support the prosecutionhistestimonyisnotliabletobeentirelythrownaway.On thecontrarypartthereofisfoundtobecogentandreliable.
...173/
206.
IthascomeintheevidenceofP.W.39ArvindA.Modasia
(Exh.548)thatsincelast10years,heisresidinginBorsaPadaRoad, Kandivalianddoingthebusinessofmobileaccessories.Hisfatheris tailor since last 10 to 12 years and also running PCO. He knows accused Harish Mandvikar as he used to come to the shop of his father. In the month of January 2008, Poynad police came to his house and took him to Poynad police station. They took him, one Sunil, Balan and 23 others. The police threatened that they will implicate him in false case. Police told that he has to give the statement that some money was found with him and thereby, he signed some blank papers in the police station. He admitted his signatureonthememorandumpanchanama(Exh.760)andseizure panchanama of Rs.23.50 lakhs (Exh.761). He did not support the prosecution,therefore,Spl.P.P.crossexaminedhim.Duringhiscross examination by learned Spl.P.P. he admitted his mobile bearing no.9321331061,thatheusedtotalkwithaccusedHarishMandvikar buthedidnotrememberthemobilenumberofHarishMandvikar i.e.9867787230.Hedeniedthaton15/6/2008,atabout7.00to7.30 p.m., when he was standing near Ganesh Medical Store, accused Harish Mandvikar came to him and handed over one plastic bag containing the amount of Rs.23.50 lakhs and he handed over the sametohismothertokeepitinthecupboard.Healsodeniedthaton
...174/
20/6/2008, Harish Mandvikar along with police came to his house andthereby,hehandedoverthesaidbagcontainingRs.23.50lakhs fromthecupboardandthosenoteswereofdenominationofRs.500/ and Rs.1000/. He also denied the drawing of panchanama dated 20/6/2008aswellashisstatementtothateffect.
207.
ByexamininginvestigatingofficerP.W.78P.I.V.K.More,
prosecution proved the portion marked 'A' of recovery of Rs.23.50 lakhsfromthehouseofP.W.39ArvindModasia.Uponperusalofthe recovery panchanama (Exh.496N), P.W.39 Arvind admitted the same.Hedeniedthesignatureontherecoverypanchanamau/s.27of theIndianEvidenceAct.Itisthecaseoftheprosecutionthatwhen accusedHarishMandvikarwasinthecustody,hemadevoluntary statement on 19/6/2008, at about 22:25 hrs. and disclosed that amount of Rs.23.50 lakhs has been kept in the house of P.W.39 Arvindandheisreadytoproducethesaidbag.Accordingly,helaid themtothehouseofwitnessArvindModasiaandheproducedthe saidamountattheinstanceofaccusedHarishMandvikarandthe samewasseizedbythepolice.Itistobenotedherethatpanchas admittedtheirsignaturesonthepanchanama(Exh.760andExh.761) P.W.39ArvindModasiaalsoadmittedhissignatureonpanchanama. Therebyprosecutionhasprovedthispanchanamaofrecoveryu/s.27
...175/
ofEvidenceActthroughinvestigatingofficerV.K.More.Italsobears the signature of accused Harish Mandvikar on memorandum panchanamaaswellasontherecoverypanchanama.Hissignature issimilartotheoneonvakalatnama,statementofaccusedu/s.313 andplea.TheprosecutionprovedtheseizureofamountofRs.23.50 lakhs at the instance of accused Harish Mandvikar and that too, from the house of P.W.39 Arvind Modasia. P.W.39 is the friend of HarishMandvikarandtheyareresidinginthesamelocality.Call detailrecordclearlyshowsthatduringthatperiod,hemadecontact withaccusedHarishonhismobile.Though,hedidnotsupportthe prosecution,hiscompletetestimonycannotbethrownaway.P.W.39 never gave any plausible explanation as to how he made the signatureonExh.762i.e.seizurepanchanamaofRs.23.50lakhs.
EVIDENCEAGAINSTACCUSEDNO.8HITESHBHAGAT. 208. To substantiate the charge against the accused no.8
Hitesh Bhagat, prosecution has examined P.W.05 approver Kiran Pujari and his friendsP.W.03Ritesh PratapMehta,P.W.42Rahul Mehta and P.W.43 Adbulla Khan. It has come in the evidence of P.W.05 approver Kiran Pujari that accused Hitesh Bhagat, Suhas RogeandJayaChhedamethiminHotel'Taj'andpaidRs.1lakh.On thenextday,SuhasRogecalledhimatthehouseofaccusedJaya
...176/
Chheda for meeting. At the time of meeting, they told him that accusedHiteshBhagatwasattendingdancebarandSureshBhagat is also not looking the said mataka business. It has come in the evidence that on that count, there were variousmeetings between himandaccusedJayaChheda,SuhasRogeandHiteshBhagat.In thatrespect,SuhasRogealsomethiminhisAirolioffice.Theypaid Rs.1lakhaswellasthegiftsandcashfromtimetotimetoP.W.05 approverKiranPujari.TheyalsoconductedraidinVashiofficeas well as at the office at Lonawala of Suresh Bhagat. In his cross examination,headmittedthathewasalsohavingmeetingandtalks withaccusedHiteshBhagat.Hefurtheradmittedthathereceived Rs.1 lakh separately for providing the information regarding Lonawalaraid.InhiscrossexaminationbyAdvocateTaraqSayyed, he admitted that he did not feel that there was enmity between HiteshBhagatandhisfatherSureshBhagat.Thoughthesaidfactis admitted by the accused, his testimonyin respect of the meetings with the accused Suhas Roge, Jaya Chheda and Hitesh Bhagat remainsunshattered.
209.
By examining P.W.03 Ritesh Mehta, it is brought on
recordthattheyarethefriendssinceschooldays.Heaccompanied accusedHiteshBhagatfortouratHongkong,BangkokandDubaifor
...177/
3to4times.AlltheexpenseswerebornebyHiteshBhagat.Ithas comeontherecordthatthreedaysbefore11/6/2008,accusedHitesh Bhagat informed him that air tickets for airbus for Bangkok was booked. Accordingly, theywenttoBangkokbyflightatabout2.30 a.m. between 12/6/2008 and 13/6/2008 and reached Bangkok after 3 hrs. He produced original passport (Exh.366), which bears endorsementoftheirdeparture.Thereafter,theywenttoPatayaand stayedinHotel'PatayaSheretonResort'.
210.
Ithasfurthercomeinhisevidencethatonthedayofthe
incident,atabout8p.m.,HiteshBhagatreceivedthephone.Hesaw thattherewassomeserioustalk.Itwasthecallfromhismother.She informed him that his father met with an accident and died. Immediately,hecontactedwithNikitatoursandleftthehotelat4 a.m.andreachedMumbai,on14/6/2008,at10.30a.m..Ithasfurther come in his evidence that the room in Hotel 'Ramada Plaza' was bookedinhisname.HeresidedtherewithaccusedHiteshBhagat. HeidentifiedhisEmailaddress(Exh.367).Inhiscrossexamination, headmittedthatapartfromNikitaToursandTravels,hedidnot makeanycontactwithanothertravelagency.Hefurtheradmitted that his statement has been recorded by Metropolitan Magistrate. Histestimonyremainedunshaken.
...178/
211.
TheprosecutionalsoexaminedtravelagentP.W.04Nitin
Chavan,whoisrunningthebusinessbyname'NikitaTravels'.Ithas come in his evidence that in the year 2008, he used to book the ticketsthrough'RamkrishnaTravels'.Asperthetelephonicmessage of Ritesh Mehta and Rahul Mehta, hebooked tickets on behalf of HiteshBhagat.On12/6/2008,midnightand13/6/2008aswellason 14/06/2008, he made arrangement of air ticketsforHitesh Bhagat andRiteshMehtaforBangkok.Ithasfurthercomeinhisevidence that in addition to thataccused Hitesh BhagatbookedHotel 'ITC Grand',HyattRegency,HotelRenaissanceandSuninSand,Goa.He filedthecopiesofthebills(Exh.373colly.)onrecord.Duringhiscross examination,nothingadversehasbeenbroughtonrecord.
212.
IthascomeintheevidenceofP.W.42RahulMehtathathe
isafriendofaccusedHiteshBhagatandtherefore,hewasfamiliar with the family of Hitesh Bhagat. He was on foreign tours with accusedHiteshBhagatfornumberoftimes.Heattendedthefuneral ofdeceasedSureshBhagaton15/6/2008.Thereafter,hedidnotmeet him.BookingregisterofHotelHyattRegency(Exh.558)isshownto him and he admitted that it is the signature of his friend Hitesh Bhagat and used to visit foreign countries with him. He also
...179/
identified his Email Id (Exh.565). By examining P.W.42 Rahul Mehta,ithascomeontherecordthatroominHotelHyattRegency was booked in the name of Rahul Mehta whereas accused no.8 HiteshBhagatstayedthere.
213.
By examining P.W.43 Abdulla Amanulla Khan, it has
comeontherecordthatheisknowingaccusedHiteshBhagataswell asManishAdvilkar,becauseheispersonaltrainerofbodybuilding. Duringtheyear2008,threedaysafterthedeathofSureshBhagat, accused Hitesh Bhagatmadephonecalltohimandcalledhimat HotelITC,Parel.Oninquiry,hefoundthatroomwasbookedinthe nameofManishAdavilkar.Aftertwodays,whenhewenttoHotel HyattRegencyonthecallofHiteshBhagat,hecametoknowthat roomwasbookedinhisname.Againaftertwodays,hereceivedcall fromHotelJ.W.Marriottandcametoknowthatroomwasbookedin hisnamewithouthispermission.Lateron,accusedHiteshBhagat calledhimatHotelRamadaPlazaatJuhuandtheroomwasbooked in the name of Ritesh Mehta. Thereafter, he met accused Hitesh BhagatinHotelRamiGuestLineaswellasHotelSaharaStarat Domestic Airport. Accused Hitesh Bhagat told him that he is intendingtoengagelawyerforhimandhismotherfromDelhiand thereby,hemadecontacttoAdv.VikasPawathroughhim.Inthe
...180/
meantime,hepaidRs.70lakhsandRs.30lakhsthroughP.W.43to Adv.Pawa.Histestimonyremainedunshaken.
214.
IthascomeintheevidenceofP.W.38RajendraKamble
thatsincelast5years,hewasservingasaTeamLeaderofFinance Kuoni Travels Pvt. Ltd.. He identified the signature of Manager SanjaySharma(Exh.546&Exh.547),whicharethebillsinthename ofManishAdavilkarthroughNitinChavan.TheyarethebillsofITC GrandHotelaswellasTourClub.
215.
By examining P.W.40 Michael Remedious, prosecution
provedthebillsofHotelRamadaPlazafortheperiodfrom18/6/2008 to 20/6/2008 in the name of Ritesh Mehta (Exh.551 colly.). P.W.41 BhushanRane,AssistantManagerofHotelHyattRegency,admitted thedocumentsofguestregistrationcard(Exh.558A)whichbearsthe signatureofaccusedHiteshBhagatandthesignatureonExh.558A hasbeenidentifiedbyP.W.42RahulMehtathatHotelisbookedin hisname.P.W.44SatishVaidya,ITCGrand,filedxeroxcopiesofthe bills in the name of Manish Advilkar (Exh.573) which is booked throughTourClub.ByexaminingP.W.47TusharMali,thehotelbills ofHotelGrandHyatt(Exh.582colly.)arebroughtonrecord.
...181/
216.
IthascomeintheevidenceofP.W.58PreetamMahadik
thatintheyear2008,hewasworkingatSunnSandHotel,Goa.On 13/7/2008,theyhandedovertwomobiles,oneSIMcardand34rough papers and itinerary of Kingfisher Airline regarding travel from Mumbai to Goa. Same has been handed over to P.I. Nigade. Accordingly, panchanama (Exh.637) has been drawn. He also identifiedthedocumentsaswellasmobileandtheSIMcard(Article 16toArticle19).Inhiscrossexamination,headmittedthathewas in the police station for about 2 hrs.. Despite of his detail cross examination,histestimonyremainedunshaken.
217.
It has come in the evidence of P.W.65 Ajay Pal that on
8/7/2008, at about 10 a.m., when he joined the duty, one of his colleagueRaghuinstructedhimtokeepwatchonaguestinRoom no.403.ThoughtheroomwasbookedinthenameofRiteshShah, accusedHiteshBhagatwasresidingthere.Whenpolicetakenaway theguest,hecheckedtheroomandfoundtwomobilesandoneSIM cardand1011papersfromthetoiletcupboardandthesamewere seized.Healsoidentifiedthexeroxcopyoftheregister(Exh.697).
218.
IthascomeintheevidenceofP.W.14P.I.D.B.Joshithat
afterthereceiptoftheletterfrominvestigatingofficer,hefoundthat
...182/
accused Hitesh Bhagat had departed for Bangkok from Mumbai Airporton13/6/2008andarrivedon14/6/2008.Accordingly,hefiled embarkation form (Exh.441) as well as departure card (Exh.442) whichbearsthesignatureofaccusedHiteshBhagat.
219.
Thetestimonyoftheprosecutionwitnessesthataccused
no.8HiteshwasresidingwithhisfatherdeceasedSureshBhagatat Worli.Eventhough,hewashavingvisitingtermswithhismother.It isbutnaturalthatbeingamother,hevisitedherhouse.But,ithas comeontherecordthathewasnotonlyvisithismotherbutattended themeetingofaccusedSuhasRoge,JayaChhedaandKiranPujari. Being a member of conspiracy, as per the instructions of accused SuhasRogeandJayaChheda,hechoosestoremainabsentbefore Alibaug Court, on 15/5/2008 and 13/6/2008. It reveals from the exemption application (Exh.358) that it was sought on the ground that doctor had advised to take bed rest. Whereas as per the evidence,on13/6/2008,atabout2.30a.m.,hedepartedfromIndia and went to abroad. The testimony of P.W.04 N.P. Chavan clearly transpiresthataspertheinstructionofaccusedHiteshBhagat,he bookedairticketsthreedayspriortotheirdeparture.Theevidenceof P.W.04N.P.ChavanhasbeenfortifiedbyP.W.14PID.B.Joshi.Ithas comeinhisevidencethatatthetimeofdeparture,accusedHitesh
...183/
Bhagatfilleduptheembarkationform(Exh.442).Thesaidfactas wellasthetestimonyofP.W.14PID.B.Joshiremainedunchallenged. Thisshowsthatbeingapartoftheconspiracy,accusedno.8Hitesh BhagatleftIndiaandchoosestoremainabsentbeforecourtonfalse ground.Allthesecircumstancesshowsthestateofmindofaccused no.8 regarding preplanning. His association in the meetings with approverandotheraccusedsupportstheprosecutioncase.Hebooked theairticketsofBangkok3dayspriortodeparture.Thereafter,he went to Bangkok immediately to create impression that he was absentonthefatefulday.Thisshowsthathewashavingknowledge abouttheconspiracy.
220.
Ithasfurthercomeontherecordthatthereafter,accused
HiteshBhagatwasresidinginvariousHotelsandthattoo,inthe nameofRiteshShah,ManishAdavilkaraswellasinthenameof AbdullaKhan.ThetestimonyofP.W.42RahulMehtaisfoundtobe cogentandreliableinsupportoftheprosecutioncase.Theevidence filedonrecordisclearthatafterthedeathofSureshBhagat,accused HiteshBhagatstayedinthevariousHotelsinthenameofhisfriends byhidinghisidentity.Thiswouldnothavebeenthecasehadhenot conspiredmurderofSureshBhagatandwaspartytotheexecutionof theplan.IthasbroughtonrecordbyP.W.43AbdullaKhanthatheis
...184/
knowingaboutthepresentcaseandthereby,hetriedtocontactthe AdvocatePawa.Thereby,theevidenceisfoundtobeconsistentwith theprosecutioncase.Allthesecircumstancesshowshisassociation inthemeetingwiththeapprover.Thisshowsthathewasmemberof theconspiracyandtherebyafterthecremation/funeralofhisfather, accused no.8 hidden his identity and stayed in different Hotels in differentnamessupportthecircumstances.
221.
IthascomeintheevidenceofP.W.48APIMohd.Azam
YusufPatelthatherecordedthestatementofP.W.06M.M.Moreas per the direction of investigating officer PI Mahale. By examining P.W.50PSIS.T.Dhamankar,ithascomeonrecordthaton17/6/2008, hereceivedsecreteinformationthataccusedSuhasRogeandHarish MandvikararewonderinginSomanathChowkatDaman.Thereby, hereachedDamanwithstaffandarrestedbothofthembyarranging the trap. He took both of them u/s. 41(a) of Code of Criminal Procedure and brought them to the office of Unit III. Thereby,he preparedthearrestpanchanama(Exh.592).Atthetimeofarrest,he seizedthecurrencynotesofRs.3200/andmobile(Article13)from thepossessionofSuhasRoge.On20/6/2008,hearrestedtheaccused Kiran Amle from Dahisar by arranging the trap with Swift car bearing no.MH02AP4563. Accordingly, he proved the arrest
...185/
panchanama(Exh.593).ThetestimonyofP.W.14Sr.P.I.D.B.Joshi, P.W.48APIMohd.AzamandP.W.50P.S.I.S.T.Dhamankarfoundto becorroboratetotheprosecutioncase.
222.
P.W.51APIV.D.Gaikwaddrewthepanchanamaofseizure
ofmobileofHarishMandvikarfromSantoshGupta(Exh.604).By examiningP.W.53PIS.V.Raut,ithascomeontherecordthatasper the direction of investigating officer P.I. More, he carried out the searchofthehouseofAjimuddinShaikhandaccusedPravinShetty anddrawnthepanchanama(Exh.614).ByexaminingP.W.56PIK.S. Shengale, prosecution prove the memorandumcumseizure panchanama of amount of Rs.4 lakhs (Exh.627) and seizure of amountofRs.8lakhs(Exh.493).
223.
ByexaminingP.W.73IOPSIB.Z.Pawarofpolicestation
Panaji,ithasbroughtonrecordthatManagerAjayPal(P.W.65)has broughttwomobiles,oneSIMcardand34papers.Accordingly,he gaveinformationtoCrimeBranch,Mumbai.Accordingly,P.W.74PI NigadeofDCBCID,UnitI,visitedPanajipolicestationanddrewthe seizure panchanama (Exh.637). Thereby, prosecution proved the seizureoftwomobiles,oneSIMcardandsomepapersfromHotel SunnSand,Goa.
...186/
224.
InvestigatingofficersP.W.71G.C.Hiremath,P.W.78V.K.
More,P.W.79R.P.MahaleandP.W.80ACPAshokDurapheproved thecontradictionsandomissionsinthestatementsofthewitnesses aswellasprovedtherespectivepanchanamas.
225.
Learned Senior Advocate Shri Adhik Shirodkar placed
relianceon:(i)TahsildarSinghandanotherv/s.StateofU.P.,1959 Cri.L.J.1231,inwhichithasbeenheld, itisthesettledprincipleof lawinrespectofcontradictionsandomissionsaswellasitsliability whileterminatingtheprosecutionevidence. (ii)AshishBathamv/s.StateofM.P.,(2002)7SCC317 ,in which theprinciplelaiddowninrespectofthestandardofproofi.e. graverthechargegreatershouldbestandardofproof.(iii)Yudhishtir v/s.TheStateofMP,1971(3)SCC436 ,inwhichithasbeenheld, Corroboration for any evidence given by a witness may be found necessary when a courtisnotinclinedtorejecttheevidenceofthe witness to be false, but when the evidence of a witness has been rejected as unacceptable, there is no scope for attempting to find corroborationbyotherindependentevidenceorothercircumstances. (iii) RamdasNayakv/s.A.R.Antulay,1993(1)Bom.C.R.185, in which it has been held, previous statement recorded by Court ...187/
having no jurisdiction to try the matter. Reliance for purpose of contradictingwitness.Sofarassection145isconcerned,thefactthe statements were recorded by Court having no jurisdiction is irrelevant.DespitelackofjurisdictionintheCourtwhichrecordedthe statement,itstillremainsaspreviousstatementforpurposeofsection 145. Ihavegonethroughtheprincipleslaiddownintheabove cited rulings. They are the principles in respect of proving of contradictions and omissions as well as standard of proof and corroboration of evidence. All these principles have been perfectly applicabletothecaseinhand.
EDITOROFMIDDAY
226.
P.W.35 Vinodkumar Menon, Editor of newspaper 'Mid
Day' deposed that two days prior to 11/12/2006, Deputy CommissionerofPolice,NewBombay,calledthePressConferenceof MediaaboutthearrestofSureshBhagatindrugcase.WhenSuresh Bhagatwaspassingthroughtheroomatpolicestationhespokewith SureshBhagat.Onthatbasishepreparedthenewsandthesame waspublishedinGujarathinewspaperArticleX53andX53A.The witnesshasconfirmedthenewsitemreferringthestatementthen ...188/
givenbydeceasedSureshBhagattohimabouttheimpleadinghim byhisestrangewifeJayaChhedaforgrabbinghisMatakabusiness.
227.
In his cross examination, he admitted that though his
reportisinEnglish,newswaspublishedinGujarathiMidDay.He admittedthathespokewithSureshBhagatwhenhewasinpolice custodyatthetimeofpressconference.ItwassuggestedthatSuresh Bhagatwasarticulatinghisdefenceatthattime.Thewitnesshas stated that, because of shortage of time, he did not get the opportunity to ask base of his defence. Despite his detail cross examination,thefactsremainsonrecordthatattherelevanttime, P.W.35 attended press conference in the office of the DCP, New Bombay,whendeceasedSureshBhagatwasarrested.Thoughitis admittedthatpressreporthasnoevidentiaryvalue,eventhenfact remainsthatsinceyear2006,deceasedSureshBhagatfeltthathis wifeJayaBhagatwasintendingtograbmatakabusinessbyjoining thehandswithherparamour.
228.
P.W.30Latish@SatishNarayanShettydeposedthatin
the year 2007, when he was in the search of the job, he met accused/approverKiranPujariashewasasocialworker.Thereby,in the month of October 2007, he joined the duty of a bodyguard of
...189/
accusedJayaChheda,whowasresidingatGhatkoparandownerof Kalyan mataka business,onadailywagesofRs.500/.Hedidnot support the prosecution. Therefore, Ld.Spl.P.P. was permitted to crossexaminehim,inwhichheadmittedthathevisitedEsplanade Court attheinstanceofKiranPujarialongwithhisdriverRahul Kurtadkarandtherewasexchangeofwordsbetweenthepoliceand KiranPujariandthereafter,theywerepermittedtogo.Though,he didnotsupporttheprosecution,factremainsonrecordthatP.W.20 Rahul Kurtadkar was the driver of the accused/approver Kiran Pujari as well as he worked with accused no.7 Jaya Chheda as bodyguardandshewasdoingmatakabusinessaswellasapprover KiranPujariwashavingvisitingtermswithaccusedJayaChheda.
229.
Atthesametime,consideringtheevidenceonrecordof
P.W.02Adv.SometShirsat,ithascomeontherecordthataccused JayaChhedaaswellasaccusedSuhasRogewereinstructinghimin respect of absence of accused Hitesh Bhagat. It has come in the evidence of P.W.15 Vinod Naik and P.W.16 Joseph Rodrigues that, accusedJayaChhedaandSuhasRogeweremeetingfrequently.The testimony of P.W.05 approver Kiran Pujari is also crystal clear regardinghismeetingswithJayaChhedaattheinstanceofSuhas Roge in her house, transpires the conspiracy to grab the mataka
...190/
business of deceased Suresh Bhagat. All these circumstances and followingevidencelinkedtogetherabouttheinvolvementofaccused JayaChheda byjoiningthehandswithSuhasRoge,KiranPujari andHiteshBhagatandotheraccused.
DYINGDECLARATION: 230. Section32(1)ofIndianEvidenceActreadsthus: S.32.Statements,writtenorverbal,ofrelevantfactsmade byapersonwhoisdead,orwhocannotbefound,orwhohasbecome incapableofgivingevidence,orwhoseattendancecannotbeprocured withoutanamountofdelayorexpensewhichunderthecircumstances of the case, appears to the Court unreasonable, are themselves relevantfactsinthefollowingcases: (1)Whenthestatementismadebyapersonastothecause ofhisdeath,orastoanyofthecircumstancesofthetransactionwhich resulted in his death, in cases in which the cause of that person's deathcomesintoquestion. Section 32(1) is an exception to the general rule that hearsay evidence is not admissible. This rule excluding hearsay evidenceisrelaxedsofarasthestatementcontainedinSection32 andSection33ofEvidenceAct.UnderthisSection,writtenorverbal
...191/
statements of relevant facts made by a person, who is dead are relevant under the circumstance when it relates to cause of his death. Words dying declaration means a statement written or verbalofrelevantfactsmadebyapersonwhoisdead.Evidenceof dyingdeclarationisadmissiblenotonlyagainstthepersonactually causingdeathbutalsoagainstotherpersonsparticipatingincausing death. In the present case, Commissioner of Police received the complaint/representation of deceased Suresh Bhagat on 13/3/2008 regarding the threats of murder at the hands of accused. Upon perusalofExh.747,itrevealsthatitwasreceivedbytheofficeonthe sameday.Accordingly,itwasendorsedbyconcernedon13/3/2008, 15/3/2008, 28/3/2008, 4/4/2008 and 26/5/2008. It has come on the recordthatsincetherewasnoresponsefromtheCommissionerof Police,deceasedSureshBhagatfiledWritPetitionbeforetheHon'ble HighCourton2/5/2008.
231.
P.W.75 Advocate S.T. Gaikwad deposed that as per the
telephonic message, he met the deceased Suresh Bhagat, who informedhimaboutthedangertohislifeandrequestedtoprepare thecomplaintforgivingtotheCommissionerofPolice.Accordingly, hepreparedthedrafton23occasionsinwhichchangesweremade bySureshBhagat.Afterfinalisationoftherepresentation,heaswell ...192/
as SureshBhagat personallyhandedoverthesametoMr.Gafoor, CommissionerofPolice.ThecomplaintsisatExh.747.Ithasfurther come in his evidence that by filing complaint, Suresh Bhagat demandedthepoliceprotectionforhimself.However,foraquitelong period,therewasnoresponsefromtheCommissioner,therefore,he decided to file Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High court. Accordingly,asperthedirectionofSureshBhagat,hepreparedand filedWritPetitionbearingno.1013/2008(Exh.748).Duringthecross examination,certifiedcopyoftheorderofWritPetition(Exh.749)has beenfiledonrecordbythedefence.Inhiscrossexamination,ithas comeontherecordthathepreparedtherepresentation/complaintas well as writ petition on the instructions of the deceased Suresh Bhagat. Despite of his detail cross examination, his testimony remainsintact.
232.
LearnedSpl.P.P.placedrelianceon(i)SureshRaghunath
Kochare and another v/s. The State of Maharashtra and another, 1992Cri.L.J.2455,inwhichithasbeenheld,statementmadebythe deceasedregardingherharassmentfordemandofdowryatthehands of husband is admissible u/s. 32(1) of Evidence Act as a dying declaration. (ii) Kans Raj v/s. State of Punjab and others, 2000 ...193/
Cri.L.J.2993,inwhichithasbeenheld,Section32doesnotrequire thatthestatementsoughttobeadmittedinevidenceshouldhavebeen madeinimminentexpectationofdeath. Theprinciplelaiddowninabovecitedrulingsisregarding thedyingdeclarationarewellsettled.
233.
Iamguidedbytheprinciplelaiddownin RattanSingh
v/s.StateofHimachalPradesh,AIR1997SC768, ithasbeenheld, ayounghousewifeKantaDeviwaslivingwithinlawsinvillageand herhusbandwasresidingawayfromhisfamily.Assailantwasex armymandevelopedsomeinfatuationforKantaDeviandhestarted doting on her with libidinous designs, but she was not willing to reciprocatehisoblings.Onthesebackground,accusedharassedher. Whenshefoundhimincorrigibleshecomplainedtothepoliceabout hislewdconduct.Assailantgatecrashedintohercourtyardduringthe oddhoursofthenightandfiredtowardsher.Thestatementsmadeat thetimeofpreviouscomplaintaretreatedastothecircumstanceof the transaction which resulted in death. Her statement before the death that accused was standing with gun turning out the circumstanceoftransactionwhichresultedinherdeathareheldas dyingdeclaration.
...194/
Theprinciplelaiddowninabovecitedrulingisclearsthat circumstance of the transaction which resulted in her death is apparentlywideramptitudethansamecircumstanceswhichcaused deathandtheformerstatementfallswithinthepurviewofSection 32ofEvidenceAct.
234.
Inthecaseinhandasimmediatelythreemonthspriorto
the date of the incident, deceased Suresh Bhagat lodged the complaints/representations before the Commissioner of Police and later Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court with specific allegationthatthereisadangertohislifeatthehandsofSuhas Roge,JayaChheda,HiteshBhagatandKiranPujari.Thefactthat Hon'bleHighCourtdisposedoftheWritPetitiondoesnotmeanthat statementmadebythedeceasedSureshBhagatthereinthatthereis athreatstohislifeatthehandsofJayaChheda,SuhasRoge,Kiran PujariandHiteshBhagathavebeendismissedonthemeritsbythe Hon'bleHighCourt.ItcannotbesaidthatHon'bleHighCourthas closedthemattereveninrespectofconsideringtheissuewhether thestatementsconstitutesdyingdeclarationwhichquestionedinmy viewsquarelyfallsfortheconsiderationofthiscase.
...195/
235.
Thestatements(Exh.747andExh.748)clearlyconstitutes
dyingdeclarationtherefromcannotbeheldthatthecircumstances statedinExh.747andExh.748ledtothedeathofdeceasedSuresh Bhagat. Thedyingdeclarationinthelistsupportstheprosecution evidencewhichisindependentlyprovetheguiltoftheabovenamed accused.
236.
LearnedSeniorAdvocateShriAdhikShirodkarsubmitted
thatafterthedeathofthedeceasedSureshBhagat,hiswritpetition iscontestedbyhisbrotherVinodBhagatthroughAdvocatePonda. TheHon'ble High Courthasbeendisposedofwritpetitiononthe ground that it is vague and not supported by the documentary evidence as well as allegations are in the nature of prima facie defenceinthosecases.Though,theHon'bleHighCourtdisposedof the writ petition, it cannot be denied that at the relevant time, deceasedSureshBhagatreceivedthethreatsatthehandsofaccused. Thecircumstancesonrecordclearlyshowsthataccusedno.4Suhas Roge,approverKiranPujari,accusedno.7JayaChhedaandaccused no.8HiteshBhagathatchedtheconspiracyandresultantly,hedied. Thereby,theobjectionraisedbythedefencehasnosubstance.
...196/
237.
Inthecomplaint/representation(Exh.747)aswellasinthe
writpetition(Exh.748),deceasedSureshBhagatstatedregardingthe threatsofmurderaswellasimplicationoffalsecaseofpossessionof drugsandarmswithamotivetoextortmoneyfromhisestranged wife Jaya Bhagat @ Jaya Talakshi Chheda, her paramour Suhas Roge, Kiran Pujari and his son Hitesh Bhagat. This court is not concernedintheimplicationoffalsecase.Thecontentsmadeinwrit petitionandinthecomplaintareselfexplanatory.Thecomplaintisa writtenstatementofdeceasedSureshBhagataboutthethreats.The saidwrittenstatementisrelevantbecauseon13/6/2008,hediedin mishap. Thereby, said written statement of dead person which relatestothecauseofhisdeathisnothingbutthedyingdeclaration. Thereby,IamoftheopinionthattheprovisionsofSection32(1)of Evidence Act, are squarely applicable to the complaint (Exh.747). Therefore, it will be justandpropertotreatthesameasadying declaration.
238.
Itistobenotedherethatinthepresentcase,thereisno
directevidence.Infact,thefactsofthecasearesuchthattherecould be no direct evidence. Most of the evidence is based on the circumstances.Theprosecutionreliedonthetestimonyofapprover, statementofwitnessesu/s.164ofCr.P.C.,extrajudicialconfession ...197/
madebyaccusedno.4SuhasRoge,calldetailrecordandrecoveryof the mobiles from the accused. Prosecution proved the recovery of amount of Rs.8 lakhs, Rs.23.50 lakhs at the instance of accused Harish Mandvikar and recovery of Rs.4 lakhs at the instance of approverKiranPujariu/s.27ofEvidenceAct.Thesaidrecoveryhas been proved through investigating officer and the witnesses. Prosecutionalsoprovedthattheaccusedhatchedtheconspiracyfor thecommissionofmurderofdeceasedSureshBhagat.
239.
(A) Ld. Senior Advocate Shri Adhik Shirodkar placed
relianceon: (i) S.P.Bhatnagarv/s.StateofMaharashtra,(1979)1SCC
535, inwhichithasbeenheld, incaseswheretheevidenceisofa circumstantialnature,thecircumstancesfromwhichtheconclusionof guiltistobedrawnshouldinthefirstinstancebefullyestablished, 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 conclusivenatureandtendency andtheyshould be suchastoexcludeeveryhypothesisbuttheoneproposedtobeproved. Theremustbeachainofevidencesofarcompleteasnottoleaveany reasonablegroundforaconclusionconsistentwiththeinnocenceof theaccusedanditmustbesuchastoshowthatwithinallhuman ...198/
probabilitytheactmusthavebeendonebytheaccused. (ii) BaluSonbav/s.StateofMaharashtra,(2002)7SCC543 ,
in which it has been held, when court placed reliance on the circumstantialevidence,itisnecessarythatchainofevidenceistobe completed. (iii) RamSinghv/s.Soniaandothers,(2007)3SCC1 , in which it has been held, each and every incriminating circumstance must be clearly established by reliable and clinching evidenceandthecircumstancessoprovedmustformachainofevents from which the only irresistible conclusion about the guilt of the accusedcanbesafelydrawnandnootherhypothesisagainsttheguilt ispossible.Ithasalsobeenindicatedthatwhentheimportantlink goes, the chain of circumstances gets snapped and the other circumstances cannot in any manner, establish the guilt of the accusedbeyondallreasonabledoubts.Ithasbeenindicatedbythis Courtthatthereisalongmentaldistancebetweenmaybetrueand must be true and the same divides conjectures from sure conclusions. The principles laid down in the above cited rulings are cardinal principles of law and the same are duly fulfilled to the presentcaseinhand. ...199/
240. (i)
(B)Ld.AdvocateShriVilasNaikplacedrelianceon: JaharlalDasV/s.StateofOrissa,(1991)3S.C.C.27=
AIR 1991 SC 1388, in which it has been held, the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain the conviction must satisfy three conditions: (I) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is
soughttobedrawn,mustbecogentlyandfirmlyestablished; (II) thosecircumstancesshouldbeofadefinitetendency unerringlypointingtowardstheguiltoftheaccused; (III) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chainsocompletethatthereisnoescapefromtheconclusion thatwithinallhumanprobabilitythecrimewascommitted bytheaccusedandnoneelse,anditshouldalsobe incapableofexplanationonanyotherhypothesisthanthat oftheguiltoftheaccused. (ii) State(DelhiAdmn.)v/s.V.C.Shukla&Anr.,AIR1980S.C.
1382, in which it has been held, in order to prove a criminal conspiracywhichispunishableunderSection120B,theremustbe directorcircumstantialevidencetoshowthattherewasanagreement betweentwoormorepersonstocommitanoffence. (iii) N.J. Suraj V/s. State represented by Inspector of police, (2004)11S.C.C.346, inwhichithasbeenheld,whileholdingthe ...200/
motiveonthebasisofcircumstantialevidencealonecannotformthe basisforconviction. (iv) P.K. Narayanan V/s. State of Kerala, 1995 S.C.C. (Cri) 215,inwhichithasbeenheld,motiveandpreparationbythemselves donotconstituteconspiracy. Criminalconspiracycanbeprovedby directorcircumstantialevidence.Circumstancesmustestablishthat the offence was committed inpursuanceof anagreementbetween parties to the alleged conspiracy. Such circumstances must be incapableofanyotherexplanation.Meresuspicionandsurmisesor inferencesunsupportedbycogentevidencenotsufficient. (v) Hanuman S/o.TulshiramJadhav &Anr.V/s.State of
Maharashtra, 2011 ALL MR (Cri) 930, in which it has been held, neitherthechainwasestablishedtothecircumstancesformulated againsttheaccusednorcircumstancewereestablishedaccusedare entitletogetthebenefit.
I have gone through the above cited ruling, in which the principlesofcircumstantialevidenceaswellasconspiracyhasbeen elaboratelydiscussed.Ihavealreadydiscussedtherequisitetestare fulfilledinthiscase.
...201/
241. (i)
Ld.AdvocateShriA.R.Rasalplacedrelianceon: VarkeyJosephV/s.StateofKerala,AIR1993S.C.1892,
inwhichithasbeenheld,suspicionisnotsubstituteforproof.There is alongdistancebetween'maybetrue'and'mustbetrue'andthe prosecution has to travel all the way to prove its case beyond all reasonabledoubt. (ii) PedalaVeeraReddyV/s.StateofAndraPradesh&Ors.,
AIR 1990 S.C. 79, in which it has been held, strong suspicion againstaccusedcannottakeplacelegalproofofaccused (iii) State of U.P. V/s. Sukhbasi and Others, AIR 1985 S.C. 1224, in which it has been held, to substantiate a charge under S.120B of the Code, there must be acriminal conspiracy at least betweentwoormorepersons. I have gone through the above cited rulings. The principleslaiddowninthe citedsupraarethesettledpositionofLaw. Thereis,however,nomissinglinkinthecircumstantialevidencein thiscase.
242.
Ld.AdvocateShriAmitMundeplacedrelianceon: Vithal TukaramMore&Ors.V/s.StateofMaharashtra
2002S.C.C.(Cri)1555,inwhichithasbeenheld,toprovetheguiltof theaccusedonthebasisofcircumstantialevidenceprosecutionhasto ...202/
provetheessentialingredientsi.e.(a)thecircumstancesfromwhich theconclusionisdrawnshouldbefullyproved;(b)thecircumstances shouldbeconclusiveinnature;(c)allthefactssoestablishedshould beconsistentonlywiththehypothesisofguiltandinconsistentwith innocence;(d)thecircumstancesshouldtoamoralcertainty,exclude thepossibilityofguiltofanypersonotherthantheaccused.But,the circumstantialevidenceinthepresentcasefallsshortoftherequired standardofproof.
243.
LearnedAdvocateShriJethmalaniplacedrelianceon: A.DeivendranV/s.StateofT.N.,AIR1998S.C.2821, in
which it has been held, the evidence of the approver implicating severalaccusedpersonsincommissionoftheoffencecouldnotonly becorroboratedgenerallybutalsoquaeachaccused.Butthatdoes not mean that there should beindependent corroboration of every particular circumstance from an independent source. All that is requiredisthattheremustbesomeadditionalevidencerenderingit probablethatthestoryoftheaccompliceistrue.Corroborationalso couldbebothbydirectofcircumstantialevidence. Ihavegonethroughtheabovecitedruling.Theprinciples laiddownintheabovecitedrulingsarehelpfultotheprosecution thoughtheauthorityiscitedbythedefence. ...203/
244. on:
Learned Advocate Shri S.R. Pasbola placed his reliance
(i)
Pakala Narayana Swami V/s. Emperor, AIR 1939
P.C.27, inwhichithasbeenheld, circumstancesmusthavesome proximate relation to the actual occurrence and must be of the transaction which resulted in the death of the declarant, i.e. resgestae. (ii) Sharad Birdhichand Sarda V/s. State of
Maharashtra,1984S.C.C.(Cri)487,inthiscaseitisheld, whenthe caseisbasedoncircumstancesevidenceandwheretwopossibilities come forward i.e. one of commission of crime and the other of innocence are reasonable possible, accused entitled to benefit of doubt. (iii) Vinay D. Nagar V/s. State of Rajasthan, (2008)2 SCC (Cri) 666, in which it has been held, circumstances of transaction which resulted in his death, prosecution has to prove strongmotive.Statementofdeceasedmadeu/s.161ofCr.P.C.during investigationinabductioncasenotadmissibleu/s.32(1)toprovethe motiveofaccusedtoeliminatethedeceased. (iv) Sampath Kumar V/s. Inspector of police,
Krishnagiri, (2012)4 S.C.C.(Cri) 124, in which it has been held, whenthecaseisbasedonthecircumstantialevidencemotivealone ...204/
canhardlybeagroundforconviction. (v)JohnPandianV/s.StateRep.byInspectorofpolice,T. Nadu, 2011(1) Crimes 1 (S.C.), in which it has been held, all conspiratorsneednottakeactivepartinthecommissionofeachand everyconspiratorialactbut,mereknowledge,evendiscussion,ofthe planwouldnotconstituteconspiracy.Eachoneofthecircumstances should be proved beyond reasonabledoubt and such circumstances provedmustformachainofeventsfromwhichtheonlyirresistible conclusionisabouttheguiltoftheaccusedwhichcanbesafelydrawn andnootherhypothesisoftheguiltispossible. Theprincipleslaiddownintheabovecitedrulingsarethe cardinalprinciplesofcircumstantialevidence.Theyarenothelpfulto thedefencebutinfactsupportstheprosecution.
245.
SPPMs.KalpanaChavanplacedrelianceon: (i) Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma V/s. State
(NCT of Delhi), 2010ALL MR(Cri)1627 (S.C.), in which it is held, "thephonecalldetailsshowedthattheaccusedwereintouchwith eachotherwhichresultedindestructionofevidenceandharboring. ThusthefindingofthetrialCourtthatintheabsenceofwhatthey statedtoeachotherisofnohelptothe prosecutionisanincorrect appreciation of evidence on record. A close association is a very ...205/
importantpieceofevidenceinthecaseofcircumstantialevidence.The evidence of phone calls is a very relevant and admissible piece of evidence. (ii) Mohd.KhalidV/s.StateofW.B.,(2002)7SCC334 ,
inwhichitisheld,"noovertactneedbeprovedtoestablishcriminal conspiracy.Proofofconspiracycanbebydirectevidence,thoughthe sameisrarelyavailableorbycircumstantialevidence.Circumstances provedbefore,duringandaftertheoccurrenceshouldbeconsideredto decide complicity of the accused. Confession of coaccused, even withoutcorroboration,canbetakenintoconsideration. On perusal of both these citations, it is held that call detailrecordisaveryimportantpieceofevidenceofcloseassociation ofaccusedandthereby,itisadmissiblepieceofevidence.Atthesame time,circumstancesproved,duringandaftertheoccurrence,canbe taken into consideration. Thereby, the principles are perfectly applicabletothecaseinhand.
246.
Duringthearguments,Ld.Spl.P.P.andAdvocatesforthe
defenceplacedrelianceoncertainotheraspectsofthelaw.Iamof theopinionthatitisnecessarytomentioncitationsasunder: (A)Ld.Spl.P.p.Ms.KalpanaChavanplacedrelianceon: Sucha Singh & anr. V/s. State of Punjab, 2003ALL ...206/
MR(Cri)2346(S.C.),inwhichitisheld,"Maxim"falsusinunofalsus in omnibus". Falsity of particular material witness or material particularwouldnotruinitfromthebeginningtoend.Itistheduty ofCourttoseparategrainfromchaff.Proofbeyondreasonabledoubt is a guideline, not a fetish. Vague hunches cannot take place of judicialevaluation."AJudgedoesnotpresideoveracriminaltrial, merely to see that no innocent man is punished. A Judge also presides to see that guilty man, does not escape. Both are public duties. (B) Ld.Sr.AdvocateShriShirodkarplacedrelianceon:
M.Abbasv/s.StateofKerala,(2001)10SCC103 ,inwhich ithasbeenheld,Between'maybetrue'and'mustbetrue'thereisa long distance to travel. If the prosecution has failed to travel that distance through any unimpeachable evidence. The case of the prosecution has not been established beyond reasonable doubt. In such situation, accused isnotrequiredtoprovehisdefence beyond reasonabledoubt,butonlybypreponderanceofprobabilities. (C)Ld.AdvocateShriVilasNaikplacedrelianceon: (i) BalakrushnaSwainV/s.StateofOrissa,1971SCC
(Cri.)313,inwhichithasbeenheld,muchreliancecannotbeplaced ontheevidenceofawitnesswhenfornojustifiablereasonhewasnot examined by the investigating officer for a number of days ...207/
particularly when thewitnessisfound to betellingfalsehood on materialaspectsofthecaseandtriestoconformtotheevidenceof otherwitnesses. (ii) Mulak Raj & Others V/s. State of Haryana, AIR
1996 S.C. 2868, in which it has been held, when no satisfactory evidence to show whether the accused had taken part in killing strong suspicioncannottakeplaceofproofandtherebyaccusedare entitleforbenefitofdoubt. (iii) Ramesh Baburao Devaskar & Ors. V/s. State of Maharashtra,2008ALLMR(Cri)293(SC), inwhichithasbeenheld,whileappreciatingtheevidenceonthe pointofmotiveproofofmotivebyitselfmaynotbeagroundtohold theaccusedguilty. (iv) RambilasandOrs.V/s.StateofM.P.,1997CRI.L.J.
4649, inwhichithasbeenheld,deceasedbeinganotoriousperson hadmany enemiesinandaroundvillage. Possibilityofsomebody elseotherthanaccusedbeingtheassailantscannotberuledout. (v) Dr.SunilKumarSambhudayalGupta&Ors.V/s.
StateofMaharashtra,2011ALLMR(Cri)288(S.C.), inwhichithas beenheld,whileappreciatingtheevidence,thecourthastotakeinto considerationwhetherthecontradictions/omissionshadbeenofsuch magnitude that they may materially affect the trial. Minor ...208/
contradictions,inconsistencies,embellishmentsorimprovementson trivial matters without effecting the core of the prosecution case shouldnotbemadeagroundtorejecttheevidenceinitsentirety. (vi) BalakaSingh&Ors.V/s.TheStateofPunjab,1975
CRI. L.J. 1734, in whichithasbeenheld, whileappreciatingthe evidenceCourtmustmakeattempttoseparategrainfromchaff. AllthecitedsuprarulingsareontheprinciplesofLaw. They are applicable to the prosecution case though cited by the defence. (D) (i) Ld.CounselShriS.R.Pasbolaplacedrelianceon: Bhairon Singh V/s. State of M.P., 2009 Cri. L.J.
3738,inthiscaseitisheld, declarationasitmustbethatthereisno aniotaofevidencewhichcanbeadmittedinLawtobeusedagainst theaccused. Therebyitbecomesirrelevantbyitselfandcannotbe admittedinLaw. (ii) LifeInsuranceCorpn.ofIndia&Anr.V/s.Rampal
SinghBisen,(2010)4S.C.C.(Cri)491, inthiscaseitisheld,regarding theadmissionanddenialofthedocumentsintheCPCaswellasin thedepartmentalinquiry. (iii) J.YashodaV/s.K.ShobhaRani,(2007)3SCC(Cri)9, in this case the admissibility of primary evidence and secondary evidencehasbeendiscussedinthecivilappeal. ...209/
Ihavegonethroughtheabovecitedrulings,inwhichthe principleslaiddownareinrespectoftheadmissibilityofdocuments etc.isnothelpfultotheaccusedasthefactsofthecaseinhandare altogetherdifferent.
247.
The cardinal principles of conspiracy has been
exhaustivelylaiddownbyHon'bleSupremeCourtin: StatethroughS.P.,CBI/SITv/s.Nalini&Ors., JT1999(4)SC106, Theprinciplesgoverningthelawofconspiracymay besummarizedthough,asthesameimplies,asummary cannotbeexhaustiveoftheprinciples: i.UnderSection120AIPCoffenceofcriminalconspiracy iscommitted whentwoormorepersonsagreetodoor cause to be done an illegal act or legal act by illegal means.Whenitislegalactbyillegalmeansovertactis necessary.Offencesofcriminalconspiracyisexceptionto the general law where intent alone does not constitute crime.Itisintentiontocommitcrimeandjoininghands with persons having the same intention. Not only the intentionbuttherehastobeagreementtocarryoutthe objectoftheintention,whichisanoffence.Thequestion forconsiderationinacaseisdidalltheaccusedhadthe intentionanddidtheyagreethatthecrimebecommitted. Itwouldnotbeenoughfortheoffenceofconspiracywhen some of the accused merely entertained a wish, howsoever,horrendousitmaybe,thatoffencebe
...210/
committed. ii. Acts subsequent to the achieving of object of conspiracymaytendtoprovethataparticularaccused was party to the conspiracy. Once the object of conspiracyhasbeenachieved,anysubsequentact,which maybeunlawful,wouldnotmaketheaccusedapartof theconspiracylikegivingsheltertoanabsconder. iii. Conspiracyishatchedinprivateorinsecrecy.Itis rarely possible to establish a conspiracy by direct evidence. Usually, both the existence of the conspiracy and its objects have to be inferred from the circumstancesandtheconductoftheaccused. iv.Conspiratorsmay,forexample,beenrolledinachain AenrollingB,BenrollingC,andsoon;andallwill bemembersofasingleconspiracyiftheysointendand agree,eventhougheachmemberknowsonlytheperson whoenrolledhimandthepersonwhomheenrolls.There maybeakindofumbrellaspokeenrollment,wherea singlepersonatthecentredoingtheenrollingandallthe othermembersbeingunknowntoeachother,thoughthey know that there are to be other members. These are theoriesandinpracticeitmaybedifficulttotellwhether the conspiracy in a particular case falls into which category.Itmay,however,evenoverlap.Butthenthere has to be present mutual interest. Persons may be members of single conspiracy even though each is ignorantoftheidentity ofmanyotherswhomayhave diverse role to play. It is not a part of the crime of conspiracythatalltheconspiratorsneedtoagreetoplay thesameoranactiverole.
...211/
v.Whentwoormorepersonsagreetocommitacrimeof conspiracy, then regardless of making or considering anyplansforitscommission,anddespitethefactthat nostepistakenbyanysuchpersontocarryouttheir common purpose, a crime is committed by each and everyonewhojoinsintheagreement.Therehasthusto betwoconspiratorsandtheremaybemorethanthat. To prove the charge of conspiracy it is not necessary that intended crime was committed or not. If committeditmayfurtherhelpprosecutiontoprovethe chargeofconspiracy. vi.Itisnotnecessarythatallconspiratorsshouldagree tothecommonpurposeatthesametime.Theymayjoin with other conspirators at any time before the consummation of the intended objective, and all are equallyresponsible.Whatparteachconspiratoristo playmaynotbeknowntoeveryoneorthefactasto whenaconspiratorjoinedtheconspiracyandwhenhe left. vii.Achargeofconspiracymayprejudicetheaccused becauseitisforcedthemintoajointtrialandthecourt mayconsidertheentiremassofevidenceagainstevery accused. Prosecutionhastoproduceevidencenotonly to show that each of the accused has knowledge of objectofconspiracybutalsooftheagreement.Inthe chargeofconspiracycourthastoguarditselfagainst thedangerofunfairnesstotheaccused.Introductionof evidenceagainstsomemayresultintheconvictionof all, which is to be avoided. By means of evidence in conspiracy,whichisotherwiseinadmissibleinthetrial of any other substantive offence prosecution tries to implicatetheaccusednotonlyintheconspiracyitself ...212/
but also in the substantive crime of the alleged conspirators.Thereisalwaysdifficultyintracingthe precisecontributionofeachmemberoftheconspiracy butthentherehastobecogentandconvincingevidence againsteachoneoftheaccusedchargedwiththeoffence ofconspiracy.AsobservedbyJudgeLearnedHandthat this distinction is important today when many prosecutors seek to sweep within the dragnet of conspiracyallthosewhohavebeenassociatedinany degreewhateverwiththemainoffenders. viii. Asstatedaboveitistheunlawfulagreementand notitsaccomplishment,whichisthegistoressenceof thecrimeofconspiracy.Offenceofcriminalconspiracy iscompleteeventhoughthereisnoagreementastothe meansbywhichthepurposeistobeaccomplished.Itis theunlawfulagreement,whichisthegravamanofthe crime of conspiracy. The unlawful agreement which amountstoaconspiracyneednotbeformalorexpress, but may be inherent in and inferred from the circumstances, especially declarations, acts, and conductoftheconspirators.Theagreementneednotbe enteredintobyallthepartiestoitatthesametime,but maybereachedbysuccessiveactionsevidencingtheir joiningoftheconspiracy. ix. It has been said that a criminal conspiracy is a partnership in crime, and that there is in each conspiracyajointormutualagencyfortheprosecution ofacommonplan.Thus,iftwoormorepersonsenter intoaconspiracy,anyactdonebyanyofthempursuant totheagreementis,incontemplationoflaw,theactof eachofthemandtheyarejointlyresponsibletherefor. Thismeansthateverythingsaid,writtenordoneby ...213/
anyoftheconspiratorsinexecutionorfurtheranceof thecommonpurposeisdeemedtohavebeensaid,done orwrittenbyeachofthem.Andthisjointresponsibility extends not only to what is done by any of the conspirators pursuant to the original agreement but alsotocollateralactsincidenttoandgrowingoutofthe original purpose. A conspirator is not responsible, however, for acts done by a coconspirator after termination of the conspiracy. The joinder of a conspiracy by a new member does not create a new conspiracy nor does it change the status of the other conspirators, and the mere fact that conspirators individuallyoringroupsperformdifferenttaskstoa commonenddoesnotsplitupaconspiracyintoseveral differentconspiracies. x. Amanmayjoinaconspiracybywordorbydeed. However, criminal responsibility for a conspiracy requiresmorethanamerelypassiveattitudetowards anexistingconspiracy.Onewhocommitsanovertact withknowledgeoftheconspiracyisguilty.Andonewho tacitlyconsentstotheobjectofaconspiracyandgoes along with other conspirators, actually standing by whiletheothersputtheconspiracyintoeffectisguilty thoughheintendstotakenoactivepartinthecrime. All these principles has been duly proved by the prosecutioninthecaseinhandandthereby,thelawlaiddowninthe citedsupraNalini'scaseisperfectlyapplicabletothecaseinhand.
...214/
248.
Attheend,itisnecessarytosummarisetheconclusions
basedontheevidenceontherecord.Itisadmittedonrecordthat deceased Suresh Bhagat was running the mataka Business. His fatherwasalsorunningthematakabusiness.Hewashavinghuge property in Bombay and Gujarat i.e. flats, shops, Villas, landed property as well as chemical and gems business. Defence also admittedthedisputeonaccountofthedeceased'shugeproperty.Itis undenied that accused no.7 Jaya Chheda was his divorcee. It has been established that accused Suhas Roge called P.W.05 approver Kiran Pujari at the house of Jaya Chheda to grab the mataka business of Suresh Bhagat. In that meeting, Jaya Chheda, Suhas RogeandHiteshBhagatwerepresent.Theyalsoplannedtokillhim whilereturningfromAlibaugCourtandrequestedP.W.05approver Kiran Pujari to help them politically as well as to the police authorities, to which he agreed. Accordingly, they made various traps and hatched theconspiracy.DeceasedSuresh Bhagatlodged various complaints against his wife accused no.7 Jaya Chheda, HiteshBhagat,accusedno.4SuhasRogeandapproverKiranPujari aboutthethreatstohislifeaswellasimpleadedhiminnarcoticand armscases.
...215/
249.
It is also found that accused Suhas Roge introduced
accused Harish Mandvikar to Jaya Chheda. As a result of which accusedSuhasRogepaidcashtotheaccusedHarishMandvikarfrom time to time. Accordingly, Harish Mandvikar also contacted with P.W.62 Ajimuddin Shaikh to hand over the truck for Rs.10 lakhs. When P.W.77 Anthony and P.W.67 Ganesh went to the house of approver Ajimuddin Shaikh to hand over cash of Rs.10 lakhs, he refusedtoacceptthesamesayingthatinsteadofone,sevenpersons werekilled.Thismaterialpieceofevidenceclearlytranspirestheir meetingofmindforthecommissionofmurderofoneperson.
250.
ThefurtherconclusionisthataccusedHarishMandvikar
deputedaccusedno.1PravinShettytoexecutetheplanonAlibaug PenRoad.Accordingly,onpreviousdateofincidenti.e.on15/5/2008, theytookthetruckbutinvain.Therefore,on13/6/2008,theyagain obtainedthetruckfromapproverAjimuddinShaikh.Ithascomein theCDRthataccusedwereinconstanttouchwitheachotheraswell aswiththewitnessesP.W.77Anthony,P.W.02Adv.SometShirsatas wellaswithapproversP.W.62AjimuddinandP.W.05KiranPujari. TheCDRaswellascellsitelistandcellIdreportclearlyshowsthat they were in contacts with each other at different times and on ...216/
differentlocations.IthasalsobroughtonrecordthataccusedHarish Mandvikarwasinstructedaccusedno.1PravinShettyonhismobile continuouslyfrom8.33a.m.to1:12:32p.m..Thereafter,therewere nocontactsbetweenthemtillaccusedno.1PravinShettyreachedthe Hotel Sai Kutir, at about 2.30 p.m. and he made the contact to accusedHarishMandvikar.Thesaidinformationhadbeenreceived byPoynadpolicestation,atabout1.45p.m..Thecontactsbetween accusedonthebasisofCDRclearlytranspiresthataccusedHarish Mandvikarwasintouchwithaccusedno.1PravinShettyaswellas withSuhasRoge.TheCDRofmobileno.9867547490(Exh.709)and cellId(Exh.701)ofaccusedno.5KiranAmleusedbyaccusedno.3 Harish Mandvikar while travelling in Maruti Zen car bearing no.MH04BS9412chasingScorpioofdeceasedSureshBhagathas beenbroughtonrecord.Theuserofthemobilewasproceedingfrom AlibaugtowardsPenandwhiletravelling,userreachedatorabout 1:12p.m.intheclosevicinityoftheplaceofoccurrence.TheCDRof mobileno.9967736462(Exh.702)ofaccusedno.1PravinShetty,who wasdrivingthetruckfromoppositedirectionalsofixeshislocation from Pen side and at the time of the incident, at the place of occurrence.Exceptfortheconspiracy,thiswouldnothavebeenso. AccusedSuhasRogewasincontactwithaccusedKiranPujariand thereby,hecalledhimnearRaniBaug.Byexchangingtheseatsof
...217/
thevehicles,KiranPujarireceivedtheinformationfromSuhasRoge andassuredasagreed.
251.
Ithasalsobeenprovedthatimmediatelyonthesameday,
in the evening, accused Suhas Roge went to the house of Jaya ChhedawithP.W.15VinodNaik.BypayinganamountofRs.1000/, accusedSuhasRogehandedoverabagofcashtoP.W.15VinodNaik withadirectiontoreachnear'McDonald',Borivaliandhandedover the same to one Gotya. By confirming Gotya, P.W.15 Vinod Naik handedoverthecashwhichwasreceivedfromthehouseofaccused Jaya Chheda. Later on, at about 10.30 a.m., P.W.15 Vinod Naik, P.W.16 his driver Joseph Rodrigues met at the house of witness Sanjay Shirke. While watching T.V., accused Suhas Roge passed remarks about the death of Suresh Bhagat that Amhi amchya dushmanalakhalaskele.Thesaidremarkisnothingbuttheextra judicial confession of accused Suhas Roge before the prosecution witnesses.Ithasalsobroughtonrecordthatonthenextday,accused SuhasRogecalledP.W.16JosephRodriguesandproceededtowards Bhayender. After taking tea, bag of currency notes containing of Rs.1000/ denomination wasexchangedfromTATASumoofSuhas RogeandhandedovertotheaccusedHarishMandvikar.Thereafter, theyproceededtoGhodbandartoMulund.WhereKiranPujariwas ...218/
waiting at Mulund Checknaka with his vehicle. All these circumstancesclearlyshowsthataccusedhatchedconspiracytokill deceasedSureshBhagatandsuccessfullyexecutedtheplan.Thus,it is obvious that the murder of the deceased Suresh Bhagat was committedinpremeditatedandcalculatedmanner.
252.
Inviewoftheabove,Iamoftheopinionthatitisnotmere
accident.Itisaclearcutcaseofconspiracy,whichismainlybasedon thecircumstances.Thereby,prosecutionsuccessfullyprovedthatthe deathofthedeceasedSureshBhagatandsixothersisnotaccidental buthomicidal.Hence,Ianswerpointno.1accordingly.
253.
In view of the discussion made above, prosecution
successfully proved the hatching of conspiracy as well as the circumstances which are brought on record. All the circumstances clearlyshowsthatpriorto13/6/2008,accusedno.4SuhasRoge,Jaya Chheda, Hitesh Bhagat and approver Kiran Pujari hatched the conspiracywithaccusedHarishMandvikar,PravinShettyaswellas Kiran Amle and approver Ajimuddin Shaikh. As a result of conspiracy,itwassuccessfullyexecutedonthedayoftheincident,at about1.15p.m.,withinthevicinityofVillageShahbajonAlibaug
...219/
Pen Road and thereby, accused no.1 Pravin Shetty gave dash to Scorpio jeep of Suresh Bhagat, in which Suresh Bhagat and six otherswerekilled.Although,theconspiracywasonlytokillSuresh Bhagat,theintentiontokillhimandothersisobviousfromallthe circumstancesofthecase.Theaccusedpersonsmustbeattributed intentioneventokillotherpassengersinScorpioin thenatureof conspiracy hatched by them to kill Suresh Bhagat, when he was travelling inScorpiowith others.Thereby,prosecutionprovedthat accusedinfurtheranceoftheircommonintentioncommittedmurder of deceased Suresh Bhagat and six others with their common intention. Hence, I answer point nos.2, 3 and 4 are in the affirmative.
254.
After having held all the accused guilty of the offences
punishableu/s.120B,302r/w.34ofIPC,itisnecessarytohearthe accused on the point of quantum of sentence. The matter stands adjournedforthesameonMondayi.e.on29/7/2013.
Date:26/7/2013
(S.G.Shete) Addl.SessionsJudge Gr.Bombay. ...220/
255.
ASTOPOINTNO.5: I have heard the accused on the point of quantum of
sentence. They submitted that they are innocent and prayed for leniency.Accusedno.1PravinShettysubmittedthathisfatherand motherareagedabout59yearsand50yearsrespectively.Theyare dependent on him. Hence, he prayed for leniency. Accused no.3 Harish Mandvikar submittedthathisfatherandmotherareaged about65yearsand56yearsrespectivelyandtheyaredependenton him. Accused no.4 SuhasRoge submitted thathiswifeand minor daughteraredependentonhim.Hisparentsarenomore.Accused no.5 Kiran Amle also prayed for leniency and submitted that his sisterandtwokidsofhislatebrotheraredependentonhim.Accused no.7JayaChhedasubmittedthathermotherisagedabout80years. Herfamilyisconsistingofhersonaccusedno.8HiteshBhagatas well as his mother. Considering her age, she prayed for leniency. Accused no.8 Hitesh Bhagat submitted that on the day of the incident,hewasabroad.Hisageisonly33years.Excepthismother accused no.7 Jaya Chheda, nobody is behind him and thereby, he prayedforlesserpunishment.
256.
LearnedSpl.P.P.Ms.KalpanaChavanfortheprosecution
submittedthataccusedhatchedtheconspiracyandcommittedthe ...221/
cold blooded murder. To kill Suresh Bhagat, they chose specific vehicleviz.truckandplaceofoccurrenceonPenAlibaugRoad.The Scorpiowasrammedbythetrucktryingtogivecolourofaccident andtherebysixinnocentsincludingAdvocateandbodyguardwere killed.Theoffenceisheinous.Sixinnocentsarebrutallymurderedby theaccusedbyhatchingconspiracy.Thereby,itistherarestofrare caseandhence,prayedtosentencethemtilldeath.
257.
In reply, Ld.Sr. Advocate Shri Adhik Shirodkar for
accused no.4 submitted that the case is purely based on the circumstantial evidence as well as the testimonyof theapprovers. Murderisalwaysheinouscrimeandbrutal.Itisnotthecriteriafor rarestofrarecaseandtherefore,thedeathpenaltyisnotproperand justified.Mostoftheaccusedarebetween30's.Theoryofreformation andrehabilitationis applicabletothecaseinhandasthereisno previous antecedents. While awarding the death sentence, it is necessary to record special reasons. Hence, he prayed to grant minimumsentence.
258.
Ld.CounselShriS.R.Pasbolaforaccusedno.7reiterated
the same arguments and submitted that number of death has no criteriaforgrantingdeathsentence.Heinouscrimeisalsonocriteria ...222/
fortheprincipleofrarestofrarecase.Attherelevanttime,accused were not knowing that seven persons are traveling. There was no conspiracytokillthosesevenpersons.Theaccusedarenotmenaceto thesociety.Hence,heprayedtograntlesserpunishment.
259.
Ld.AdvocateShriA.R.Rasalforaccusedno.1alsoadopts
the arguments. He submitted that accused no.1 was not having knowledgeofoccupancyofsevenpersonsintheScorpio.Hewasnot havingintentionwhatsoeveroftheactandthereby,benefitofdoubt begiventotheaccused.Itisnottherarestofrarecaseandtherefore, prayedtograntthelesserpunishment.
260.
Ld. Advocate Shri Taraq Sayyed for accused no.8
submitted that merely because exemption application was filed in Alibaug Court with a wrong reasons cannot be a circumstance to showhisindulgenceinthecrime.Hence,heprayedforleniency.
261.
Ld.AdvocateVilasNaikforaccusedno.3submittedthat
parents of the accused areoldaged anddependent on him. Heis below30years.Hewasmarriedon18/5/2008.Only15to23dayshe enjoyed the married life. It is not the rarest of rare case and ...223/
therefore,capitalpunishmentcannotbeimposed.Itisafitcaseto applytheprincipleofdoctrineofrehabilitation.Itisthefirstoffence oftheaccused.Thereisnocriminalantecedents.Hence,heprayed forleniency.
262.
Ld.AdvocateShriAmitMundeforaccusedno.5advanced
argumentsthataccusedisayoungboyi.e.32yearsandunmarried. Hissisterandtwokidsoflatebrotheraredependentonhim.There isnocriminalantecedentsanditishisfirstoffence.Itisnotthecase ofrarestofrareandtherefore,heprayedtograntlesserpunishment.
263.
(A)Ld.Sr.AdvocateShriAdhikShirodkarplacedreliance
on: OmaaliasOmprakashandanothers/.StateofTamilNadu (2013)3SCC440 (B) Ld.CounselShriS.R.Pasbolaplacedrelianceon:
SantoshKumarSatishbhushanBariyarv/s.Stateof Maharashtra (2009)2SCC(Cri)1150 (C) Ld.AdvocateShriRasalplacedrelianceon:
ShankarKisanraoKhadev/s,StateofMaharashtra 2013Cri.L.J.2595
...224/
I have gone through the above cited rulings. The principles laid down in theabove cited rulings are extracted from BachanSingh'scase1980(2)SCC684 ,relevantportionofwhichis quotedforreadyreference: Therarestoftherarecasecomeswhenaconvictwould beamenaceandthreattotheharmoniousandpeacefulcoexistenceof thesociety.Thecrimemaybeheinousorbrutalbutmaynotbeina categoryoftherarestoftherarecase.Theremustbenoreasonto believethattheaccusedcannotbereformedorrehabilitatedandthat heislikelytocontinuecriminalactsofviolenceaswouldconstitutea continuingthreattothesociety.Theaccusedmaybeamenacetothe society and would continue to be so, threatening its peaceful and harmonious coexistence. The manner in which the crime is committed must be such thatitmay result in intense and extreme indignationofthecommunityandshockthecollectiveconscienceof thesociety.Thedeathsentencemaybewarrantedwherethevictims areinnocentchildrenandhelplesswomen.Thus,incasethecrimeis committed in a most cruel and inhuman manner which is an extremely brutal, grotespque, diabolical, revolting and dastardly manner,wherehisactaffectstheentiremoralfibreofthesocietye.g. crime committed for power or political ambition or indulging in organisedcriminalactivities,deathsentenceshouldbeawarded. ...225/
264.
Havingregardtothefactsandcircumstancesofthecase
andsubmissionsoftheaccusedaswellassubmissionsofthelearned Counselsfortheparties,itisobviousthatmostoftheaccusedare betweentheageof30to35years.Theyareyoung.Theirparentsare dependentonthem.Nothingisfiledonrecordinrespectofprevious antecedentsoftheaccused.ThemandateofSection354(3)and235(2) ofCr.P.C.requiresmentioningofspecialreasonsforadeathpenalty andthecourtmustpaydueregardbothtothecrimeandcriminal.In BachanSingh'scase laysdownthatifthecrimeresultsinintense andextremeindignationofthecommunityandshockthecollective conscienceofthesocietyaswellasthecrimeiscommittedinamost cruel and inhuman manner which is an extremelybrutal is not a groundforawardingthedeathsentence.Evenwhen,ithascomeon therecordthatthecrimecommittedbytheaccusedisofhatching conspiracy and killed the Suresh Bhagat and six other innocent, applyingtheprinciplelaiddownintheabovesaidrulingtothecase in hand, this case cannot be said to be rare case. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that punishment of life imprisonmentwillmeettheendsofjustice.
265.
Beforepartingtheorder,itisnecessarytomentionthat
nobodyclaimedthemuddemali.e.amountofRs.23.50lakhsandRs.8 ...226/
lakhs.FatheroftheapproverKiranPujarihadclaimedtheamount ofRs.4lakhsvideapplication(Exh.189),butitwasrejected.Atthe sametime,cashofRs.11.39lakhsandwristwatchofaccusedHitesh BhagatwerereturnedtohismaternalauntAshaBhattonabondof 'supratnama',asthesaidpropertyisnotconcernedwiththecrime. Motorvehiclesi.e.MarutiZencarno.MH04BS9412,SkodaMH01 PA6093, Car MH43N4060, Car MH43V4060, Car MH01KA 4545,carMH01AC123,arereturnedonbondofSupratnamatothe respective owners. Therefore, it is necessary to pass the order in respectofdisposalofpropertytothateffect. Resultantly,Iproceedtopassthefollowingorder:
ORDER 1. Accusedno.1 PravinDayanandShetty,Age35years,Occ. Driver, resident of Kandivali (W), Mumbai, Original R/o. Anandnagar,Kariyakal,TalukaKarkla,DistrictUdipi,Karnataka, accused no.3 Harish Rama Mandvikar, Age 33 years, Occ. Electrician, R/o. Bharti Chawl, Room No.42, 1/9, Indira Nagar, Borsapada,Kandivali(W),Mumbai400067, accusedno.4Suhas Mahadev Roge, Age 42 years, Occ. Hotel Business, R/o.3/B, DadysethWadi,SiriRoad,BandStand,GirgaonChowpati,Malbar Hill,Mumbai400006, accusedno.5 KiranBabanAmle,Age36 years,Occ.CableBusiness,R/o.Roomno.1,BhaskarKolekarChawl, Navagaon, Laxman Mhatre Road, Dahisar (W), Mumbai 400 068, accused no.7 Jaya Talakshi Chheda , Age 49 years, R/o. 126, Room No.3518, Pantnagar, Vishal Housing Society, Ghatkopar (E), ...227/
Mumbaiandaccusedno.8HiteshSureshBhagat, Age33years, Occ. Share Trading, R/o. 212, Jayant Villa, 4 th floor, Opp. Worli Market,Worli,Mumbai400018,areherebyconvictedunderSection 235oftheCriminalProcedureCodefortheoffencepunishableUnder Section302r/w.34oftheIndianPenalCodeandsentencedtosuffer life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.20,000/ (Rupees twenty thousandonly)each,indefaulttosufferSimpleImprisonmentforone year.
2. Accused no.1 Pravin Dayanand Shetty, accused no.3 Harish RamaMandvikar, accusedno.4SuhasMahadevRoge,accusedno.5 KiranBabanAmle,accusedno.7JayaTalkshiChheda,andaccused no.8HiteshSureshBhagat,areherebyalsoconvictedunderSection 235oftheCriminalProcedureCodefortheoffencepunishableUnder Section120BoftheIndianPenalCodeandsentencedtosufferlife imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.20,000/ (Rupees twenty thousandonly)each,indefaulttosufferSimpleImprisonmentforone year.
3.
Boththesentenceshallrunconcurrently.
4.
Thesetoffbegivenu/s.428oftheCriminalProcedureCode.
5. Bail bonds of approver Kiran Pujari and Ajimuddin Shaikh standcancelled,aftertheperiodofappealisover.
...228/
6. Muddemalpropertyi.e.mobilesArticlenos.4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,13 colly.,1718,23,24,30,31andunmarkedmobilesi.eN1100,N73,N 6110,Samsung,wristwatchof'Citizen'and'Rolex'make,besoldas perlawanditssaleproceedbecreditedtotheState.SIMcardsinthe mobiles,ifany,bedestroyed,aftertheperiodofappealisover.
7. Muddemalpropertyi.e.pistol,sixlivecartridgesandchopper (dagger)besenttotheCommissionerofPolice,Mumbai,fordisposal accordingtolaw,aftertheperiodofappealisover.
8. MummdemalArticleno.25NikeBagandvariousarticlesviz. wrappers,beingworthlessbedestroyed,aftertheperiodofappealis over.
9. MuddemalArticlei.e.amountofRs.23.50lakhsandRs.8lakhs as wellas Rs.4 lakhswhichisinF.D.R.,becreditedtotheState, aftertheperiodofappealisover.
10. Documents i.e. Article 1 colly., Article 1/1 xerox copies of air ticket,Article16pages155to175,Article26colly.,Article28toll receipt,Article33cuttingofMidDay,Article38letterissuedbyMid Day,X53xeroxcopyofMidDaynewspaper,application(Exh.850)be keptwithCfile. 11. MuddemalArticlei.e.cashRs.11.39lakhsandwristwatchof Hitesh Bhagat, Maruti Zen car no.MH04BS9412, SkodaMH01 PA6093, Car MH43N4060, Car MH43V4060, Car MH01KA 4545,carMH01AC123,arereturnedonSupratnama,beretained. Supratanamastandcancelled,aftertheappealperiodisover. ...229/
12. Muddemalarticlesi.e.truckno.MH04CA4445,Scorpiojeep no.MH01AC2475andcarbearingno.MH04AP4563besoldasper lawanditssaleproceedsbecreditedtotheState,aftertheappeal periodisover.
13. Copyofthejudgmentbeimmediatelygiventotheaccusedfree ofcost.
Date:31/07/2013
(S.G.Shete) Addl. Sessions Judge Gr.Bombay.
.../

Suresh Bhagat Murder Case Judgement

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Suresh Bhagat Murder Case Judgement

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Receivedon Registeredon Decidedon Duration

:03/10/2008 :24/04/2009 :31/07/2013 :04Y,09M,28D

INTHECOURTOFSESSIONSFORGREATERBOMBAY, ATFORT (PresidedoverbyS.G.Shete,C.R.No.07)

S.C.No.294/09 ...2...StateV/s.PravinD.Shetty&7Ors. Judg.contd.Exh.901

2.AjimuddinMaulasabShaikh Age39years,Occ.Mason R/o.HanumanChawl,DindayalNagar, UpadhyayNagar,M.I.D.C.,Andheri(W), Mumbai. And OriginalresidentofHangraga, TalukaAurad,DistrictBidar, Karnataka.

3.HarishRamaMandvikar Age33years,Occ.Electrician R/o.BhartiChawl,RoomNo.42, 1/9,IndiraNagar,Borsapada, Kandivali(W),Mumbai400067.

4.SuhasMahadevRoge Age42years,Occ.HotelBusiness, R/o.3/B,DadysethWadi,SiriRoad, BandStand,GirgaonChowpati, MalbarHill,Mumbai400006.

5.KiranBabanAmle Age36years,Occ.CableBusiness R/o.Roomno.1,BhaskarKolekar Chawl,Navagaon,LaxmanMhatre Road,Dahisar(W),Mumbai400068.

S.C.No.294/09 ...3...StateV/s.PravinD.Shetty&7Ors. Judg.contd.Exh.901

6.KiranRaguPujari Age30years,Occ.Nil, R/o.41/4,ShreeGaneshKrupa, PowaiChowk,MulundColony, Mulund(W),Mumbai400080.

7.JayaTalakshiChheda Age49years,Occ.Nil R/o.126,RoomNo.3518,Pantnagar VishalHousingSociety,Ghatkopar (E),Mumbai.

8.HiteshSureshBhagat Age33years,Occ.ShareTrading, R/o.212,JayantVilla,4thfloor, Opp.WorliMarket,Worli, Mumbai400018.

S.C.No.294/09 ...4...StateV/s.PravinD.Shetty&7Ors. Judg.contd.Exh.901

S.C.No.294/09 ...5...StateV/s.PravinD.Shetty&7Ors. Judg.contd.Exh.901

S.C.No.294/09 ...6...StateV/s.PravinD.Shetty&7Ors. Judg.contd.Exh.901

S.C.No.294/09 ...7...StateV/s.PravinD.Shetty&7Ors. Judg.contd.Exh.901

S.C.No.294/09 ...8...StateV/s.PravinD.Shetty&7Ors. Judg.contd.Exh.901

On the local inspection of the spot, P.W.01 J.D. Mokal

Being a Sr.P.I., P.W.71 Hiremath carried out the

S.C.No.294/09 ...9...StateV/s.PravinD.Shetty&7Ors. Judg.contd.Exh.901

In the meantime, District Superintendent of Police

At the time of the arrest, accused no.1 was found in

S.C.No.294/09 ...10...StateV/s.PravinD.Shetty&7Ors. Judg.contd.Exh.901

S.C.No.294/09 ...11...StateV/s.PravinD.Shetty&7Ors. Judg.contd.Exh.901

Earlier on 12/6/2008, P.I. Mahale had received the

S.C.No.294/09 ...12...StateV/s.PravinD.Shetty&7Ors. Judg.contd.Exh.901

S.C.No.294/09 ...13...StateV/s.PravinD.Shetty&7Ors. Judg.contd.Exh.901

From 9/7/2008, I.O. P.I. Mahale carried out the further

On 9/7/2008, I.O. arrested the accused Jaya Chheda,

S.C.No.294/09 ...14...StateV/s.PravinD.Shetty&7Ors. Judg.contd.Exh.901

S.C.No.294/09 ...15...StateV/s.PravinD.Shetty&7Ors. Judg.contd.Exh.901

During the pendency of trial, accused no.4 Suhas Roge

The charge (Exh.264) was framed by my learned

Predecessoragainsttheaccusedfortheoffencepunishableu/s.120 B,302r/w.34ofIndianPenalCode,towhichaccusedpleadednot guiltyandclaimedtobetried.

During the trial i.e. on 8/8/2011 and on 04/04/2012,

accused no.6 Kiran Raghu Pujari and accused no.2 Ajimuddin

S.C.No.294/09 ...16...StateV/s.PravinD.Shetty&7Ors. Judg.contd.Exh.901

S.C.No.294/09 ...17...StateV/s.PravinD.Shetty&7Ors. Judg.contd.Exh.901

Accused nos.1,3,4,5,7&8 areconvicted REASONS

S.C.No.294/09 ...18...StateV/s.PravinD.Shetty&7Ors. Judg.contd.Exh.901

In support of their case, the prosecution has examined

The prosecution relied on the testimony of approvers

S.C.No.294/09 ...19...StateV/s.PravinD.Shetty&7Ors. Judg.contd.Exh.901

Prosecution further relies on the testimony of learned

ofthedeceasedi.e.VarshaTusharShah (P.W.17Exh.456),whois thewifeofdeceasedTusharShah,VinodKalyanjiBhagat (P.W.32 Exh.511),whoisthebrotherofdeceasedSureshBhagatandAshok

S.C.No.294/09 ...20...StateV/s.PravinD.Shetty&7Ors. Judg.contd.Exh.901

Habu Kamble (P.W.45Exh.576), who is the father of deceased KamleshKamble.

In support of their case, prosecution has also examined

S.C.No.294/09 ...21...StateV/s.PravinD.Shetty&7Ors. Judg.contd.Exh.901

Prosecution examined the panchas on various

S.C.No.294/09 ...22...StateV/s.PravinD.Shetty&7Ors. Judg.contd.Exh.901

To prove the case against accused no.4 Suhas Roge,

S.C.No.294/09 ...23...StateV/s.PravinD.Shetty&7Ors. Judg.contd.Exh.901

To prove the case against accused Hitesh Bhagat, the

In support of their case, the prosecution relies on the

S.C.No.294/09 ...24...StateV/s.PravinD.Shetty&7Ors. Judg.contd.Exh.901

The prosecution relies on the statements u/s. 164 of

The prosecution also relies on the statements of the

S.C.No.294/09 ...25...StateV/s.PravinD.Shetty&7Ors. Judg.contd.Exh.901

wellasadvanceddeathcertificatesofdeceasedKamleshSalunkhe (Exh.532 & Exh.532A), deceased Tushar Shah (Exh.534 &

S.C.No.294/09 ...26...StateV/s.PravinD.Shetty&7Ors. Judg.contd.Exh.901

The prosecution relies on the medical papers of the

S.C.No.294/09 ...27...StateV/s.PravinD.Shetty&7Ors. Judg.contd.Exh.901

S.C.No.294/09 ...28...StateV/s.PravinD.Shetty&7Ors. Judg.contd.Exh.901