P. 1
Mohiniraj Kulkarni

Mohiniraj Kulkarni

|Views: 17|Likes:
Published by Sampath Bulusu

More info:

Published by: Sampath Bulusu on Nov 01, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

10/14/2014

pdf

text

original

Sections

Judgment in Spl.Sessions Case No.

14/2010

-1-

Received on­ Registered on­ Decided on­ Duration­

16/10/2010 22/10/2010 02/01/2012 Y.    M.     D. 01    02    17

Exh. No. 92        IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS    JUDGE, PUNE.  AT  PUNE            (Presided over by Shri.S.D.Darne,) Special Sessions Case No.14/2010 State of Maharashtra  Through P.I. Vishrambag police  Station, Pune.        Vs. Mohiniraj Yashwant Kulkarni, Age: 79 years, Occupation: Retired, R/at : 292, Narayan Peth, Pune.

….     Complainant

   ..       Accused.

  302, 376(2)(f), 201, 182 r/w.34 of          3(1)   (xii) 3(2)(v) 3(2)(vi) of the Scheduled    Caste and  Scheduled Tribes  (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 Appearances    :­ Shri.Vikas Shah Addl.  Public Prosecutor for complainant.  Shri.Viraj Kakade, advocate for  the accused.   Indian Penal Code and U/s.3(1)(xi) 

Offence punishable  under Section 

Judgment in Spl.Sessions Case No.14/2010

-2-

                 JUDGMENT (Delivered on  31.12.2011) The   accused   is   prosecuted   in   this   case   for  the   offence  punishable   under   section   302,   376(2)(f),   201,   182   r/w.34   of  the Indian Penal Code and 3(1)(xi) 3(1)(xii) 3(2)(v) 3(2)(vi) of the  Scheduled   Caste   and     Scheduled   Tribes   (   Prevention     of  Atrocities ) Act, 1989.

2]

Prosecution case, in brief, is that ­

The accused, whose wife is suffering from paralysis, had  kept the complainant to attend her as she was unable to look  after her own daily pursuits. The   complainant   was working  during day hours; whereas, during night another woman by  name   Mangala   Patil   was   there,   but   during   her   absence   the  complainant was also working in his house during night. The  accused developed illicit relations with the complainant. Her  daughter   aged   about   10   years,   used   to   accompany   her  whenever   she   used   to   come   to   the   house   of   the   accused   to  work   there.   The   complainant   was   belonging   to   Maang  community, whereas, the accused is of Brahmin caste.    

3] On 13.10.2009 the complainant  came to the house of  accused in the morning with her daughter   and on that day 

Judgment in Spl.Sessions Case No.14/2010

-3-

the woman on night duty was on leave. Hence, in the night  also she was there. On the next day on 14.10.2009 at about  12.10 noon Dr. Bharti, a physiotherapist, who used to come  daily to get the exercise of physiotherapy done from the wife of  the accused, came there and got done that exercise in the bed  room of the said old lady. When that exercise was going on,  accused and daughter of the complainant were   outside the  room.   The   accused   during   that   period   had   forcible   sexual  intercourse with the said girl  and then strangulated her and  thus   caused   her   death.   After   that   he   told   that   fact   to     the  complainant and saying that she should not disclose that fact  to anybody as nobody will believe her as he is an old man of  78   years   of   age   and     is   financially   sound,   whereas,   if   their  illicit   relation   became   known   to   others   her   life   would   be  spoiled  and he assured her to pay Rs.50,000/­ and  then to  remove the evidence he asked  the complainant to remove the  clothes of her daughter from her person and also to sweep the  floor   to   remove   the   blood   stains   with   Dettol   and   cloth   and  then hanged the body of the girl with a scarf to make a show  that the girl had hanged herself and thereafter clothes on the  body of the girl, the cloth with which the floor was swiped and  cleaned were kept in the carry­bag and same were thereafter  destroyed. He also pressurized   the complainant to give false  information to the police to conceal the commission of offense. 

Judgment in Spl.Sessions Case No.14/2010

-4-

Body of the said girl was taken to Poona Hospital, where she  was   declared   dead.   Later   on   when   police   came   there   the  complainant gave information to the police that her daughter  was found in an unconscious condition on the terrace of the  house and some unknown person has committed rape on her  and then caused her death by strangulation. 

4]  Police   thereafter removed  the   dead  body  to  Sassoon  General Hospital, Pune  where inquest of the dead body was  prepared   and   at   the   request   of   police   doctor   performed  autopsy of the dead body. The autopsy revealed cause of death  as   asphyxia   due   to   strangulation.  Thereafter,  during  investigation   police   arrested   this   accused   and     complainant,  mother of the said girl in connection with the said offence of  rape   and   murder.    After   arrest  during   investigation   the  complainant   confessed   her   guilt   and   her   confessional  statement   was   recorded   by   the   judicial   Magistrate   at   the  request   of   the   police,   wherein   she   disclosed   that   accused  committed rape on her daughter and   then murdered her and  she   also   helped   him   while   causing   death   of   her   daughter  because of the threats he had given.              5]  After completion of investigation police filed charge  sheet   against   this     accused   and   the   complaint,   Rekha.  Learned   Magistrate     committed   the   case   to   this   Court.   This 

Judgment in Spl.Sessions Case No.14/2010

-5-

Court   tendered   pardon   to     the   complainant   (accused   No.2)  U/s.307 of Cr.P.C. on the application of the Public Prosecutor  vide   order   dt.20.6.2010   and   then     after   hearing   the  prosecution   and   defence,   charge   Ex.15   was   framed     against  this accused for the offences punishable under section U/s. 302, 376(2)(f), 182 & 201   of Indian Penal Code and U/s.3(1) (xi),   3(1)(xii),   3(2)(v)   and   3(2)(vi)   of   the   Scheduled   Caste   and  Scheduled Tribes ( Prevention  of Atrocities ) Act, 1989. Same  was read over to him in Marathi, but he pleaded not guilty. His  defence   is   that     he   is   falsely   implicated   in   this   case   by  the  Police   because   of   the   pressure   of   women   organizations   and  political parties.

6]   To   prove   the   guilt,  prosecution  has   examined   ten  witnesses, including the accomplice  i.e. the complainant and  the Investigating Officer  and also produced several documents  on record. Defence adduced no evidence. 

7]   Considering   the   facts   brought   on   record,   following  points   arise   for   my   determination   and   I   have   recorded   my  findings thereon  for the reasons as stated below. 

Judgment in Spl.Sessions Case No.14/2010

-6-

POINTS  :

   FINDINGS :

1] Whether the prosecution has proved  that daughter of complainant died    homicidal death ?    …....

Yes.

2] Whether the prosecution has proved  that accused intentionally or knowingly  …...       Yes. Caused her death ? 3]  Whether the prosecution has proved  that the accused committed rape on her   who was a female aged about 10 years  below the age of 12 years ?                             ..... Yes  4]   Whether the prosecution has proved  that  caused to be done certain  evidence of the said offence to disappear  to wit, removed clothes of the  deceased  and cleaned the blood stains on the floor and destroyed the clothes of the said deceased  as well as the clothes by which the blood stains on the floor were cleaned by giving instructions to the approver   Rekha Anil Randive as well as by hanging the dead body of the  deceased to iron  staircase  by the scarf in order to create  fake evidence of suicidal death with the  intention of screening himself from legal punishment and intentionally gave false  information of the said offence which he  knew  or believed to be false ? 5] Whether the prosecution has proved  that on the aforesaid date, time and place  on the say of accused  the approver  Rekha Anil Randive  intentionally and 

    Yes.

Judgment in Spl.Sessions Case No.14/2010

-7-

knowingly gave false information to the  police officer, a public servant, that the  murder of Rohini  Anil Randive had been committed by unknown persons  though he had knowledge that it had  been committed by himself, intending or knowing it to be likely that he would thereby cause said police officer to carry out investigation of said offence against unknown persons ? …

    

    No.

6]  Whether the prosecution has proved  that the accused, not being a member of  Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe,  assaulted or used force to the  deceased , a female aged 10 years, a member belonging to Scheduled  Caste or Scheduled Tribe,  with intent to  dishonour or outrage her modesty ?      …     No. 7] Whether the prosecution has proved that  the accused, not being a member of  Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, being in a position to dominate the will  of deceased girl,  belonging  to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe,   with intent to dishonour and used that  position to exploit her sexually to which she would not have otherwise agreed ? … 8] Whether the prosecution has proved  that on the aforesaid date,   the accused, not being a member of  Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe,  committed rape on that girl aged 10 years,  a member belonging to Scheduled  Caste or Scheduled Tribe, an offence

    No.

Judgment in Spl.Sessions Case No.14/2010

-8-

U/s.376 of Indian Penal Code punishable with imprisonment for life ?

    No.

9] Whether the prosecution has proved  that on the aforesaid date,  the accused not being a member of  Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe,  knowing or having reason to believe that an offence of murder and rape on  the deceased girl, has been  committed, caused to be done certain  evidence of said offence to disappear  to wit, removed clothes of the  deceased  and cleaned the blood stains on the floor and destroyed the clothes of the said deceased  as well as the clothes by which the blood stains on the floor were cleaned by giving instructions to the approver accused  Rekha Anil Randive as well as by hanging the dead body of the  deceased to iron  staircase  by the scarf in order to create  fake evidence of suicidal death with the  intention of screening himself from legal punishment and intentionally gave false  information of the said offence which he  knew  or believed to be false ? … 10]  What order ? REASONS

    No.

As per final order.

8] The witnesses examined by the  prosecution  are PW  No.1   Rekha   Anil   Randive,   the   accomplice   and   mother   of  deceased victim, PW No.2 Dr.Bharti Nandkumar Ghadge, the  physiotherapist, PW No.3 Namdev Narayan Kunjir, the pancha 

Judgment in Spl.Sessions Case No.14/2010

-9-

witness on panchanama of spot of scene and seizure of some  of the articles like chocolate wrapper, scarf, carpet, mattress,  cloths of the accused, etc.  PW No.4 Rajendra Pandit Gaikwad,  who   recorded   statement   of   Rekha   Anil   Randive,   original  accused No.2, seizure of curtain and bottle of Dettol, PW No.5  Sunny   Dharmendra   Avale,   a   witness   on   the   inquest   of   the  dead   body  recorded   at  Sassoon   General   Hospital,   Pune,  PW  No.6   Ambadas   Narsu   Raskar   a   witness   on   seizure   of   the  clothes   of   the     deceased.   PW   No.7   is   Dr.Sachin   Shivaji  Sonawane,   who   performed   autopsy   on   the   dead   body   with  Dr.B.M.Dhande at  Sassoon General Hospital, Pune. PW No.8  is   Dr.Shrinath   Chandramani,   working   in   Trauma   Unit   in  Poona Hospital, who declared the said girl as dead. PW No.9  Motichand   Dhiru   Rathod   is   Police     Inspector,   who   prepared  panchanama of spot of scene and also recorded statements of  some of the witnesses and later on arrested the accused and  last  witness,   PW   No.10   Ranjeet  Dadasaheb   Dhure   is   Dy.S.P.  Cum ACP, who did further investigation and filed charge sheet.     9] Some of the important documents admitted or proved  on   record   are:   the   alleged     First   Information   Report     Ex.24  which is against unknown person,   panchanama  of spot Ex. 34, Seizure of  the cloths  of the accused etc. Ex.35, inquest of  the dead body Ex.45, Seizure of the frock/skirt and nicker of 

Judgment in Spl.Sessions Case No.14/2010

-10-

the    deceased  girl  Ex.47. Post mortem report Ex.61, Clinical  examination   of   the   dead   body   at   Poona   Hospital   Ex.65,  medical examination of the accused Ex.67, the of the Doctor of  Poona   Hospital   in   answer   to   the   query   of   the  police/Investigating   Officer   Ex,71.   Forwarding   letter   of   the  police  officer to  the  Director  of   Forensic   Science  Laboratory,  Bombay Ex.76 and 77 respectively and report of the Forensic  Science Laboratories Ex.81, 82 and 91. The call detail report  made by the accused and Dr. Harshe Ex.88 and 89. 

10] As to Point No.1 :­ Generally,   on   the   question   whether     deceased     died  homicidal death, medical evidence and the inquest of the dead  body and if the eye witnesses are there, their ocular evidence  if   any,     would   be   relevant.   Here   in   this   case,   autopsy     was  done by PW No.7 Dr.Sonawane on the next day, whereas   on  the   same   day   in   the   night   inquest   of   the   dead   body   was  recorded.  This PW No.7,  was  undisputedly a Lecturer in the  department of Forensic Medicines,  Sassoon General Hospital,  Pune  to  which  the  medical   college  is  attached.  According  to  him, he himself with  Dr.B.M.Dhande conducted post mortem  examination of the dead body  of a girl in the morning during  the period 8 a.m. To 9 a.m. on 15.10.2009. He stated, the face  of   the   dead   body   was   congested,   conjunctiva   was   also 

Judgment in Spl.Sessions Case No.14/2010

-11-

congested,   besides     dried   blood   stains   were   present   around  the nose and mouth and nails were cynosed. He also testified  that   he   found   perennial   tear   to   the   right   side   of   vagina,  margins thereof were red, hymen was lacerated at 6 0”clock  position, blood was oozing through vagina. He also stated the  external injuries like, linear abrasion on left cheek, below the  lower lid of left eye, abrasion on posterior aspect of left elbow,  ligature mark on neck, encircling the neck at thyroid cartilage  level 5 cm from right mastoid 7 cm from chin and 6 cm from  left   mastoid,   whereas   on   dissection,   he   found   right   strap  muscle haematoma  of 2 x 2 c.m., peritracheal haematoma on  right lateral aspect of 2 x 2 cm. Besides, linear abrasion on  medial aspect of left knee, linear abrasion on medial aspect of  left   leg,     linear   abrasion   on   medial   aspect   of   left   leg   in   the  middle and abrasion on back in right lumbar region were also  observed.  According   to   him,  all   the   abrasions   and   injury  marks  were   were ante­mortem  in   nature.  The  post mortem  report  he prepared at that time is proved by him ( Ex.61) and  stated   that   the   injuries   mentioned   in   Col.No.13   were  suggestive   of   asphyxia   probably   due   to   strangulation   and  abrasions were because of the struggle between two persons.  According to him,  the scarf seized during investigation which  was   shown   to   him   can   cause   ligature   mark   likethat   he  observed on the neck mentioned in Col.No.17 as injury No.3 in 

Judgment in Spl.Sessions Case No.14/2010

-12-

his post mortem report and according to him, injury No.3 was  sufficient to cause death. 

11] The inquest, Ex.45, was recorded on 14.10.2009 i.e.  on the date of incident, but at night in the  Sassoon General  Hospital,   Pune  though   body   was   initially   taken   to   Poona  Hospital   where   the   girl   was   declared   dead   and   information  was given given to Police and it has also come on record that  such exercise was done in that hospital but that document is  not forthcoming on record. In this document Ex.45 i.e. inquest  similar facts, like ligature mark of 1 1/2 x 17 cm on the neck  is stated to have been found besides other abrasions on the  other parts of the body and severe injury to the vagina. It is  stated,   the   girl's   mother,   who   had   lodged   the   report   against  unknown person, was present there. 

12]   The   learned   counsel   for   the   accused  vehemently  submitted that after 1 p.m. body was taken to Poona Hospital  by   the   mother   of   the   girl   and   this   accused   and   PW   No.8  Dr.Shrinath   Chandramani   had   examined   her,   but  astonishingly he did not notice any of the injuries mentioned  in the inquest and in the post mortem report.  He submitted  that, at least he could have noticed the injuries on the face  or  the neck or exposed part of the leg, if they were really present 

Judgment in Spl.Sessions Case No.14/2010

-13-

there. Thus, according to him, there is reason to believe those  injuries     were   not   there   when   body   was   taken   to   Poona  Hospital where girl was declared   dead and they might have  been   caused   subsequently   when   the   body   was   taken   to  Sassoon   General   Hospital,  as   there   is   considerable   gap   of  several hours between last examination at Poona Hospital and  the   inquest   in  Sassoon   General   Hospital,   Pune.   Further,   he  submitted   it   came   on   record   that     in   Poona   Hospital   itself  when police came the inquest of the dead body was recorded  but   that   document   is   suppressed,   hence,   adverse   inference  should be drawn against the prosecution for the reason that  had   it been on record it would have falsified the case of the  prosecution,   at   least   about   the   existence   of   those   injuries.  Further, he submitted, the doctor who performed post mortem  did not record injuries  to libia majora and libia minor further  PW No.7 Dr. Sonawane was not sure as to the cause of death  whether it was a result of strangulation or otherwise, hence,  he used the word, 'probably strangulation. It is also submitted  before me that this PW No.7 has not specifically stated about  his experience in  that field as to how many operations he did,  how many post mortem he has conducted, consequently   he  can not be taken  to be a person having adequate qualification  to give opinion as an expert. 

Judgment in Spl.Sessions Case No.14/2010

-14-

13]   No   doubt   in   such   cases   when   some   medical  personnel   is   examined   and   especially   when   his   opinion   is  relevant, his   educational qualification, experience in the field  should be brought on record to call him as an expert in the  field as per Sec.45 of the Evidence Act. In this case  Additional  Public   Prosecutor   made   no   attempt   to   bring   these   facts   on  record. However, when PW No.7   was called as a witness   it  came on record that  Dr. Sonawane was working as an Asstt.  Professor in Nayar Hospital, Mumbai and at the relevant time  he   was   a   Lecturer   in   Forensic   Medicines   Department   of  Sassoon   General   Hospital,   Pune.     Forensic   Medicines   is   a  specialized branch of medical science and it can be taken as  notorious fact that a Lecturer working in that department  of a  Medical   College   as   a   teacher   must   have   the   required  qualification   in   the   field   and   the   experience.   He   being   a  teacher in the specialized branch of Forensic Medicines, which  deals in Medico Legal Cases and such aspects the Courts are  required   to   deal   with   he   must   have   required   experience.  Hence, certainly this PW No.7 can be termed to be an expert  in   that   field.   It   can   also   be   noted   that   when   he   has   given  evidence, as stated above, was posted as an Asstt. Professor in  Nayar Hospital, Bombay. Thus,    despite the fact that there is  some lapses on the part of the  Additional Public Prosecutor in  not bringing  necessary   facts on record they   indirectly came 

Judgment in Spl.Sessions Case No.14/2010

-15-

in the evidence. Hence, evidence given by this witness can not  be disregarded, saying that it is not the expert's evidence. 

14] It is also true that the inquest is to be recorded at  the earliest when the dead body is found or death is reported  and   that   is   the   requirement   of   Sec.174  of   Cr.P   whenever  .C. there   is   a   suspicious   death   of   anybody.   No   explanation   is  forthcoming on record as to why there is such delay. Further  there   is   reason   to   believe   that   earlier   there   was   inquest  prepared   by  some   other  police   officer  at   Poona   hospital   but  that   is   not   produced   on   record   and   what   is   there   is   a  subsequent   inquest   recorded   before   mid­night   on   the   same  day.  It   is   further   contended   by   the   learned   counsel   for   the  defence   that  the   officer   who   recorded   the   inquest   is   not  examined as a witness to explain the inaction on the part of  the police. Thus,   it is submitted that when earlier at about  1.30 p.m. P.W.  No.8 Dr.Chandramani found no injuries on the  exposed parts of the body, how it could be believed that there  would be several injuries on her person when examined after  several   hours   at  Sassoon   General   Hospital,    and   later   on  during post mortem examination on the next day morning. He  submitted   that,  those   injuries   must   be   the   post   mortem  injuries   caused   during   that   intervening   period,   when   body  was lying un attended for several hours and perhaps at the 

Judgment in Spl.Sessions Case No.14/2010

-16-

instance of police officer or PSI Jagtap, who without any  basis  had formed an opinion that it was homicidal death and there  was   rape,   got   favourable   opinion   of   the   doctor   in   his   post  mortem report, so also the description of the injury No.3 in  Col.No.17   of   the   pm   report   for   that   purpose.   Thus,   he  submitted that,    it is a tampered document or false evidence  is fabricated.                15]   No   doubt   the   First   Information   Report   was  registered   at   0.45   p.m.   on   15.10.2009   i.e.   almost   after   12  hours after the girl was declared  dead by the doctor at Poona  Hospital and it is submitted that at the instance of  PSI Jagtap  the complainant was made to lodge such report as he told the  complainant,   that the rape was committed on her daughter,  though till then there was no opinion of any competent doctor  as post mortem was conducted on the next day. Further,  He  submitted   in   advance   report   there   is   no   opinion   about   the  alleged   rape   or   any   injury   of   such   nature,   still  offence  was  registered under both the penal provisions i.e. 302 & 376 by  PSI Jagtap, but astonishingly he is not examined though cited  as a witness.                16]     No doubt, there appears some lapses on the 

part   of   the   police   officer.   The   inquest   and   the   statement  immediately recorded in Poona Hospital  are not produced on  record   and   PW   No.8     Dr.Chandramani   has     stated   that   he 

Judgment in Spl.Sessions Case No.14/2010

-17-

found no injury on the body of the girl when she was brought  there. As per the  evidence  on record, as I have stated earlier,  body was brought by the complainant­mother of the  deceased  girl and this accused to Poona Hospital  around 1.30 p.m. and  PW No.8 Dr.Chandramani examined her as a patient. This PW  No.8   Dr.Chandramani   has   stated   that   he   obtained   history  from the mother  and uncle,  means this accused and  he was  informed   that   girl   was   found   unconscious   on   the   terrace,  hence, he had recorded history and then examined that girl  and found there was no   spontaneous   breathing   and   after  examination   he   declared   the   patient   as   brought   dead.   That  means,   according   to   him,  that   girl   was   already   dead   when  brought to the hospital. It also came on record in the evidence  that   the     Investigating   Officer  Motichand   Dhiru   Rathod   had  made query to him on which he replied  by Ex.66, stating that  he did not note apparent strangulation mark on the body and  further he did not disturb the clothes, as it was medico­legal  case, and, therefore,  he could not note injures on the private  part, which were not  exposed and there were no blood stains  or   obvious   history   of   the   injures.   It   is   also   stated   that,   he  simply did Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation ( CPR ) perhaps to  revive   the   patient,   but   as   there   was   no   cardiac   activity,   or  breathing signs, CPR was disconnected and she was declared  dead. 

Judgment in Spl.Sessions Case No.14/2010

-18-

17] PW No.8 Dr.Chandramani has further clarified in the  examination in chief itself that, when the patient was brought  to the hospital, in view of the history given by the mother of  the patient, he did not see external injuries or he did not verify  whether  there   was   any  strangulation   mark   or  even  examine  the private part of the girl. In the cross examination also he  made further clear that he did no  minute examination of the  patient.   The   gross   examination   he   did   was   for   the   purpose  why pulse/BP was not recordable and why there was absence  of respiration and not to ascertain the cause of death.  Even it  is   brought   during   cross   examination   that   there   was   some  liquid flowing out from the mouth and nose of the   deceased  that liquid was odourless. Perhaps here is the explanation of  this   medical   personnel   as   to   why   in   Ex.66   there   is   no  reference as to mark of strangulation  or ligature mark. 

18]   Further   it   is   brought   on   record   during   cross  examination of PW No.7 referring to the text book of medical  jurisprudence   by   Dr.Modi   (22nd  Edition)   that   “no   inference   should   be   drawn   simply   from   a   ligature   mark,   for   it   may   be   indistinct or absent, if soft ligature like silk is used and may be   produced by the application of ligature to the neck even after   death. If the dead body is decomposed then fold of the neck can   be   looked   like   a   ligature   mark.   Further   this   witness   has 

Judgment in Spl.Sessions Case No.14/2010

-19-

admitted the suggestion that, unless dissection of neck reveals  ante mortem evidence of violence in the underlying tissues, no  importance should be attached to mere finding of appearance,  which could be only post mortem decomposition changes.

19] In this case not merely in the inquest the mark of  ligature   was   found   around   the   neck   but   also   during   post  mortem  when   those   two   medical   Officers   had   examined   the  body externally and after desection as it mentioned in Col.No. 17 of post mortem report Ex.61 they found right strap muscle  haematoma of 2 x 2 cm. and periteacheal haematoma on right  lateral aspect of the similar size and that injury, according to  PW No.7, was antemortem injury. As per this observation of  PW No.7 there was bleeding in the right strap muscle  and in  peritracheal     area   means   around   the   tracheal   rings.   While  answering   the   suggestion,   PW   No.7   again   said   that   in   such  cases there would be  damage to skin underneath the  ligature  so also   to the underlying neck structure   thus there may be  fracture of laryngeal cartilages and tracheal rings but clarified  that   it   is   less   common   in   children.   If   the   evidence   of   this  witness is read as a whole along with post mortem report it  became clear that there was damage to the underlying tissues  or muscles of neck and resultant haematoma was there.   He  also recorded the external signs of the asphyxia that the face 

Judgment in Spl.Sessions Case No.14/2010

-20-

and conjunctiva were congested,  nails were cynosed and also  found dried blood stains around the nose and mouth. During  cross examination also he clarified that those are the features  of asphyxial death.                20] The ligature used was shown to the witness. It is  soft piece of  cloth and it is also brought on record that some  time   the   ligature   mark   may   be   indistinct   or   absent.   It   is  possible   that   at   the   time     soon   after   death   when   PW   No.8  Dr.Chandramani   examined   the   girl   might   not  have   observed  that mark may be because they may be at that time in distinct  or   not noticeable but later they might have become distinct  when inquest (Ex.45) was recorded after several hours. Hence,  from the facts on record it can not be said that those could the  postmortem injuries but police manipulated the said report to  fabricate false evidence with the help of this PW No.7, who is a  Lecturer   in   Forensic   Medicines   department   of   BJ   Medical  College,  Pune.   In  advance  P.M.  report    cause  of  death  is  as  shown in Ex.61 i.e. detailed post mortem report i.e. because of  asphyxia   due   to   strangulation.   It   can   not   be   believed   at   all  that injury No.3 stated in Col. No.17 in post mortem report Ex. 61 was inserted at the instance of police Inspector later on as  argued before me. Only because the inquest even if recorded  in Poona Hospital by some other police officer is not produced  on   record   that   will   not   make   the   prosecution   case   wholly 

Judgment in Spl.Sessions Case No.14/2010

-21-

doubtful as there is other evidence on record from which clear  inference can be drawn that it was asphyxial death because of  strangulation. By non production  of  the  document  inference  can be drawn that there may not be such external injuries on  the body of the girl as were noted subsequently. 

21]   In  Shivaji   Bobade   &   another   Vs.   State   of   Maharashtra   –   AIR   1973   S.C.   2622(1)  the  Hon'ble   Apex  Court    reminded the Judges that “Court must not abandon a   scientific attitude to medical science if it is not to be guilty of   judicial superstition.”  22]   Thus,   when   the   question   of   appreciation   or  understanding   of   medical   evidence   comes   that   should   be  answered with scientific attitude and for that court can refer  to the Treaties on the subject. 

23] In this case there is oral evidence of the complainant  PW   No.1   Rekha   Randive.   Of     course   on   this   issue   that  evidence is of little significance but it can be considered with  the  aforesaid evidence   discussed above.  We may  find many  errors or lapses on the police officers doing investigation of the  case,   but   we   should   not   swayed   away         by  such   lapses   or  errors     they   committed,   but   inference   is   to   be   drawn   from  whatever  facts brought on record as an evidence or matter on 

Judgment in Spl.Sessions Case No.14/2010

-22-

record and find out what facts   have been proved, keeping in  mind the definition of proved  given in Sec.3   of the Evidence       Act. No doubt in criminal matters the proof should be beyond  reasonable   doubt   but   not   beyond   doubt.   Seldom,   one   can  bring   on   record   the     facts   to   prove   anything   beyond   doubt.  Rather I would say no fact can be proved absolutely. Hence,  with the help of the facts or material on record finding can be  recorded   that     deceased   died   homicidal   death   i.e.   it   was  asphyxial   death     because   of   the   strangulation.   Hence,   I  answer point No.1 in the affirmative.   

24] As to Points No.2 & 3 :­ The evidence of the prosecution, that accused committed  rape   and   caused   death   of   a   minor   girl   and   those   facts   are  interlinked hence   both these points are taken for discussion  together.   I   have   already   considered   the   medical   evidence   as  regard   the   cause   of   death   that   it   was   asphyxial   death,  resulting from strangulation. The medical evidence as regards  alleged rape is of the same witness PW No.7 Dr.Sonawane. He  stated   that,   when   he   examined   the   dead   body,   along   with  Dr.Dhande, he found injury of   perineal tear to the right side  of vagina, margins were reddish. Further he stated hymen was  lacerated at 6 0”clock position and margins thereof were also  reddish and there was bleeding through vagina. Further, he 

Judgment in Spl.Sessions Case No.14/2010

-23-

testified that he noticed the injuries No.1 to 7 mentioned in  post   mortem   report   Ex.61   and     all   those   injuries   were  antemortem   in   nature.   He   then   opined   that   the   injuries   he  mentioned   in   Col.15   of   post   mortem     report   Ex.61   were  suggestive of penetrative sexual intercourse and injuries No.1,  2, 4 to 7 mentioned in Col.No.17 are possible due to struggle  between two persons, he mean to say  between the victim and  the assailant.  

25] Evidence given by this witness   is   consistent with  post mortem  report Ex.61, except that as he admitted that in  the post mortem  report Ex.61 he did not specifically clarified  whether injuries mentioned in Col. No.15 are also antemorem  injuries.   However  nothing  is   brought   on   record   in   the   cross  examination   that   those   injuries   to   the   private   part   i.e.  penerial   tea   laceration   of   hymen   and   the   abrasion   were  postmortem. This witness was extensively cross­examined by  the defence counsel on all those aspects, putting to him the  opinion of author   of   various treatise on   Forensic Science,  authored   by   Mr.Modi,   Mr.Parekh,   Tailor   etc.   However,   this  witness firmly  with stood cross­examination. On the contrary,  what came during the cross­examination fortified  the opinion  he has given in examination­in­chief.  26]   A   question   was   raised   how   there   could   a   bleeding 

Judgment in Spl.Sessions Case No.14/2010

-24-

through vagina almost 20 hours after the death. Said witness  agreed   with   the   suggestion   made   to   him   that   even   after  petrification the  female genitals appear swollen and may leak  blood   tinged   fluid     and   such   changes   may   be   mistaken   as  showing   features   of   sexual   assault   and,   therefore,   these  observations noted by this witness that blood  was oozing from  the   vagina   can   not   be   considered   as   doubtful   one.   Further  only   on   that   basis   he   did   not   opine   that   there   was   sexual  assault. He had noted perineal tear and laceration of hymen at  6 0'clock position. Further, he also agreed with the suggestion  put   to   him   that   the   stretching   or   splits     injuries   can   occur  when legs are violently abducted such as if the child slips on a  slippery   surface   and   in   that   such   cases   a   tear   can   be  produced   which   can   involve   the   skin   of   the   perineum,   the  perineal body and the  hymen. With the help of this and other  facts   on   record   it   is   vehemently   submitted   by   the   learned  counsel for the accused that when there were no injuries to  the private part and other parts of the body when the dead  body was first examined at the Poona Hospital, these injuries  described   by   the   doctor   at  Sassoon   General   Hospital,   Pune  could   have   been   caused   when   the   body   was   carried   to  Sassoon   General   Hospital,    and   kept   there   unattended   for  several   hours.   Even   such   suggestion   was   also   put   to   the  witness that those injuries were caused to the  deceased while 

Judgment in Spl.Sessions Case No.14/2010

-25-

bringing the dead body to the Sassoon General Hospital, Pune  and  he  flatly denied  that suggestion.  Further, when the  girl  was   dead,   there   was   no   possibility   that   those   injuries   were  caused because of the violent abduction of legs because of the  slip on a slippery surface. Further, it is not the contention or  even   a   suggestion   of   the   learned   counsel   for   the   accused  during   trial   that   those   injuries   were   caused   in   the   hospital  when it was being handled by the police officer or other person  or rather deliberately. It is argued before me that PSI Jagtap,  who   carried   the   inquest   in   Sassoon   Hospital   and   also  informed  the  complainant  that  her  daughter  was  raped  and  murdered   and   was   made   to   lodge   report,   that   too,   without  having any expert's opinion as if he was an expert and further,  said   police   officer     is   not   examined.   However   nothing   is  brought on record to substantiate that contention or to  make  the Court to believe that at that stage on that day said police  officer   had any plan to register the case U/s.302 and 376 of  Indian   Penal   Code   against   this   accused     when   at   that   time  nobody was knowing who could have committed that offence  and there is no reason to believe that he had any motive at  that   stage   to   cook   up   such   story   or   fabricate   such   false  evidence   and   also   get   the   medical   opinion   of   like   nature  consistent   to     inquest   report   he   prepared.   Even   nothing   is  brought   on   record   that   said     PSI   Jagtap   had   any   motive   to 

Judgment in Spl.Sessions Case No.14/2010

-26-

book   the   accused   in   future     when   later   on   he   was   not   in  picture at all  either as an Investigating Officer or otherwise. 

27] The inquest of the dead body is on record at Ex.45.  This document is proved by PW No.5 Sunny Awale stating that  on   14.10.2009   at   the   Dead   House   of  Sassoon   General  Hospital, Pune he saw a naked dead body of a small girl, aged  about 10 years and there was abrasion on her cheek, neck,  left hand, left leg, on the back etc. and blood was oozing out  from the private part. In the inquest besides the abrasions on  the body it is also noted that the private part was torn. No  doubt this witness fumbled during cross examination saying  that police told him to come to the police station  next day and  on   the   next   day   morning   he   went   to   the   police   station.  However     the   public   prosecutor   sought   permission   to  reexamine the  witness and during reexamination he clarified  that  day before police had called him in the police station to  tell   him   that   he   is     required   to   attend   the   Court   for   giving  evidence. He then added that panchanama of the dead body  was   prepared   in   his   presence   in  Sassoon   General   Hospital,  Pune and    flatly denied the suggestion given to him that he  did not see the dead body and the injuries over it. 

28]   No   doubt,   as   I   have   stated   earlier,   the   doctor   who 

Judgment in Spl.Sessions Case No.14/2010

-27-

examined the dead body at Poona Hospital, stated that he did  not observe injuries on the exposed parts of the body and the  alleged   inquest   made   in   the       Poona   Hospital   is   not   forth­  coming on record but while discussing herein before it can be  said that as history of any kind of assault was not given and  mother of the girl and the alleged uncle ( i.e. present accused )  disclosed   that   the   body   was   found   in   an   unconscious  condition on the terrace   according to the doctor he made an  attempt to revive the girl   and after that unsuccessful attempt  he declared the girl to be dead. 

29] It is also stated that there were clothes on her body  and those clothes were kept intact. It is  vehemently submitted  by the learned counsel for the accused that, according to the  doctor, there  was a pant on the body of the girl but what was  seized from the Sassoon General Hospital, Pune as  clothes of  the girl were different   i.e. skirt, blouse etc. and further the  doctor   found   no   clothes   on   the   body   at   the   time   of   post  mortem   and there is nothing on record as to who removed  those clothes and shown to have seized. However, this lacuna  or non explanation to what happened to those clothes, even if  not given will not make the case of the prosecution doubtful  about existance   of the injuries on the person of the girl. Had  those injuries were the postmortem injuries, there would have 

Judgment in Spl.Sessions Case No.14/2010

-28-

different   features   thereof   and   certainly   the   two   medical  officers, one of them is  PW No.7, Dr.Sonawane is a Lecturer in  Forensic Medicines department of  Sassoon General Hospital,  Pune, would not have described those injuries as ante mortem  injuries. From the description of the injuries given in the post  mortem   report   Ex.61   also   they    can   be   termed   to   be  antemortem. Unless some special facts brought on record it is  certainly   improper   to   make   submission   that   the   medical  evidence brought on record by this PW NO.7 is fabricated or is  false evidence. 

30]     Now   so   far   the   ocular   evidence   is   concerned,   the  main   and   important   witness   from   the   prosecution   point   of  view is PW No.1, Rekha the mother of the victim, who was in  the   beginning   arraigned   as  accused   No.2   by   the   police   and  prior to that her confession  U/s.164 of Cr.P.C. was recorded  by the Special Judicial Magistrate.   Much after the case was  committed   and   just   before   framing   of   charge,   this   Court  tendered pardon to her U/s.307  of Cr.P.C., of course on the  application of the   Additional Public Prosecutor in charge of  this case. Thus she is now  an approver. Admittedly, she was  working   as   an   attendant   in   the   house   of   the   accused  since  more than a year before the incident.  31] She testified that, she was employed by the accused 

Judgment in Spl.Sessions Case No.14/2010

-29-

to look after his wife who was paralytic patient and her job  was to take care of that old woman, to give her meal, get her  exercise  done     etc.    and  the  accused  agreed  to  give  her  Rs. 3000/­   p.m.   as   salary.  According  to   her,  her  working  hours  were 8 a.m. to 7.30 p.m. She further stated that, accused used  to make inquiry about her personal affairs and life and slowly  he   was   making   sexual   advance   towards   her   and   by   his  conduct     he   was   showing   lascivious   attitude.   Further  according to her, prior to Diwali accused had asked her to do  night duty, saying that he would pay separate remuneration  for the night duty and she consented for that. She then stated  that, during night hours she  gave meal to the wife of accused  and took her to bed and when she slept near her bed, accused  came there  and had forcible sexual intercourse with her and  warned her not to disclose that fact to anybody and he also  increased her salary by Rs.500/­. Hence, she did not disclose  that   incident   to   her   mother   or   anybody   else   and   thereafter,  accused used to have sexual intercourse with her. She   also  stated, after some period her salary was again increased to Rs. 4000/­ p.m. and a savings account in the Post Office was also  opened by the accused in her name. Then she has stated that,  her   daughter   aged   about   10   years   used   to   come   with   her  occasionally, on the day of holiday and accused used to give  her biscuits and chocolates and   15 days before Diwali when 

Judgment in Spl.Sessions Case No.14/2010

-30-

her daughter had come with her, the accused had taken her  on   the   upper   floor   on   the   pretext   of   giving     biscuits,  chocolates , he had touched her breast and kissed her and she  had disclosed that fact to her mother. According to her, at that  time   her   mother   had   come   to   the   house   of   accused  and  questioned him about that incident but the accused denied to  have done any such indecent act, saying that the said girl is  just  like   his   grand   daughter        and   he   was   angry   with   her  mother  and  drove her  out  of  the  house  castigating her.  She  then   stated   that,   at   the   time   of   next   Diwali   again   accused  asked her whether she would do the night duty in place of the  lady who was working in the night and accordingly on 13th Oct  at the time of Diwali she went to the house of accused along  with   her   daughter,   gave   meal   to   her   and   then   she   and   her  daughter went to bed and they both slept on the ground in the  room of wife of accused. She then stated that, after mid night  accused   again   came   in   that   room   and   gave   call   to   her   and  despite     she   told   that   she   was   in   menses,   he   had   sexual  intercourse with her, using condom, but as she pushed him  away   during   intercourse,   he   remain   unsatisfied.   Next   day  morning   she   observed   that   the   accused   was   looking   at   her  with   evil   eyes   as   if   he   was   not   satisfied   with   the   sexual  intercourse   .   Later   on   accused   received   a   phone   call   of  Physiotherapist   PW   No.2   Dr.Bharti.   thereupon   accused 

Judgment in Spl.Sessions Case No.14/2010

-31-

informed her that she would be coming   within half an hour.  Thereafter,  accused went to the room of his wife and saw her  urine   bag   and   while   he   was   doing   that   exercise,   the  Physiotherapist came there and her daughter also followed her  and   asked   the   PW   No.2   Dr.Bharti   whether   she   bought  crackers for Diwali but she replied in the negative and then  asked the accused to allow her to give treatment and exercise  to his wife.  Hence, accused went out of the room. At that time  the   daughter   of   PW   No.1   was   in   the   room   itself   and   the  physiotherapist asked her to play some songs on mobile phone  and started exercise.   She further stated that Physiotherapist  observed swollen knee of the wife of accused and  showed that  to   the   accused.   At   that   juncture   accused   asked   Rohini,   the  daughter of  PW No.1 to go outside and play and Dr.Bharti told  her to lower down the voice of songs.   She then added, that  after   completion   of   the   exercise   Dr.Bharti   went   away   taking  the wife of the accused to the swing. This PW No.1 then stated  that, during that period accused was   in the adjoining room  and when he came out, he was having sweat and was cleaning  it by handkerchief and asked him whether Dr.Bharti left the  house   and   at   that   time   he   gave   call   to   the   physiotherapist  through window and asked her to come tomorrow. She further  stated that the accused asked her to bring tiffin from Suman  Sanas, hence, she went to down stairs to bring tiffin and also 

Judgment in Spl.Sessions Case No.14/2010

-32-

met Dr.Bharti then and after some time brought the tiffin for  the accused and his wife and found that accused was in the  kitchen.   Hence,   she   asked   him   where   her   daughter   is,   on  which he replied that Rohini slept on upper side i.e. terrace.  She thereafter went to the terrace and saw that her daughter  near   the   door   of   the   third   floor   in   sleeping   condition   and  though she tried to awake her, she did not wake up and she  found that she was breathless and at that time accused also  came there and she asked him as to why her daughter was not  talking and  he told that he committed rape on her but she did  not understand and asked him what he meant by the   rape.  She then stated that  the clothes of her daughter were stained  with blood and , accused told her that they would carry her to  the hospital and  the   accused brought hand gloves   and told  her to wear and change the clothes of her daughter. Hence,  accordingly she changed the clothes. At that time she found  that   the   private   part   of   her   daughter   was   torn.   She   then  stated that, accused asked her to keep the removed clothes of  her daughter in a carry bag and to clean the blood from the  floor   with   the   help   of   dettol   and   washing   powder.   Further  according to her, the accused went to the terrace and brought  a scarf from the terrace and tied it to an iron staircase and  then got down from the terrace and told that her daughter is  dead and warned that if his relation with her are disclosed to 

Judgment in Spl.Sessions Case No.14/2010

-33-

the   world,   no   body   would   believe   her   that   he   could   have  committed rape on her   as       he was aged 79 years where as  her life would be ruined. Thus, he warned not to disclose any  fact to anybody saying that he would pay her  Rs.50,000/­ and  he is able to do   anything with the strength of money being  rich man.  Further, according to her at that time in the corner  of the room a curtain was lying and there was condom which  was stained with blood. He further told her to put that curtain  and condom in carry bag etc  and asked her to clean the floor  with dettol and washing powder and piece of cloth and then  those hand gloves and piece of cloth were also put in carry  bag and that carry bag was then kept in another blue colour  carry bag and he went to a room on the ground floor directing  her to bring her daughter down and then they kept the body of  her daughter on a cot of his wife and brought water to give to  the   girl   but   it   did   not   pass   through   her   mouth.   Further,  According to her, she also tried to give ghee and sugar to her  daughter     but   it   also     did   not   pass.   Accused   then   made   a  phone   call   to   Dr.Harshe   on   phone   and     told   him     that   her  daughter  fallen   on terrace and she is not talking. Dr.Harshe  asked them to take the girl to     the Poona hospital. Further,  According to her,  at that time itself accused made a contact  with her brother Sandip, stating that his niece is restless and  also   talked   with   her   mother   on   phone,   that   her   grand 

Judgment in Spl.Sessions Case No.14/2010

-34-

daughter fell down on the terrace due to fainting and directed  her to come to Poona Hospital to see her. She further added,  accused  went down  on   the  pretext of  taking out the  vehicle  and   at   that   time   she   saw   that   he   was   carrying   the   blue  coloured bag and he put it in the dickey of the vehicle and at  that  juncture   the  brother of  accused   Suresh  Kulkarni   came  there  and  he asked her to bring her daughter down. Hence,  she brought her daughter on the ground floor and then they  took her  to Poona Hospital   in a car driven by the   accused.  According to her,  when they reached Poona Hospital  and took  her daughter to the doctor, she was asked to sit outside  and  after 15 minutes doctor came out and  told that her daughter  is dead. She then stated that, at that time accused received a  phone call from Dr.Harshe and accused talked with him and  said doctor told him to keep the body of the girl on ice and  accordingly that was done and little after accused came out  and told her that   he is going to his house and gave her   as  well   as   to   her   mother   Rs.1000/­.   She   further   stated   that,  thereafter,  she   herself   and   her   mother   went   to  Sassoon  General Hospital, Pune  where   police made inquiry from her  and she told to the police that her daughter was lying on the  terrace   and   she   was   not   knowing   what   had   happened   but  police   told   her   that     rape   was   committed   on   her   daughter  then police asked her who could have committed that act, but 

Judgment in Spl.Sessions Case No.14/2010

-35-

According   to   her,  due   to   threats   of   the   accused   and   his  pressure,   she   did   not   disclose   the   real   fact   to   the   police  though they   were repeatedly asking her and   she disclosed  those facts to the police Inspector Rathod after her arrest. She  has   stated   that   initially   she   had   lodged   report   like   Ex.24  against unknown person, but that was  done because of the  pressure of the accused.

32] Dr.Bharti Ghadge, the physiotherapist, is examined  as PW No.2. Out of several facts, she stated the relevant are  that,   as   usual   when   she   went   to   the   house   of   accused   on  14.10.2009   to   give   treatment   to   his   wife,   she   saw   a   swollen  knee and because of that   accused   scolded PW No.1 Rekha,  objecting the presence of her daughter in the room when the  patient was exposed and he asked PW No.1 to send her away.  Hence, the PW No.1 asked her daughter to go away and then  accused   also   followed   her   and   she   continued   her   treatment  and   after   the   treatment   by   12.30   hrs.   she   took   wife   of   the  accused to a hall and she washed her hands and at that time  she   saw  that  accused   was   on   the   chair  of   the   dining  table.  According   to   her,  usually   accused   used   to   drop   her   on   the  ground floor, but on that day he did not come though through  window he asked her when she would come tomorrow and she  told   him   that   she   would   inform   him   on   phone.   Further 

Judgment in Spl.Sessions Case No.14/2010

-36-

According to her when she opened the door of the staircase to  go   out   and   closed   it,   there   was   big   noise   as   usual   and  generally the girl of PW No.1 used to say Goodbye to her when  she   was   leaving   but   on   that   day   she   was   not   there   to   say  goodbye and she saw a wrapper of condom below the room of  the patient. She further stated that, on the next day morning  when she made a phone call to the house of accused, it was  picked up by a stranger at 11.40 a.m. and when she went to  his house, she found that there was heavy rush and Rekha  was also there and on inquiry she told her that her daughter  has been died and  when she went inside the house and asked  the accused as to why police   came there   accused told her  that the children are dying due to suffocation and heatstroke  and same thing might have been happened with the daughter  of Rekha, and on that day she did not do  any exercise of his  wife as there was no body to help her. 

33]   Thus,   the   case   of   prosecution   is   based   upon   the  evidence of PW No.1,  the mother of the girl, who is approver or  accomplice   of   the   accused.   The  learned  Additional   Public  Prosecutor     submitted   that   this   main   witness   is     worth  reliable, though she is approver and was with the accused and  even   there   is   extra   judicial   confession   of   the   accused,   who  admitted to have committed rape on her daughter and that is 

Judgment in Spl.Sessions Case No.14/2010

-37-

also admissible in evidence and there is no reason to believe  that this PW No.1, who is woman, would castigate herself and  would   give   false   evidence   against   the   accused.   Further   he  submitted, the death and rape occurred inside the house of  the   accused  and   there   is   reason  to  believe  that  during  that  period  no   outsider  had  entered  the   house   and  this   accused  was   the   only   male   member   at   that   time   in   the   house   and  considering  his   past  conduct,   lascivious    attitude,   it  can   be  inferred   that   he   himself   and   nobody   else   committed   that  offence   and only because PW No.8, may be for want of the  history given or swayed away by the statement of the accused,  took   no   pain   to   record   the   injuries   on   the   person   of   the  deceased, the prosecution case can not be thrown out. 

34]   As   against   this,       learned   counsel   for  the   accused  submitted   that   PW   No.1   being   the   accomplice   and   her  evidence is admissible or she is competent witness U/s.133 of  the Evidence Act, there is presumption U/s.114(b) of the said  Act that she is unworthy of credit unless she is  corroborated  in material particulars.   He relied upon following judgments  on the credibility of approver's evidence : (1) Trimukh M. Kirkan Vs. State of Maharashtra –   2006 ALL MR ( Cri) 3510 (SC); (2) Manohar K. Khandate Vs. State of Maharashtra –  

Judgment in Spl.Sessions Case No.14/2010

-38-

2011 ALL MR ( Cri) 3245, (3) Wilfred R. Fernandes Vs. State of Maharashtra –  2011 ALL MR ( Cri)  451,     and   submitted   that   Courts  when   seeks   to   rely   upon   the     evidence   of     approver   for  convicting the accused on that evidence corroboration should  be of two kinds; firstly that the Court should satisfy that the  statement   of   the     approver   is   credible   and   there   is   other  evidence that the approver had taken part in the crime to say  that   she   is   really   the     accomplice   and   secondly   the   ocular  evidence given by the approver should be supported by other  evidence   which   should   be   of   such   nature   to   connect   the  accused with the crime.  He submitted that,  this PW No.1 is  not worthy of credit or her evidence is not at all reliable as she  did not disclose the fact she has testified before the Court at  an   earliest   opportunity     but   there   is   long   delay,     She   had  several opportunities of making such statement. Further, her  version is not  consistent with her earlier statement and she  had a motive or reason to falsely implicate the accused. It is  submitted   on   14.10.2009   she   gave   information   to   the   police  that some un known person has committed offence which is  also inconsistent with her earlier statement at Poona Hospital  that her daughter was lying unconscious on the terrace. 

Judgment in Spl.Sessions Case No.14/2010

-39-

35] Further, It is submitted that her alleged statement  U/s.164 of Cr.P  was not recorded by the Judicial Magistrate  .C. First Class but by the Special Judicial Magistrate, who is not  authorized   to   record   such   statement   and   though   the  Investigating   Officer   had   requested   to   the   Chief   Judicial  Magistrate   to do that exercise, there is no explanation as to  why it was  not recorded  by the  Chief  Judicial  Magistrate  or  other   Judicial   Magistrate   first   class   working   here   and   what  made   the   Special   Judicial   Magistrate   to   do   that   Job.     He  submitted   that,    the   confessional   statement   recorded   by  Special   Judicial   Magistrate,   U/s.164  of   Cr.P   is   not  .C. admissible   in   evidence,   in   view   of   the   observation   of   the  Hon'ble   High   Court   in  Bhuasaheb   @   Babu   vs.   State   of  

  Maharashtra – 1997       Cr.L.J. 467  bringing to my notice the   
observation   therein   that   confession     recorded   by   Special  Judicial Magistrate is inadmissible in evidence.

36]   No   doubt,   the   PW   No.1   initially   has   stated   to   the  doctor   in   Poona   Hospital   that   her   daughter   was   found   un  conscious   on   the   terrace   as   if   no   offence   was   committed   in  relation   to   her  body    and   later   on   at   about   mid   night   First  Information   Report   was   lodged   that   in   the   afternoon   her  daughter   was   found   sleeping   on   the   terrace   and   when   she  made an attempt to wake up, she did not respond. Hence, she 

Judgment in Spl.Sessions Case No.14/2010

-40-

brought her down in the flat of her employer i.e. accused and  even she made an attempt to give water but her attempt was  failed  and   hence   she  was   brought    her  to   the  hospital   at  3  p.m.   where   doctor   declared   her   dead   and   at   the   time   of  recording inquest  it  was  observed   that  her private  part  was  torn and there was bleeding. Similarly, there was mark around  her neck and because of that she expressed her doubt in the  report that some unknown person had committed rape on her  daughter and killed her by strangulation and on this report  the crime was registered.

    37]   As   I   have   stated   earlier,   just   before   that   a   little  earlier   before   mid   night   of   14.10.2009   inquest   was   recorded  and   there   is   also   reference   to   that   exercise   in   this   First  Information Report. After some day  the accused and this lady  were arrested and on 24.10.2010 she implicated the accused.  Thus, for the first time   this PW No.1 implicated the accused  to   be   the   perpetrator   and   made   several   allegations   against  him, though till then, as per the facts on record, she had not  put any kind of blame on the accused.  On the contrary,  she  conceded  in the cross examination  that she had told to  the  news reporter that accused was treating her  like a daughter.  Further   she   had   opportunity   whenever   she   was   produced  before the Magistrate after   her arrest to tell the facts about 

Judgment in Spl.Sessions Case No.14/2010

-41-

the alleged incident. Further,  her statement U/s.164 of Cr.P .C.  was   recorded   by   the   Special   Judicial   Magistrate   on  21.11.2009.But it came on record that  much prior to that the  Investigating   Officer   had   addressed   a   letter   to   the     Judicial  Magistrate with request to record the statement of the accused  U/s.164  of   Cr.P   The   letter   of   the      Investigating   Officer  .C. addressed to Judicial Magistrate is at Ex.88 as an admitted  document it is  dated 24.10.2009, the date on which she had  disclosed the alleged fact implicating herself and the  accused  in commission of the said offence.

 38] It is also brought to my notice that, the statement of  this   PW  No.1,  the   mother  of  the   girl  recorded  by  police   was  also   forwarded   along   with   that   letter   to   the   Chief   Judicial  Magistrate,   Pune   with   a   request   to   record   her   confessional  statement  of the accused saying that, the matter is sensitive.  There is nothing  on record why this delay of about 4 weeks in  recording   the   statement   of   PW   No.1   U/s.164   of   the   Act  occurred. On this letter dtd 24.10.09 there is an endorsement  of   Judicial   Magistrate   F.C.Khadki,   Pune   that   the     same   be  placed   before   the   Regular  Court   and   later  on   on   21.11.2009  the   confessional   statement   of   PW   No.1   was   recorded   by  the  Special   Judicial   Magistrate,   but   for   the   delay   investigating  machinery or police can not blamed.

Judgment in Spl.Sessions Case No.14/2010

-42-

39]   No   doubt   in     Bhuasaheb   @   Babu   vs.   State   of  

  Maharashtra   –   1997       Cr.L.J.   467  it   is   observed   that,   
confession   u/s.   164   of   Cr.P.C.   recorded   by   Special   Judicial  Magistrate  is   inadmissible   in   evidence.   However   the   said  observation was made in the given set of facts, that it was not  shown   before   the   Court   that   the   said  Special   Judicial  Magistrate who can be appointed for a year said to have been  working since 3 years. Reference to Sec.13  of Cr.P.C.  is made  by His Lordship and it was noted that the appointment of the  Special   Judicial   Magistrate  can   be   made   for   a   term   not  exceeding   one   year   at   a   time.   In   this   case   Notification   of  appointment   of  Special   Judicial   Magistrate  was   produced  wherein   there   is   also   reference   as   to   power   to   record  confession U/s.164  of Cr.P.C.. Thus, it can be   said that this  Special   Judicial   Magistrate    was   having   power   to   do   such  exercise U/s.13(1) of the Act. In this case nothing is brought  on   record   that   the  Special   Judicial   Magistrate    was   not  empowered   to   do   so   or   his   term   was   expired.   That  Special  Judicial Magistrate is not examined as a witness to prove the  said   statement   of   PW   No.1   recorded   by   him     but   it   is   even  conceded by the learned counsel for the accused  that U/s.80  examination of the Magistrate is not necessary. 

Judgment in Spl.Sessions Case No.14/2010

-43-

40] The Hon'ble Supreme Court Madi Ganga Vs. State   of   Orissa   –   AIR   1981   S.C.1165;   observed   “Sec.80   of   the   Evidence   Act   makes   the   examination   of   the   Magistrate   un   necessary.   It   authorizes   the   Court   to   presume   that   the   document   is   genuine,   that   any   statements   as   to   the   circumstances under which it was taken are true and that such   confession was only taken in accordance with law.”    In   that  case   the  Hon'ble   Apex   Court      was   dealing   with   the  confessional statement of the accused. 

41] Here in this case it needs to be noted that, now said  statement though recorded as confession of PW   No.1 as she  was   accused   at   that   time   after   tendering   of   pardon   by   this  Court   she   is   examined   as   a   witness   i.e.   PW   No.1   and   her  statement   recorded   by   the  Special   Judicial   Magistrate  appointed U/s.11(1) is to be taken as statement of the witness  recorded by the Magistrate U/s.164(5) of Cr.P  and procedure  .C. prescribed   for   that   is   simple   as   is   prescribed   by   Sec.281  of 

Cr.P  that is recording of statement of the witness before the  .C.
Court   at   the   trial.   When   such   statement   is   recorded   by   a  Magistrate   bar   placed   by   sec.   162  of   Cr.P   in   use   of   that  .C. statement would not come into play, Such statement not only  can   be   used   to   confront   the   author     U/s.145,     but   also   to  corroboration him U/s.157 of Evidence Act. Further the Rules 

Judgment in Spl.Sessions Case No.14/2010

-44-

applicable to the confession are not applicable in this case, so  far that statement is concerned. 

42] Further, only because while making request the  Investigating   Officer     forwarded   copy   of   the   statement,   he  recorded   during   investigation   to   the   Magistrate,   the  significance of that statement or confession would be reduced  or   it   would   become     inadmissible.   When   any   judicial  Magistrate   empowered   to   act   under  of  Code  of   Criminal 

Procedure to record statement of the accused/witness he  has 
to   follow   procedure   prescribed   by   law   .   For   recording  confession   formalities   given   under   Sec.164   are   to   be   strictly  followed.       The guidelines there are   also given in Criminal  Manual     .     When   the   statement   of   the   witness   is   to   be  recorded,   the   procedure   U/s.281  of  Cr.P   is   to   be   followed.  .C. Certainly,   any   Magistrate   would   not     copy   the   earlier  statement of the witness sent to him.  Thus, for forwarding the  earlier   statement   to   the   Magistrate,   the   alleged   confessional  statement  of   PW   No.1   can   not  be   discarded   or  that  will   not  diminish the worth of that statement as a piece of evidence on  record, though small one. 

43]     In   this   case   there   is   delay   in   disclosure   of   the  alleged statement, which, according to her, are thetrue  facts. 

Judgment in Spl.Sessions Case No.14/2010

-45-

She  has   given   a   plausible   explanation   there   for   of   that,  because   of   the   threats   of   the   accused,   I   referred   to   earlier,  she   chose   to   keep   mum   till   she   was   arrested.   Her   conduct  certainly can not be termed to unnatural. Further there is no  such   un   explained   delay,   Perhaps   many   time   delinquent,  atleast   in   the   beginning,   never   shows   his   willingness   to  confess   his   misdeed. In this case   implicating the accused  certainly   was   amounting   to   implicating   herself   as   she   was  'pari­delicto'.   Many   times   during   investigation,   police   are  required   to   use   their   own   skill   to   extract   confession   of  incriminating facts from the accused by proper   interrogation  or   otherwise   or   break   the   accused   psychologically     so   that  accused would be constrained to disclose the facts he tried to  suppress or hide. Such interrogation or disclosure to police to  some extent is not to collect the evidence but to get clue for  further   investigation   unless   confession   is   before   the  Magistrate. Many times even if     the accused initially shows  his willingness to give such statement, he declines to confess  the guilt or narrate such account, amounting   to confession  when he is aware that if he makes disclosure  of incriminating  facts, that would be used against him at the time of trial. As a  rule, confession is inadmissible, especially when it is recorded  by   police   or   in   the   presence   of   police,   except   in   some  circumstances as is provided under  provisions of Laws and in 

Judgment in Spl.Sessions Case No.14/2010

-46-

our system the law on confession is very strict to protect the  interest of the  accused. Here, that statement was recorded by  the police   immediately   on 24.10.2009 but after some delay  similar statement  of PW 1 was recorded by the Magistrate as  a confession.  Earlier statement could  be used not only     by  the defence but also by prosecution under Sec. 145 and Sec. 157 of Evidence Act. limited purpose U/s.162 of Cr.P   as the  .C. said   lady   entered   into   the   witness   box   as   a   witness   against  the accused. She is not being tried   with this accused as a co­ accused.                44]   Further,   if   the   said   statement   of   PW   No.1   is  considered   as   statement   of     witness       recorded   by   the  Magistrate U/s.164(4)  of Cr.P   (Ex.25), the   testimony of this  .C. PW No.1 is by and large consistent with that. Minor variations  can   not   be   considered   as   discrepancies   in   both   the  statements. Two statements given by a witness at two times  can   not   be   identical   one.   Some   minor   variations   would   be  there   and   that   should   be   considered   as   natural   one.   The  alleged   inconsistent  statement  brought  to   my  notice   in   para  No.37 of the cross examination of PW No.1 are illusory. It can  be said that this witness has stated same thing in some other  manner   and   not   in   the   same   order   as     she   stated   in   this  Court.Thus, in my opinion, this statement U/s.164(4) of Cr.P .C.  (Ex.25) corroborates the testimony of this witness PW No.1.  

Judgment in Spl.Sessions Case No.14/2010

-47-

45]   It   is   also   worth   to   be   noted   here   that,   tender   of  pardon is not U/s.306  of Cr.P   by the Magistrate who took  .C. cognizance.   Said statement U/s.164(5) was recorded during  investigation   and   not   after   tendering     of   the   pardon   by   the  Magistrate  as per Sec. 206 of Cr.P . Further, after tendering  .C. of pardon by this Court she was examined as a prosecution  witness.   Ordinarily   in   case   of   approver,   pardon   is   tendered  U/s.306  of   Cr.P   and   then   her   statement   is   recorded     by  .C. Magistrate.   Such   statement   is   not   considered   to   be  confessional statement and the stringent procedure prescribed  by Sec.164 of Cr.P  is not to be followed. .C.   46] Thus, in this case though PW No.1 is an approver,  whose evidence is always considered to be unworthy of credit  and court is required to   go for the corroboration in material  particulars,   above   are   the   special   circumstances   which   add  little more  credit to what this witness deposed at the trial.   47] No   doubt   there   are   observations   of   the  Hon'ble  Supreme   Court  in  Saravanbhavan   &   Govindaswamy   Vs.   State of Madras – 1966 Cri.L.J. 949 (SC) as under:  “Ordinarily   a     Court   seeks   for   corroboration   of   the   evidence of an   approver before convicting an accused person   on   that   evidence.   Generally   speaking,   this   corroboration   is   of   two  kinds.   Firstly,   the   Court   has   to   satisfy   itself   that   the   statement   of   the     approver   is   credible   in   itself   ad   there   is  

Judgment in Spl.Sessions Case No.14/2010

-48-

evidence   other   than   the  statement   of   the     approver   that   the   approver himself had taken part in the crime; secondly,  after   the court is satisfied that the   approver's statement is credible   and his part in the crime is corroborated by other evidence, the   court   seeks   corroboration   of   the     approver's     evidence   with   respect to the part of other accused persons  in   the   crime   and   this evidence has to be of such a nature as to  connect the other   accused with the crime” But   it   must   never   be   forgotten   that   before   court   reaches the stage of considering the question of corroboration   and   its   adequacy   or   otherwise,   the   first   initial   and   essential   question  to consider is whether even as an  accomplice   the   approver is a reliable witness. If the answer to this question is   against the  approver then there  is   an   end  of   the  matter   and   no question as to whether his evidence is corroborated or not   falls to be  considered.   In   other   words,  the  appreciation  of  an   approver's evidence  has to satisfy a double test. His evidence   must show that  he   is   a   reliable   witness   and   that   is   a   test   which is common to all witnesses. If this test is satisfied the   second   test     which   still   remains   to   be   applied   is   that   the   approver's  evidence must receive sufficient corroboration.”   and similar are the observations in  Chandan and another   Vs.   The   state   of   Rajasthan   –   AIR   1988   S.C.   599,   and   Abdul Sattar Vs. Union Territory Chandigarh ­ AIR 1988   S.C. 1438, referring to Sec.133 of the Evidence Act. But as I  have stated earlier, the aforesaid aspect or circumstance as a  special feature of the case, needs to be borne in mind to find  what credit this witness deserves and as I have stated earlier  her earlier statement U/s.164  of Cr.P   Having been recorded  .C. by Magistrate, it is  a piece of evidence, which can be used to  corroborate   what this   approver has stated from the witness  box.   Of   course   this   can   be   taken   as   a   small   piece   of  corroborative evidence but it is one of the  materials on record. 

Judgment in Spl.Sessions Case No.14/2010

-49-

48]     As I have already discussed hereinabove, that the  delay in  making  disclosure  is  explained.  She  must  not  have  disclosed the fact as she herself was also involved, as per her  own contention, with the accused and also had illicit relation  with him, as she claimed. From the facts on record it can be  said that the  accused  had carnal relation with this lady with  her consent or she might have surrendered to him. But her  statement   about   her   relation   with   the  accused,   though  challenged feebly can be accepted as nothing to doubt that is  brought   on   record.   Use   of   condom   by   the  accused  is   also  brought on  record and in my opinion, her statement on that  count being not shaken in the cross examination can be relied  upon. However, even if a woman   have such relation,   in our  society she   would not dare to disclose it to third person and  would   make   every   attempt   to   conceal   it.     PW   2.   Dr.Bharti  Ghadge also stated about the wrapper of condom she found  bellow   the   bedroom   of   the  accused.   No   doubt   from   her  statement   alone   no   inference   can   be   drawn   but   if   that  statement is read with other facts on record, one can be made  to   believe   that  accused  was   using   condom   at   times   and  certainly use of that can not be for the intercourse with his  wife, who was paralytic and bed ridden. 49]  Thus disclosure by this witness as a true fact  as she testified from  the witness box after her arrest or soon 

Judgment in Spl.Sessions Case No.14/2010

-50-

after her arrest appears to be natural conduct. When she was  arrested   as   an   accused   by   the   police,   they   succeeded   in  getting the real state of affairs from her mouth as many times  that  happened.  Further,  there  should   not  be   any  motive   for  the PW No.1 to falsely implicate this accused as alleged by the  defence, at least at the time when she disclosed all those facts  to   the   police   and   thereafter   gave   statement   before   the  Magistrate, that too as an accused and not as a witness.  The  learned   Magistrate,   who   recorded   the   statement,   appears   to  have taken all the precautions as required by law and she was  given time of 24 hours to rethink whether to give or not to give  confessional   statement,   with   the   warning   that   if   she   made  such statement that would be used against her at the trial.  Despite   of   that,   next  day  she   gave  statement   and   thus   that  statement can be considered wholly to be un influenced by the  police machinery or Investigating Officer.   Thus, in this case  there was no question of her gaining something by giving such  statement   at   that   stage,   when   she   was   arrested   or   later   on  when the Magistrate recorded her statement. As I have already  stated, she was made aware that the said statement would be  used   against  her  at   the  trial   as  a  evidence,   means  she   was  made aware that she may be convicted on the basis of that  statement     still   she   chose   to   confess   the   facts   even   against  herself   and     now   this   Court   is   required   to   consider   that 

Judgment in Spl.Sessions Case No.14/2010

-51-

statement   as   a   corroborative   piece   of   evidence   U/s.157   of  Evidence Act as referred above. 

50]   It   is   brought   to   my   notice   that,   during   cross  examination this  witness has admitted that she was worried  about   the   future   of   her   second   daughter   Pooja   and   further  admitted   the   suggestion   because   of   that   she   shifted   the  incident to  Mohiniraj but immediately voluntarily she  added  that, she implicated the   accused because he has committed  that act. No doubt, when she was made an accused she must  be worried about her second daughter. But disclosure of that  fact   or   accusing   falsely   this   accused   was   not   the   solution  which would help her to come out of the case or get discharge  or acquittal. As I have stated earlier, this Court has tendered  pardon to her at the stage of   framing of the charge and not  prior to that. Thus, it was wrong to say that by putting blame  on the accused she gained something.  On the contrary,  she  was running a risk at that time  that on the basis of her own  confession she could have been convicted. . Further, there is  no reason to disbelieve her statement that accused had kept  illicit relation with her and then committed that act of rape  and   murder   of   her   daughter.   If   really   that   act   was   done   by  some  un­known person or she was sure about that  fact, as  she was well settled, though as a servant in the house of the 

Judgment in Spl.Sessions Case No.14/2010

-52-

accused, would not have put blame on him, because of which  not   only   she     incriminated   herself   but   also   lost   the   job   by  implicating the accused.                 51] Truly speaking, this witness can not be considered  to be an interested witness, when her daughter was raped and  murdered as a mother she would have been interested to see  that real culprit is prosecuted and convicted. A  close relative  would   not,     unless   strong   motive   is   there,   make   false  accusation against the innocent person, leaving aside the real  perpetrator.

52]   Even   this   P   W   1,   can   be   termed   to   be   interested  witness as alleged by defence councel. In  Sarbeswar Malik   Vs.   The   State   –   1986   Cri.L.J.   1721  referring   to   earlier  judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court    in State of Rajasthan Vs.   Smt.Kalki   –   1981   Cri.L.J.   1012    Hon'ble   High   Court   of  Orissa observed that “a witness can be called interested only   when   he   or   she   derives   some   benefit   from   the   result   of   the   litigation.   A   witness   who   is   a   natural   one   and   is   the   only   possible eye witness in the circumstances of a case cannot be   said   to   be   interested.”   It   is   observed   'related'   to   is   not  equivalent to 'interested'.

Judgment in Spl.Sessions Case No.14/2010

-53-

53] In this case this PW No.1 could not gain anything or  derives any benefit from the result of this trial or in case this  accused   is   held   guilty   and   convicted.   Perhaps,   she   is   the  looser.   She   has   not   only   lost   her   daughter   but   also   the   job  besides she got her womanhood tarnished. Further admittedly  she was not with inimical terms with the accused, though as  per her contention he exploited her  situation or body but she  conceded she was also to some extent compensated for that  and   even   it   came   on   record   that   on   the   next   day   of   the  incident also she   had gone to the house of the accused as  usual   to   perform   her   duty.   Thus,     this     lady   as   a   witness  having   no   axe   to   grind   against   the   accused   is   reliable   one.  There is   reason to believe that she must not have disclosed  the  true facts as in that event she   would  would have been  booked or implicated for commission of offence or for abetment  as,  she had played an important role, though passive one, by  aiding the accused or helping him to destroy the evidence. As  is brought on record she must be thinking about the future of  her another daughter as to what would happen to her if she is  arrested and prosecuted for such an offence along with other.  That can be the plausible reason for keeping mum till she was  arrested.   After   arrest   she   must   have   been   broken  psychologically and must not be at that time in a situation to  withhold the incident really occurred. 

Judgment in Spl.Sessions Case No.14/2010

-54-

54]   No   doubt   in   this   case   the   exact   spot   where   the  alleged   rape   or  murder  must  have  committed   is   not  proved.  According  to   PW   No.1­complainant,   her   daughter   was   found  unconscious on the terrace.  Perhaps there is reason to believe  that the girl must have been by that time itself done to death  as, according to her, she was breathless or not responding in  any   manner.   Further   as   stated   by   this   witness,   though  whatever   blood   was   found   on   the   terrace   or   elsewhere   was  cleaned and floor was  sweeped and those materials, including  the piece of cloth with which floor was cleaned, hand gloves  etc.   were   kept   in   a   polythene   bag   and   taken   away   by   the  accused to destroy them. Though police made an attempt to  find   out   those   material   along   with   alleged   clothes   of   the  deceased, which were put in     the   polythene bag   and taken  away by the accused in a car to other  spot by the accused but  they could not found, thus that exercise has no   evidentiary  value. Further, it can be said that from the spot either terrace  or room on the second floor nothing incriminating was found  with   which   accused   could   be   linked.   As   per   the   Forensic  Laboratory Report some hairs found on the cot were belonging  to the  deceased. Further the banian of the accused that was  seized by the accused had human blood stains but that can  be of accused also. Hairs of the victim that were found on the 

Judgment in Spl.Sessions Case No.14/2010

-55-

cot. That means, the victim must have slept or put on that cot  prior to the incident or soon after it, still this fact also can not  be taken as evidence against the accused. However, it can be  said that the  premises on the second floor or the terrace were  generally  not  in  use.  In   this  case  absence   of   the   exact  spot  scene   is   of   little   significance.   Admittedly,   ground   floor   is   in  possession of the brother of accused whereas two rooms and  2nd floor are in possession of the accused, but the tenement on  the first floor was in his use, whereas, rooms on the second  floor was generally kept closed, still from the panchanama of  the spot of scene Ex.34 they must be  in occasional use of the  accused as his many articles were lying there, including cots  etc. 

55] There is also extra judicial confession of the accused.  PW   No.1   testified   that,   the   accused   had   stated   that   he   had  committed rape or sexual intercourse with her daughter. This  statement of PW No.1 before the Court is also corroborated by  her previous  statement  recorded  by  the   Magistrate.  Further,  she with­stood   the cross examination on that aspect firmly.  Such extra judicial confession is also a good  piece of evidence The Hon'ble Apex Court   in State of U.P. Vs.  M.K. Anthony   – AIR 1985 S.C. 48(1) observed :

Judgment in Spl.Sessions Case No.14/2010

-56-

“ There is neither any rule of law nor of prudence that evidence   furnished by extra­judicial confession cannot be  relied upon   unless corroborated by some other credible  evidence. The   courts have considered the evidence of extra­judicial confession   a weak piece of evidence. If the  evidence about extra­judicial   confession comes from the  mouth of witness/witness who   appear to be unbiased, not  even remotely inimical to the   accused and in respect of  whom nothing is brought out which   may tend to indicate  that he may have a motive for attributing   an untruthful  statement to the accused; the words spoken to   by the witness are clear, unambiguous and unmistakably   convey that the accused is the perpetrator of the crime and   nothing is omitted by the witness which may militate against it,   then after subjecting the evidence of the witness to a rigorous   test on the touchstone of credibility, if it passes the test, the   extra­judicial confession can be accepted and can  be the basis   of a conviction.”  56] In this case as regards commission of rape, not only  the extra­judicial confession coming from the mouth of PW No. 1 is there but there is also corroborative medical evidence i.e.  there were injuries to the private part of the girl i.e. perineal  tear and laceration of hymen, besides other injuries which are  described by PW No.7 as ante­mortem injuries. Such injuries  could not be caused at all unless there is penetrative or  forcible intercourse, especially when the girl was small child  whose genital or that part was not developed. The age of the  girl admittedly was 10 years or around that and development  of those organs external or internal starts around 13­14 years.  Still  such indecent act or forcible intercourse with small 

Judgment in Spl.Sessions Case No.14/2010

-57-

undeveloped children is not uncommon.  57] It is further contended by the learned counsel for the  accused that during that period there was no apportunity or  time for the accused to commit such act. It is submitted some  one else, who happen   to come on the terrace of the accused  as it was accessible   from the terrace of other building might  have done that.  No doubt, in this case nothing could be said  exactly at what time accused could have committed that act  but as per the evidence especially PW No.2 Dr.Bharti Ghadge,  that her usual time to give treatment to the wife of accused  was 11.00 a.m. to 12.30 noon or 4 to 5.15 p.m. & on that day  she  had reached  the  house of accused  at about 12.10 noon  and she completed the treatment at 12.30 p.m. This witness  also stated that at about 12.20 p.m. accused had come to the  room of the patient and at that time the daughter of Rekha  was present there and she was asked to go out and later on  accused  also  followed her. As  per phone  record the  accused  had made phone call to Dr.Harshe at about 12.44 p.m and to  Sandip   More,   the   brother   of   PW   No.1   Rekha   at   12.52   p.m.  Generally when a witness tells the time of any incident, that  should   be   taken     approximately.   Even   if   the   time   stated  specifically   by an educated person, having watch with him,  there could be error of 5 or 10 minutes unless some one says  that   at   a   particular   moment,   he   had  specifically  noted   the 

Judgment in Spl.Sessions Case No.14/2010

-58-

time   from     his   watch.   There   is   reason   to   believe   that   the  alleged   incident   of   rape   and   murder   must   have   been  committed   around   12.15   to   12.30   p.m.   or   when   this  physiotherapist was in the room of the patient and the mother  of the girl was with her,helping and attending her. Thus, they  both were busy at that time and for some period the victim  and accused were out of the room. As stated earlier lascivious  behaviour of the accused came on record and on that day also  according to PW No.1    he was looking ogle at her, may be for  some   or   the   other   reason.   This   much   time   is   sufficient   for  anybody to commit rape and even murder by strangulation or  otherwise.  PW No.1 stated that the daughter was found in an  unconscious   condition   when   Dr.Bharti   had   gone   away   at  12.30   p.m.   and   she   had   just   brought   the   tiffin   from   the  mess/house of Suman Sanas and subsequent events are not  in disput that  body of the girl was brought down and accused  made a phone call to Dr. Harshe, as stated above, at 12.44  p.m. but simply   informing that the daughter of Rekha was  found in an unconscious condition or is not talking and then  he made phone call to brother of  PW No.1 and also had talk  with her mother and then she was taken to the hospital and  perhaps around 1.30 p.m. she was declared dead officially by  the doctor who attended her and made an attempt to revive  her. 

Judgment in Spl.Sessions Case No.14/2010

-59-

58] No doubt PW No.1 stated while the body was taken  down the accused had hanged her daughter with the help of  scarf to the iron staircase for a while and thereafter,  she was  brought down and taken to the hospital. However, no medical  evidence is there to support this but only because of that, the  testimony   of   this   woman   cannot   be   doubted,   nor   it   can   be  ruled  out   that   no   such   incident  had  occurred,   According  to  PW 1, accused himself has stated that she was no more before  she was taken to the hospital.                59]  It is a fact that as per  medical evidence ligature  mark   and   resultant   injury   on   the   neck   of   the   victim   was  because   of   the   soft   ligature   like   scarf     and   doctor   told   that  such injury or ligature was caused with the help of  such scarf  when it was shown to him. That scarf was found tied to the  iron staircase, leading to the terrace. It is worth to be noted  that, at that time accused was the only male member in the  house and   had an opportunity or some time to commit the  offence. Whenever he was having opportunity, he had sexual  intercourse with PW No.1. However, his misbehavior with the  girl can not be taken as proved in this case as the said girl did  not   disclosed   that   fact   to   her   mother   PW   No.1   and   grand  mother, to whom the girl alleged to have stated that fact, is not  examined. But his malignant behaviour can be spelt out from 

Judgment in Spl.Sessions Case No.14/2010

-60-

the evidence. 

60]   Though   it   came   on   record   that   the   terrace   of   the  house   of   accused   was   approachable   from   the   house   of  Dr.Paranjape but it is very difficult to digest that during  day  time,   some   one   would   have   come   from   the   terrace   of   the  adjoining building to the terrace of the building of the accused  and finding the girl  playing there, committed rape and caused  her death by strangulation and again went away in the same  way.   In   urban   city   like   Pune   nobody's   house,   including   the  terrace, could be easily accessible from adjoining house and  unknown person would not   come to the terrace of the other  from the other  building except to commit theft. Hence, in this  case   except   the   accused,   none   else   could   have   sexually  assaulted   that   girl   and   might   be   because   he   was   un  successful or out of fear that the girl would disclose that fact  to others done her to death by strangulation with the help of  scarf , the girl was playing with, as this fact also has came on  record. 

61]   Much   has   been   stated   during   argument   that   the  clothes of the   deceased and all the articles that were seized  were sent to Chemical Analyser or DNA examination but all  the   reports   are   in   the   negative.     It   is   submitted   that   DNA 

Judgment in Spl.Sessions Case No.14/2010

-61-

report is a conclusive proof of the fact. Thus, it negatived the  contention   that   the   accused   has   committed   the   offence.   No  doubt the report of the Forensic Laboratory as well as DNA  report on record except  of the hairs, that were collected from  the cot, were found to be of the victim are of no help to the  prosecution.   The   banian   of   the     accused   had   human   blood  stains but detailed results are inconclusive.     DNA report   is  conclusive proof of the fact to rule out the involvement of some  person when DNA profile of that fellow does not match with  the  DNA profile of the questioned material  collected from the  spot  or otherwise.   With  the  help  of  such   report   or   DNA  profile it can be very well said that profile of the   DNA taken  from the sample was of some body else.  No semen was found  in the vaginal swab of the victim but there is reason to believe  on   the   basis   of   facts   on   record,   either   there   might   not   be  discharge as despite penetration the act of intercourse might  not  complete.   Seldom   there     could   be   complete     intercourse  when girl is of such tender age. Secondly the assailant might  have used the condom as PW No.1 has stated that there was  blood­stained condom found in the room on the upper floor.  Thus,     indirectly  she   described   that   room  to   be   the   spot  of  incident  and   as   per  her  version   that   condom  was   destroyed  along with other materials that were collected at that time in a  carry bag by PW No.1.   Had there been semen found in the 

Judgment in Spl.Sessions Case No.14/2010

-62-

vaginal swab and  DNA profile thereof were not matching with  the   accused   it   could   have   been   conclusively   said   that   the  alleged act must have been committed by some one else and  not by this accused. Here nothing was found by the  Forensic  expert,   who   examined   those   articles   or   tried   to   extract   the  DNA from the material available. Thus, all those reports are  inconclusive or from them    no inference can be drawn at all  about   any   fact   in   question   either   in   favour   of   accused   or  against him.  62]   In   this   case   accused   examined   no   witness   nor   he  gave any explanation about all the incriminating facts stated  to him. He simply denied those facts as false one. In written  notes   he   simply   submitted     that   after   departure   of  physiotherapist Dr. Bharti Ghadge ­ PW No.2  Rekha PW No.1  brought tiffin as usual from the nearby building and gave call  to her daughter but as she did not respond, she went to the  terrace and brought her down and when he saw  her she was  not   conscious   hence   he   made   contact   to   Dr.   Harshe,   who  advised him to give water, ghee and sugar and take  her to the  hospital, but that girl did not eat sugar, ghee or drink water  and immediately thereafter she was taken to the hospital. It is  further   stated   that   there   were   no   injuries   on   the   person   at  that time and he did not know whether the girl was raped or  how she died or somebody committed her murder.  According 

Judgment in Spl.Sessions Case No.14/2010

-63-

to   him,  he   has   been   falsely   implicated   on   the   pressure   of  Women Organizations and political parties. However, PW No.1  categorically stated and it is also not challenged during cross  examination that when she gave call to her  daughter, she did  not respond and accused told her that she is on the terrace.  Hence,   she   went   there     and   she   was   also   followed   by   the  accused.  63] It is also brought to my notice that to   the Court's  question PW No.1 answered that at that time blood was not  coming   out   from   the   private   part   and   it   is   argued   that   the  private part of the woman or girl are supplied with many blood  vessels and   if an injury is caused there should be excessive  bleeding and pain. Perhaps by the  time  this witness had seen  the   girl   on   terrace   there   might   be   about   15   to   20   minutes  lapsed and   though she stated that, blood was there on the  floor,  bleeding from the injury might have stopped because of  natural   action   of   the   body   i.e.   clotting   of   the   blood.   There  would be  excessive hemorrhage for longer period when  blood­ vessel is cut by some instrument. Here in this case there was  perineal   tear.   That   means   bleeding   may   be   through  capillarities   and   that   must   have   been   stopped   after   few  minutes automatically. It should be noted here that, the girl of  the age of 10 years would have   undeveloped sexual organs.  After adolescence when the girl  attains puberty, at the age 13 

Judgment in Spl.Sessions Case No.14/2010

-64-

or   14   years,sex   related   developmental     activities   starts   in  external   and   internal   genital   organs   and   consequently   there  would be more blood supply to that part. But at the age of  around   8   to   10  years,   those         organs   being  not  developed,  there   is   least   supply   of   the   blood.   In   case   of   such   kind   of  sexual assault on the girl, who attained puberty, there would  be  more bleeding, that too, for a longer period as the blood  supply  in that area is increased many folds.   As I have stated  earlier at the time of inquest or post postmortem some  blood  like   liquid   was   found   oozing   out   but   reason   may   be   as  suggested   by defence to PW No.7 in the cross examination.  Thus, the alleged statement of PW No.1 that she has given in  answer   to   the   Court   question,   that   there   was     no   bleeding  from   the   private   part   would   not   put   question   tag   to   the  veracity of this witness.  64]   It   is   also   contended   during   argument   that   when  there was alleged rape by such accused there must be injury  to his penis but during examination of accused nothing was  found.   PW   No.7   Doctor   during   cross   examination   admitted  that there is possibility that when one attempts to rape any  girl   of   such   age,   there   could   be   injury   to   the   penis   of   the  rapist. However, it should be borne in mind that this accused  was arrested  and examined after  several days. Even if there  was some injury to his penis that may not be there when he 

Judgment in Spl.Sessions Case No.14/2010

-65-

was examined by the doctor after such a long gap. 

65] Much also been stated during argument that in this  case   no   neighbours   or     mother   or   brother   of   PW   No.1   is  examined,   nor     at   the   instance   of   accused   any   thing   was  recovered   U/s.27   of   the   Evidence   Act   or     even   other   maid  servant, who was working  with accused during night, is  not  examined,   so   also   the   police   officer   who   prepared   the  panchanama of the dead body at Poona Hospital. However, in  this case the mother of PW No.1 could have stated only the  fact about the alleged misbehaviour of the accused with the  victm prior to the incident and nothing else as regards   the  fact in issue. Hence,  her non examination is not fetal. Further  persons residing in the neighbor­hood could not have stated  anything   against   the   accused   for   nobody     was   aware   what  happened  on that day in  the house of the accused. Further,  only   because   nothing   was   recovered   at   the   instance   of   the  accused  U/s.27 of the Evidence Act would not make the case  against   the   accused   doubtful   one.   Had   there   been   any  recovery   certainly   that   evidence   would   have   been   of   some  importance     to   fortify   the   inference   that   could   have   been  drawn   from other evidence . In my opinion, the other maid  servant, who was working during night hours prior to this PW  No.1 also was not the  proper witness. 

Judgment in Spl.Sessions Case No.14/2010

-66-

66] This case is not purely rests on the circumstantial  evidence.   Main   evidence   is   of   PW   No.1   and   to   her  corroboration   other   circumstances   are   on   record,   including  her   disclosure   of   the   same   facts   to   the   Magistrate   during  investigation.   Only   when   the   case   purely   based   upon   the  circumstantial   evidence,   the   principle   laid   down   by   the  Hon'ble  Apex   Court     in  Shankarala Gyarasilal Dixit  Vs.   State of Maharashtra, ­ AIR 1981 S.C. 765(1) is to be borne  in   mind   that,   in   case   of   circumstantial   evidence,   the  circumstances   on   which   prosecution   relied,   must   be  consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. 

67]   Here   in   this   case,   those   circumstances   are   relied  upon to corroborate the testimony of PW No.1, who was the  accomplice and had helped the accused in commission of the  offence and destroyed the evidence thereof. On the question of  rape   extra­judicial   confession   is   there,   besides   the   other  circumstantial   evidence   and   medical   evidence.   Whereas,   as  regards commission of the murder this accused alone had an  opportunity, occasion and motive to do so and except     him,  nobody could have done that act at that time. Thus, even if  those observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court     are borne in  mind, this accused could be termed to be the only person who  could   have   committed   the   offence   of   rape   and   murder.   I 

Judgment in Spl.Sessions Case No.14/2010

-67-

therefer hold that this accused has committed   rape on the  girl, the  daughter of PW No.1, who was at that time admittedly  below   the   age   of   12   years   and   caused   her   death   by  strangulation.     Thus   I   answer   points   No.2   &   3   in   the  affirmative.

68] As to Points No.4 & 5 :­

There   is   categorical  evidence  that,   this   accused   had  asked PW No.1 to clean the floor of the room and the terrace,  where blood­stains were there and those blood stained cloths  of the victim and  the clath with which the floor was cleaned,  blood stained condom, hand gloves etc. were asked to be kept  in a polythene bag and they were taken by him in his car at  some other place and they could not be found out by police  from the alleged spot, though they made such attempt hence  they must have been destroyed. Thus as discussed above, he  had   made   an   attempt   to   destroy   the   evidence   of   rape   and  murder with the help of which he could have been connected  with the offence he committed. Besides, he also had given the  false   information   as   regards     the   offence   he   committed   in  respect of the body of the victim. Thus, he is also guilty of the  offence   punishable   U/s.201   of   Indian   Penal   Code.   However,  there is no evidence that this accused himself had given any 

Judgment in Spl.Sessions Case No.14/2010

-68-

false information to the public servant or police officer to carry  out investigation of the said offence against unknown person.  From the evidence on record it can be said that he gave  wrong  information   to   the   doctor   at   Poona  Hospital   but   not   to   any  public servant or police officer or any person to cause injury  to   him.   Thus,   there   is   no  evidence  to   say   that   he   has  committed offence punishable U/s.182 of Indian Penal Code.  Hence, I answer points No.4 & 5 accordingly.

69] As to Points No.6 to 9  :­

To   prove   the   fact   that   the   victim   was   belonging   to  Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, no   evidence is brought  on record. For the prosecution of any offence under this Act, it  must   be   proved   that   the   complainant   or   victim   or   a   person  against   whom   offence   is   committed,   belongs   to   Scheduled  Caste   or Scheduled   Tribe.  Here   in   this   case,   the   accused  is  admittedly of Brahmin caste but unless proof of the caste of  complainant or the victim is produced on record, this accused  cannot   be   held   guilty   of   commission   of   offence   U/s.3(1)(xi),  3(1)(xii),   3(2)(v)   and   3(2)(vi)   of   the   Scheduled   Caste   and  Scheduled   Tribes   (   Prevention     of   Atrocities   )   Act,   1989.   In  such   cases,   generally   caste   certificate   of   the   victim   or   the  person   against   whom   the   offence   is   committed,   should   be 

Judgment in Spl.Sessions Case No.14/2010

-69-

produced on record. Hence, without further discussion I have  to record my findings on points No.6 to 9 in the negative. 

70]   As   discussed   above,   accused  can   be   said   to   have  committed   offence   punishable   U/s.376(2)(f),   302   &   201   of  Indian Penal Code and he is convicted accordingly under the  said penal provisions. 

71] I took a pause here to hear the accused, his learned  Counsel as well as learned   Additional Public Prosecutor on  the point of sentence. However, the learned  Additional Public  Prosecutor   as   well   as   counsel   for   the     accused     prayed   to  adjourn the matter for making submission on that. Hence, the  matter is adjourned.

2  January, 2012.
nd

   

       (S. D. Darne)   Additional Sessions Judge,   Pune.

72] Today I heard the  accused, as well as his Advocate  so   also   the     learned   Additional   Public   Prosecutor   on   the  question   of   sentence.   The   accused   said   nothing,   but   his  learned Advocate   submitted that, considering the age of the  accused and  the fact that there is no criminal antecedents or 

Judgment in Spl.Sessions Case No.14/2010

-70-

he can be a not menace or dangerous to the society, lenient  view   needs   to   be   taken   while   awarding     sentence.   He   cited  judgment of Allahabad High Court in  Sher Singh Vs. State   of U.P. ­ 2008 Cri.L.J. 4540, wherein, though accused was  held   guilty   for   the   offence   punishable   U/s.376   and   302   of  Indian   Penal   Code   and   Trial   Court   had   awarded   death  sentence,   it   was     converted     into   life   imprisonment.   He  submitted, in that  case also the victim was of the age of 2½  years,   whereas   the  accused  was   above   40   years.   He   also  placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court   in  Sebastian   @   Chevithiyan   Vs.   State   of   Kerala   –   (2010)1   SCC   58,   wherein  accused  was   held   guilty   for   the   offence  punishable   U/s.302,   364,   369,   376(2)(f),   392   and   449   and  victim   was   of   2   years.   The   Trial   Court   had   imposed   death  penalty for the murder but the Hon'ble High Court modified it  and converted into imprisonment for life and Hon'ble Supreme  Court  upheld the same while dismissing the appeal.  73] He also  referred  to  notes of cases  in the  matter of  Raju   Basor   and   others   Vs.   State   –   2010   Cri.L.J.   (NOC)   1226 (Allahabad) wherein  observations are made that when  there is nothing on record to show that accused had criminal  antecedents   or  were    involved   in   crime   of   such   nature   as   a  habit and   no evidence   is there to manifest that they would  constitute any menace to society in future, case   case not be 

Judgment in Spl.Sessions Case No.14/2010

-71-

falling   within   category   of   rarest   of   rare   case.   Hence   death  sentence   was   reduced   to   imprisonment   for   life.   Thus,  According   to   him,   keeping   in   mind   these   observations,   the  accused is entitled to leniency. 

74] The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted  that,   in   fact   it   is   a   rarest   of     rare   case   and   the   act   of   the  accused  is   diabolic   and   gruesome,   hence   while   awarding  sentence     both   the   purposes,   retribution   and   deterrence  should be   served and such person needs to be permanently  removed from  the  society  hence,  death  sentence  is   a  proper  sentence.  He also relied upon the Hon'ble Apex Court     judgment  in Mahesh Vs. State of U.P. ­ AIR 1987 S.C. 1346(1) wherein  observations are made that, it would be mockery of justice to  permit the accused to escape the extreme penalty of law when  faced with such evidence and such cruel acts, and to give the  lesser   punishment   for   the  accused  would   be   to   render   the  justicing system of the country suspect and common man will  lose faith in courts. 

75] He also referred to the earlier judgment of Hon'ble  Apex Court   in Machhi Singh & others Vs. State of Punjab   –   AIR   1983   S.C.   957(1)  wherein   it   is     observed   “Life 

Judgment in Spl.Sessions Case No.14/2010

-72-

imprisonment is the rule and death sentence is an exception.  In other words, death sentence must be imposed only when  life   imprisonment   appears   to   be   an   altogether   inadequate  punishment   having   regard   to   the   relevant   circumstances   of  the   crime   and   provided,   and   only   provided,   the   option   to  impose   sentence   of   imprisonment   for   life   can   not   be  conscientiously   exercised   having   regard   to   the   nature   and  circumstances   of   the   crime   and   all   the   relevant  circumstances.   It   is   further   observed,   "a   balance   sheet   of  aggravating and mitigating circumstances has to be drawn up  and   in   doing   so   the   mitigating   circumstances   have   to   be  accorded full weightage and a just balance has to be struck  between   the   aggravating   and   the   mitigating   circumstances  before the option is exercised". 

76]   Reference   is   also   made   to   the   latest   judgment   of  Hon'ble  Apex   Court      in  Md.Mannan  Vs. State  of  Bihar  –   2011   SAR   (Cri)   584,   It   is   opined   "when   the   crime   is  committed   in   an     extremely   brutal,   grotesque,   diabolical,  revolting   or   dastardly   manner   so   as   to   arouse   intense   and  extreme   indignation   of   the   community,   one   has   to   lean  towards the death sentence. It is observed in that case that  appellant is a menace to the society and can not be reformed.  Thus, it is said that the case falls in the category of the rarest 

Judgment in Spl.Sessions Case No.14/2010

-73-

of rare case. Death sentence imposed by the courts below was  proper".

77] While awarding sentence, the Courts are required to  consider aggravating and mitigating circumstances. It can not  be  said that in a particular case higher Court had awarded  such   sentence   and   same   should   be   followed   in   other.     Of  course   whatever   observations   are   made   by   the   superior  Courts are to be followed as guidelines.  To call a case to be a  rarest   of   rare   case,   wherein     only   death   sentence   is   to   be  awarded,   that   should   be   of   that   nature   in   all   perspective.  Besides,   it   should   be   also   found   out   as   observed   by   the  Hon'ble   Allahabad   High   Court     in  Basor   and   others   Vs.   State and the Hon'ble Apex Court   in Md.Mannan Vs. State   of Bihar    (cited supra)   Whether the  accused  is a menace to  the   society   or   he   is   so   dangerous   that   he   needs   to   be  eliminated from the society.  78] The  accused  is   of   the   age   of   81   years.   This   fact 

needs to be considered or borne in mind. No doubt the victim  was also a minor of the age of 10 years and he is convicted for  committing her rape and murder but it can not be said from  the   facts   on   record   that   he   is   dangerous   to   the   society   to  impose   death   penalty  for  the   offence   punishable   U/s.302   of  Indian Penal Code calling this case to be a rarest of rare case. 

Judgment in Spl.Sessions Case No.14/2010

-74-

In   my   opinion,   sentencing   him   to   suffer   life   imprisonment  would be an adequate punishment.  That would achieve both  the purposes of sentence i.e. deterrent and reformity.  79] Further he is held guilty of the offence punishable 

U/s.376(2)(f)   of   Indian   Penal   Code   for   which   law   prescribed  sentence   not   less   than   10   years   rigorous   imprisonment.   No  special reasons are there that he  should be sentenced for less  than   10   years.   In   my   opinion,   that   would   be   adequate  sentence. He is also held guilty of the offence punishable U/s. 201   of   Indian   Penal   Code,   for   that   three   years'   rigorous  sentence would be proper, besides some fine amount. Hence, I  pass the following order :        ORDER 1]  The   accused   Mohiniraj   Yashwant   Kulkarni   is  convicted of  the offence punishable under section 302 of  the  Indian Penal Code and   he is sentenced to undergo rigorous  imprisonment for life.  2] He is also convicted   of  the offence punishable under  section 376(2)(f) of  the Indian Penal Code and  he is sentenced  to undergo rigorous imprisonment for Ten years   and to pay  fine   of   Rs.10,000/­   (Rupees   Ten   thousand)   in   default   of  payment   of   fine,   he   should   undergo   further   R.I.   for   six  months. 3] He is also convicted   of  the offence punishable under 

Judgment in Spl.Sessions Case No.14/2010

-75-

section 201 of  the Indian Penal Code and  he is sentenced to  undergo   rigorous   imprisonment  for Three   years    and   to   pay  fine   of   Rs.2,000/­   (Rupees   Two   thousand)   in   default   of  payment   of   fine,   he   should   undergo   further   R.I.   for   three  months. 4]  Accused  is  acquitted  of  the  offence  punishable  U/s. 182 of Indian Penal Code and   U/s.3(1)(xi) 3(1)(xii) 3(2)(v) 3(2) (vi) of the Scheduled Caste and  Scheduled Tribes ( Prevention  of Atrocities ) Act, 1989. 5] All the sentences to run concurrently. 6] The  accused  is   Under Trial Prisoner   hence he shall  be   entitled   to   set   off   U/s.428  of   Cr.P   in   case   Government  .C. commutes sentence of life imprisonment U/s.433 of Cr.P   .C. 7] The muddemal property  being worthless be destroyed  after appeal period is over.           (S. D. Darne)   Additional Sessions Judge,   Pune.

3rd January, 2012.

   

I affirm that the contents of this PDF judgment are  same word for word as per the original judgment.  Name of Steno :  Mr.M.M.A.Hussain.  Court name      :   Shri. S. D. Darne,

Judgment in Spl.Sessions Case No.14/2010

-76-

  

  Additional Sessions Judge,Pune

Date of PDF

: 9­01­2012

Date of uploading judgment : 09­01­2012

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->