Anuj Arjun Pawar v. State of Maharashtra

14. Mr. Jaiswal, appearing for A-1 and Mr. Shinde, appearing for A-3 have referred to the following decisions at Sr Nos.(i) to (iv) and

(v) to (xii), respectively, in support of the aforesaid submissions.

i Shiva Kumar @ Shiva @ Shivamurthy vs. State of Karnataka 2023 CJ (SC) 260 ii Pradeep Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2023) 5 SCC 350 iii Md. Bani Alam Mazid @ Dhan vs. State of Assam 2025 INSC 260 iv Ramkirat Munilal Goud vs. State of Maharashtra 2025 INSC 702 v Rambraksh @ Jalim vs. State of Chhatisgarh 2016 (12) SCC 251 vi State of Karnataka vs. Chand Basha 2016 (1) SCC 501 vii Krishnan @ Ramasamy 2014 (12) SCC 279 24th vs. State of Tamil Nadu viii Ganapat Singh vs. State of MP 2017 (16)SCC 353 ix Anjan Sharma vs. State of Assam 2017 (14) SCC 359 x Arjun Marik vs. State of Bihar 1994 Supp (2) SCC 372 xi Bodhraj @ Bodha vs. State of J & K 2002 (8) SCC 45 xii Digambar Vaishav vs. State of Chhatisgharh

15. In contrast, Ms Rane with Ms Dabholkar, the learned APPs have made the following submissions.

1. At the first place, the prosecution has proved that the victim was missing since 12/10/2012, because, despite search for 2-3 days, she was not found. Since PW-11 was busy in the search of the victim, he could not promptly file the missing complaint. PW-11 was not much literate. He was doing labour work. As such, no adverse inference is called for, for not filing the missing complaint; the delay in filing the ADR Report (Exh.77) by PW-11; and filing of the Report (Exh.77) by him.

2. It is strenuously submitted that the evidence of PW-11 and PW-8 is very consistent that there was love affair between the victim and A-1; that relationship was not approved by PW-11; that PW-11 and PW-8 were related as ‘servant & master’; that they were from the same place and shared good social and family bonding. Therefore, PW-11 had requested the PW-8, to advise the victim not to have love relationship with A-1. Accordingly; PW-8 had prevailed over the victim when he had spotted her and the accused persons together; at Gardi bus stand. At this very juncture, the victim had introduced the accused persons with PW-8. 24th

3. With emphasis, it is submitted that immediately after the victim went missing, she was ‘last seen’ together with all the accused in the evening time, as deposed by PW-8. Soon thereafter, the victim was found dead. This evidence has remained unshaken in the cross of PW-8, who had no enmity with any of the accused. However, the accused persons have failed to explain the ‘‘last seen together’’ circumstance.

4. It is urged that various CDRs produced as evidence, establishes that after the victim went missing and till her death, the victim and A-1 were in contact of each other through their mobile phones. This fact stands corroborated by the ‘last seen’ circumstance deposed by PW-8.

5. The hands of the victim were tied. The post-mortem by PW-13 revealed a perineal tear in the genitals of the victim and injury over her forehead.

6. The voluntary statement made by A-1 leading to the pointing of the spot of the incident and the recovery of the nicker, used condoms etc. have been duly proved. The CA and the DNA reports show that semen was found in the recovered condoms. One of it relates to A-4. All this proved that the accused persons had gang rapped the victim. As per the CA Report, the belt of the brassier found at the spot, matched with the brassier found on the body of the victim. This is indicative of a struggle during the rape. 24th

7. The clothes on the body of the victim were in an inverted state. This indicates that after the rape, the accused persons hurriedly put on the clothes on the victim’s person.

8. The recovery of the purse and the mobile of the victim at the instance of A-3 has been duly proved. It is supported by the seizure of the mobile packaging box (vide Exh.70).

9. All the recovered articles belonging to the victim have been identified by her relatives and other witnesses. This has provided the requisite support to the other circumstances establishing the guilt of the accused.

10. The testimony of PW-13 coupled with the post-mortem report has established that the death of the victim was caused ‘due to throttling’. Thus, the victim was silenced by accused to prevent her from complaining against them.

11. By throwing the dead body into the Well, the accused persons have cause disappearance of the evidence.

12. It is submitted that, immediately after the incident, till the arrest of A-1, all the accused were in constant contact of one another. After the body of the victim was found, there was surge in the calls exchanged by the accused persons amongst themselves. This fact is evident from the CDRs which are neither rebutted nor explained by the accused. This permits an adverse inference that since the accused persons had committed this offence, they were in distress. Therefore, they frequently called one other. 24th

13. Looking at the quality of the prosecution evidence, the minor omissions, contradictions and inconsistencies, if any, should not weigh in favour of the defence.

14. The investigation was carried out in a fair, transparent and unbiased manner, without any influence. It is trite that, minor loopholes and irregularities in the investigation cannot dilute the strong circumstantial evidence proving the guilt of the accused.

15. In the conclusion, she urged that the findings of guilt of the accused-Appellants, as recorded by the trial Court, is based on unimpeachable and reliable evidence and it is inconsistent with their statements. Thus, looking at the heinous nature of the crime, this Court should be loath to interfere with the impugned conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. Ms Rane has cited the decision in Pappu vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in (2022) 10 SCC 321, to fortify her submissions.

16. Mr. Rajput, the learned Appointed Counsel, appearing for Respondent No.2, has adopted the aforestated submissions made by the learned APPs.

17. We have considered these submissions and examined the prosecution evidence on record in the light of the settled legal principles and the reported cases cited at bar. The prosecution relies upon several circumstances to support its contention that the charge has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. The circumstances are as under: 24th Proof of the homicidal death and the rape:-

18. The learned Counsel for the accused persons, at the outset, have strongly contested the cause of the death. Therefore, the first question that falls for our determination is, whether the death of the victim was caused “by throttling”.

19. In this regard we have found that, the testimonies of the inquest panch PW-3 RSC, informant PW-11 and PW-19 established that on 16/10/2012, at about 3:30 p.m., PW-19 visited the said Well and took out the dead body with the help of XYZ Nagar Parishad. The clothes worn on the dead body were in inverted state. Then, PW-11 filed the A.D. report (Exh.77) as instructed by PW-19. It was followed by recording the Inquest Panchnama (Exh.45). Therein PW-19 noted the appearance of the body. Then, PW-19 sent the body for post-mortem giving his request letter (Exh.167). Lastly, as deposed by Spot Panch PW-10 Sunil Kamble and PW-19, the latter recorded the Spot Panchanama (Exh.69). 19.[1] The testimonies of PW-2 Ankush Shewale and PW-19 proved that, on 16/10/2012, PW-19 seized the clothes (Art.[1] to 6) of the victim and recorded its Seizure Panchnama (Exh.43). PW-2 has identified the said clothes. This evidence remained unshaken in the cross-examination of the witnesses.

20. PW-13 Dr.Patil, the autopsy surgeon, testified that he had noticed the following external and internal injuries on the body of the victim which, in his opinion, were ante-mortem in nature. 24th External Injuries:- The whole body was decomposed. The skin over the body was peeled off. The body was swollen and distended. The eyes were closed and tongue was in between the teeth. i) Watery in reddish fluid was coming out through the mouth and nostril. ii) perineal tear of vagina 3 cm. in length 1/2 to 1 cm. In depth. Arms were extended over head and tied with Odhani at forearm level. Three knots were present. iii) C.L.W. over forehead 1 x 1 cm. in mid part. Internal Injuries:- Brain of the deceased was found to be congested. Pleura of both lungs appeared congested. Sub-mucosal haemorrhages were noted at various places within the larynx and trachea. Both lungs were found to be congested. Congestion was also observed in the pericardium, heart, and major blood vessels. All internal organs were noted to be congested.

21. PW-13 has asserted that in view of the above findings, he preserved the viscera samples and issued the ‘Cause of death Certificate’ (Exh.86) opining that, “death due to “throttling”. In the original post-mortem report he had noted that, the “death due to “throttling”, however, viscera is preserved”. The post-mortem report (Exh.85) is in his handwriting and it bears his signature.

22. PW-19 has deposed that, PW-13 had reserved the opinion as to the cause of the death. Therefore, on 17/10/2017, he issued a letter (Exh.87) seeking the opinion of PW-13. In turn, PW-13 gave a letter-cum-cause of death certificate (Exh.88). PW-13 has deposed on the same line. Additionally, PW-13 has deposed that in his letter (Exh.88) he had opined that, the death had occurred before the body 24th was immersed into the water; that, the death was not due to drowning; and that, the time since death was about 3 days.

23. In the cross, PW-19 has admitted that he had received the post-mortem report with the cause of death certificate (Exh.86) on 16/10/2012. The ‘cause of the death’ was not evident from the said documents. Therefore, he gave the letter (Exh.87) to seek a clear opinion as to the cause of death, but without enclosing the original post-mortem report and the cause of death certificate (Exh.86). 23.[1] In the cross, PW-13 has admitted that in the copy of the postmortem report produced by him, it is written that, “viscera preserved, opinion reserved”. But when he had handed over the original post-mortem report to the police, he had mentioned the cause of the death in it. PW-13 has admitted that, on 17/10/2012, for the first time he had intimated to the police that the death occurred before the body was immersed into the water; that the death was not due to drowning; and that, the time since death was 3 days. He has admitted that, he has not mentioned in the post-mortem report about the contents of the large and small intestine.

24. On a careful scrutiny, we have found that the aforesaid evidence of PW-13 is consistent with the Inquest Panchanama, postmortem report, the cause of the death certificate (Exh.86) and the letter-cum-opinion (Exh.88). There is nothing in the material to disagree with that expert’s opinion. Therefore, we have placed our full reliance on the testimony of PW-13. 24.[1] To fortify our conclusion above, we deem it apt to refer the cited decision in Pappu (supra). Therein, in paragraph 22.9, the 24th Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to its earlier decision in Ramesh Chandra Agrawal vs. Regency Hospital Ltd. & Ors, reported in 2009 (9) SCC 709. The issues therein pertained to medical negligence. However, as regards the principle concerning expert evidence in terms of Section 45 of the Evidence Act, the Apex Court recorded its observation in paragraph 20 thereof which is reproduced as under:

25. In the cross of PW-13, an attempt was made to evince that there were no signs of throttling, therefore, his opinion as to the cause of the death was wrong and, it was given at the instance of the police. However, there is nothing in the evidence that lends credence to the suggestions made by the defence during the cross of PW-13. Apart from that, the defence has not proposed any alternative cause of death. Not even of ‘drowning’. On the contrary, the evidence indicates that the hands of the victim were tied above her head. Therefore, we are unable to disagree with the finding of the trial Court that ‘throttling’ was the cause of the death of the deceased and that her death was homicidal. 24th 25.[1] The testimony of PW-13 that there was perineal tear of vagina “3 cm. in length 1/2 to 1 cm. in depth” remained unshaken in his cross. Ms Rane, the learned APP has submitted that the said evidence has proved that the victim was gang raped. 25.[2] The learned Counsel for the accused have pointed out that, as admitted by PW-13, he had not done the vaginal examination. PW-13 has not deposed that the alleged/said perineal tear was fresh or old. Without such opinion, mere such tear is not sufficient to hold the charge of rape. Therefore, initially, offence of Section 376 was not alleged in the crime registered on the Report (Exh.31) filed by PW-1. Additionally, it is also highlighted that, no DNA was obtained of the victim and from the lubricant or substance present on the outer side of the condoms to compare it and confirm the rape. Therefore, the CA and DNA Reports are not sufficient, cogent and reliable nor conclusive in nature, to prove that, indeed, the victim was raped by the Appellants. 25.[3] However, looking at the condition in which the victim’s body was found; that the clothes on her body were in an inverted state; the size of the virginal tear; and in absence of the contrary material to show as to whether, the said tear was old, we are of the considered view that the trial Court has rightly held that the victim was raped. Therefore, said finding need not be disturbed. Victim gone missing:-

26. PW-11 has deposed that on 12/10/2012, the victim had gone to her workplace; however, she did not return home by 9:00 p.m. He 24th had called on her mobile phone, but it was switched off. He, alongwith his relatives, had searched for the victim in the nearby areas including Pare Road and Ghumat Mal but she was not found. On 16/10/2012, he had gone to Karad for labour work and returned at around 4:00 to 4:30 p.m. At that time, he overheard a public discussion stating that a dead body had been found in the said well. This evidence is corroborated by the Report (Exh.77) filed by PW-11. We have found nothing in the cross of PW-11 to discard this assertion. Therefore, we accept that after the victim left her home on 12/10/2012, she did not return home till 9:00 p.m. and from that point onward, she went missing.

27. The evidence of PW-11 indicates that, despite search, the victim was not found till 10/10/2012, nor the inquiry with the relatives provided any clue about her. However, as admitted by PW- 11, he was at home from 12/10/2012 to 15/10/2012. He did not work during that period. But, on 16/10/2012 PW-11 went to Karad, for labour work. The victim was just aged 19 year. Yet, till 16/10/2012, PW-11 did not find time nor did he try to even file a missing complaint of the victim. The evidence indicates that PW-11 had the contact number of PW-1. However, till 16/10/2012, PW-11 did not inform the PW-1 that the victim was missing. The reason behind not taking such steps is not explained from the material on record. However, all this is not sufficient to disbelieve the fact that, the victim went missing from 12/10/2012, because she was later found dead in the Well and her body was decomposed. As per the expert opinion of PW-13, the victim had died about three days before. 24th Love relations between the victim and A-1:-

28. PW-11 has deposed that, since four to five months prior to the incident, the victim was having a love relationship with A-1. He, along with his wife and mother, had tried to persuade the victim to end her relationship with A-1, but she turned a deaf ear to them. PW-11 has deposed that he had told PW-8 Sandeep Shinde about the said love affair and asked him to advise the victim which the PW-8 did.

29. PW-1 has deposed that, upon receiving the news about the victim, he came to his home at XYZ, where his grandmother informed him that the victim had a love affair with A-1. He has deposed that his parents and the grandmother had advised the victim to discontinue her relationship with A-1. However, their advice went in vain.

30. Adding strength to the said evidence, PW-8 Sandeep Shinde has deposed that he used to reside at XYZ and, he was doing construction business on contract. For the last 3 to 4 years prior to the incident, PW-11 had been working with him as a labourer. He was familiar with the family members of PW-1 and the victim. Two months prior to the incident, PW-11 had told him that the victim was wandering with the A-1 and requested him to advise the victim to conduct herself properly. PW-8 has deposed that one week thereafter, he and his friend Manoj Pawar had gone to village Gardi Ghanwad, for work. At that time, he saw the victim and all the accused standing together at Gardi bus stand. He enquired with the victim about the accused. She replied that the accused persons were her friends and told him their names. PW-8 has deposed that he 24th informed the victim that her father, PW-11 did not approve of her friendship with A-1, and thereafter, he left.

31. PW-16 Amit Karkera, Nodal Officer, Uninor Cellular Co., has deposed that pursuant to the e-mail letter (Exh.126) received on 07/11/2012, from SP Sangali, his company had provided the information of Mob.No.885****370, by an e-mail alongwith the customer’s application form and the ID proof (Exh.128). On 27/11/2017, he received the Court summons to certify the information provided earlier. Accordingly, he has produced the copy of the CDR (Exh.127) and the subscriber’s applications with address and ID proof (Exh.128). He has deposed that, the said information is as per the company’s record and it bears the company seal. Its contents are correct and true. To support this evidence, PW-16 has produced a Certificate u/Sec.65-B of the Evidence Act (Exh.129). PW-16 has deposed that the said CDR are of 13/10/2012 and in the format of 24 hours, i.e., hours, minutes and seconds. The CDR and the allied information proved by PW-16 show that Mob.No.885****370 was in the name of PW-11.

32. PW-15, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Ltd. has deposed that on 06/11/2012 he had received an e-mail from SP Sangli to provide CDR and subscriber’s name of Mob.Nos. 997****956, 909****349 and 997****769. The photocopy of the e-mail (Exh.117) is the same. PW-15 has deposed that, accordingly, he has produced the required information in the Court alongwith his signed letter dated 14/02/2018 (Exh.118), addressed to the Trial Court. 32.[1] PW-15 has deposed that Mob.No.997****956 was in the name of A-1. In this regard, PW-15 has referred the A-1’s Application for 24th the mobile SIM and the address proof (Exh.120). PW-15 has deposed that the Mob.No.909****349 was in the name of Sita Arjun Pawar (mother of A-2). In this regard, PW-15 has referred Sita’s Application for the mobile SIM and the address proof (Exh.121). PW-15 has further deposed that the Mob.No.997****769 was in the name of A-3 Dadaso Bhaskar Athawale. In this regard, PW-15 has referred to the A-3’s Application for the mobile SIM and address proof (Exh.119). Lastly, PW-15 has referred to the CDRs alongwith the location chart and the Certificate u/Sec.65-B of the Evidence Act (Exh.122 colly.) related to the aforesaid information. The CDRs are of only one day, i.e., 13/10/1012 (for 24 hours). The testimony of PW-15 is consistent with the record he has referred to in his deposition. 32.[2] The subscriber’s application etc. (Exh.112) and the allied CDR (Exh.114) produced and proved by PW-14 show that Mob.NO. 957****683 was registered in the name of Mr. Shankar Jagannath Jadhav.

33. The said CDRs (Exh.128 & 117) show that, on 13/10/2012, four calls were made from Mob.No.885****370, allegedly regd. in the name of PW-11, to the Mob.No. 997****956 regd. in the name of A-1. The details thereof are as follows:- Called mobile Date Call time Duration Incoming/ Victim-girl 997****956 13.10.2012 00:00:26 41 outgoing Vita, Khanapur, Sangli -"- -"- -"- 00:00:04 29 -"- -"- -"- -"- 00:12:24 12 -"- Victim-girl A-1 13.10.2012 01:02:06 79 -"- 24th

34. On the strength of the aforementioned testimonies, Ms. Rane, the learned APP, has submitted that the prosecution has established that prior to the incident, there existed a love relationship between the victim and the A-1. However, the learned Counsel for the accused persons have contended that, looking at the unnatural conduct of the said witnesses and in light of the admissions made by them during their cross-examination, the submission advanced by the learned APP lacks merit.

35. In view of the above submissions, we have examined the testimonies of PW-1, PW-8, PW-11, the related CDRs and the surrounding circumstances. On such examination, we are disposed to be in unison with the contentions of the learned Counsel for the accused. Because, at the out set, we have noticed that PW-11 has not informed the source which intimated him about the love affair between the two. In the cross, PW-11 has admitted that on 16/10/2012, there was a discussion amongst him, his wife, his son and his mother regarding the victim’s love affair. PW-11 has admitted that on 16/10/2012, police had asked him as to whether, the victim had gone with anyone and whether she had a love affair. Yet, PW-11 has admitted that on 16/10/2012, he did not inform the police about the victim’s love affair. PW-19 has admitted that PW-11 had not raised suspicion about the victim’s death. Therefore, he also did not enquire with him about the same. Notably, on his own, PW- 11 did not make any reference to the alleged love relationship in his Report (Exh.77). As such, the conduct of PW-11 is unnatural. 35.[1] It is pertinent to note that, as admitted by PW-1, there was no discussion between him and his father, PW-11, regarding the victim’s friends on 16/10/2012 and 17/10/2012. PW-1 has further 24th admitted that, he did not tell the police about the love affair of the victim. Moreover, PW-1 also admitted that he became aware of the accused and the alleged love affair between A-1 and the victim only after the police informed him of the matter. As such, this evidence runs counter to the evidence of PW-11 that, on 16/10/2012, there was discussion in the family about the said love relation. The said evidence also indicates that, since PW-1 had no knowledge of the love affair, it did not occur to him to mention the fact of the said discussion in his Report (Exh.31). 35.[2] PW-8 did not inform the exact date and the time when he saw the victim and the accused persons standing together at Gardi bus stand and he had enquired with the victim about the accused etc., as above. Admittedly, since 3 to 4 years prior to the incident, PW-11 had been working with PW-8. This fact, coupled with the conduct of PW-11 in making request to PW-8 to prevail over the victim, manifests that, the relation between the two was cordial. According to PW-8, the presence of the victim alongwith the A-1 at Gardi stand, was an important fact; and that, it was important to tell the said fact to PW-11. Yet, PW-8 has admitted that he did not convey this fact to PW-11. 35.[3] PW-11 has admitted that PW-8 had his mobile number. As admitted by PW-8, distance between Bhavani Mal and Ghumat Mal was about 3 to 4 Kms. (The places, where PW-11 and PW-8 used to reside at XYZ). Thus, it is evident that PW-11 and PW-8 were not residing far from each other. PW-8 had his own motorcycle. PW-11 has admitted that prior to 12/10/2012, PW-8 met him personally. However, either over the phone or visiting PW-11’s residence, PW-8 did not inform PW-11 that he had seen the victim in the company of 24th the accused persons at the Gardi bus stand; that he had enquired with the victim about the accused; or that she had responded by stating they were her friends and had disclosed their names, as stated above. Thus, the conduct of PW-8 is also very unnatural. Surprisingly, even PW-11’s Report (Exh.77) is silent about the fact that he had informed PW-8 about the alleged love affair and had requested him to advise the victim. Although, PW-11 deposed that PW-8 had advised the victim, he did not inform as to when PW-8 had told him about that. Therefore, we find it difficult to rely on PW-8’s assertion that he had seen the victim in the company of the accused persons at the Gardi bus stand etc. 35.[4] Looking at the quality of the evidence of PW-11 and PW-8, it appears that, PW-8 is an interested witnesses. This fact alone, as we are aware, will not discredit his testimony. Therefore, as required by the decision in Arjun Marik (supra), we have scrutinised his evidence with great care and caution. However, in view of our discussion above, we find that, his testimony is not beyond reproach nor free from vital infirmities, thus, making it unreliable and untrustworthy.

36. In so far as the CDRs (Exhs.127 & 122) are concerned, it clearly show that only 4 calls were made from Mob.No. 885****370 regd. in the name of PW-11 to Mob.No. 997****956 regd. in the name of A-1 and the timings were from 00:00:26 to 01:02:06. However, the CDRs of the period prior to 13/10/2012 of the said mobile numbers are not produced. No justifiable reason is discernable from the record for withholding such CDRs. 36.[1] In the cross, PW-1 has admitted that he was residing at place ‘J’ (Dist. Kolhapur) and was working as a driver. He had shifted 24th there one month before October 2012. PW-1 has admitted that his mother-in-law had a mobile phone. On a few occasions, he used to call his father/PW-11 and the victim on the mobile phone of his mother-in-law. PW-1 has also admitted that PW-11 had the mobile number of his mother-in-law. PW-1 has also admitted that during his initial one month stay at place ‘J’, he had called the victim for about 7-8 times. His last call to the victim was 4-5 days prior to 16/10/2012. Yet, the prosecution has not produced the CDR of the victim’s alleged mobile number of the period prior to the incident. 36.[2] Admittedly, the victim and A-1 were both young persons. According to the prosecution, they both were in love relationship since 4 to 5 months prior to the incident. The victim wanted to marry A-1. Therefore, considering the timings of the said 4 phone calls, it is safe to presume that, prior to the incident, there must have been constant telephonic conversations in-between the victim and A-1. However, such relevent and important record, which, in the facts, would have reinforced the story of the ‘love relations’ has not been adduced in evience. Therefore, an adverse inference is permissible that if the relevant records were produced it would not have supported the prosecution case. That apart, the evidence of PW-16 and the subscriber’s record he has produced, is not sufficient to understand as to exactly when the Mob.No.885****370 got active. In fact, to our surprise, the subscriber’s Application (Exh.128) does not bear the date of its signing, submission and the acknowledgement. Consequently, the seizure of the box of this mobile phone under Panchnama (Exh.70), as proved by by PW-10 Sunil kamble and PW-18, is of no help to the prosecution. 24th 36.[3] As claimed by the prosecution, the victim had this mobile number with her since the time she left the home on 12/10/2012. The Recovery Panchnama (Exh.56) mentions that, there were two charger with wires in the purse (Art.7), allegedly recovered by A-3. All the said 4 phone calls were allegedly made by the victim in the midnight. As such, it was highly probable that, after the dawn of 13/10/2012, at least, the victim would make one phone call to A-1. But it is not the case here. In the cross, PW-1 has admitted that the victim had no mobile phone of her own; and that, there was only one mobile number of his father, PW-11 till 16/10/2012. PW-1 has stated that, lastly, he had called his father prior to 16/10/2012 and, at that time, he spoke with all the members in the family. Therefore, we find it difficult to hold that at the relevant time, the victim was using the Mob.No.885****370. 36.[4] PW-16 has admitted that the CDR of the mobile mentions about the location. He has admitted that first cell ID means the number of the tower where the call started, and last cell ID means wherein the call ended. He has admitted that as per the CDR, first cell ID and the last cell ID of the mobile in question is one and the same, and therefore, it can be said that the calls were made from one and the same ID. He cannot tell the location of the said mobile number from the relevant cell ID. He has admitted that the police did not enquire with him about the location of 885****370. 36.[5] It is important to note that, PW-13 has admitted that as per the MLC Entry No.660 (1st page of Exh.90), A-1 was produced at the Rural Hospital on 17/10/2012, at about 11.00 am; and that, on that day, A-1 was referred by the police. However, PW-18 has not deposed this fact nor produced the relevant police Yadi pertaining to 24th that reference. That apart, PW-18 has not informed as to from where and at what time, A-1 was apprehended and why A-1 was shown arrested at 22.15 hrs. of 17/10/2012 (vide Exh.59). On the same day, the statement and supplementary statement of PW-11 and PW-1 respectively were recorded by PW-18. In these statements, for the first time, the son and the father mentioned about the love relations. At the cost of repetition, it would be pertinent to note herein that PW-1 has admitted that he became aware of the accused and the alleged love affair between A-1 and the victim only after the police informed him of the matter. These facts indicate that after apprehending A-1 in the morning of 17/10/2012, PW-18 interrogated him, and whatever information A-1 had revealed, based on that, PW-18 had recorded the statement and supplementary statement of PW-11 and PW-1 respectively, on 17/10/2012. 36.[6] Similarly, there is reference of love relation in the voluntary statement of A-1 (Exh.47). Thereafter, the statement of PW-8 was recorded on 20/10/2012. Therein, for the first time, PW-8 had narrated the fact which he has deposed in his examination-in-chief. Thus, the unnatural conduct of PW-1, PW-8, PW-11, suppression of the time of apprehending the A-1, taking him in custody and the manner of the investigation suggest that, only on the basis of preliminary investigation and the alleged voluntary inadmissible statement of A-1, these witnesses and PW-18 – the investigating officer, had put forward the story of love affair. Therefore, their evidence is not found to be reliable as regards the fact that there was love affair between the victim and A-1. 36.[7] In view thereof, we are in agreement with the learned Counsel for the accused persons that the prosecution has failed to prove that 24th there was love relation between the victim and the A-1. Therefore, the question of the victim proposing A-1 to marry her is also found to be improbable. This finding takes the motive out of the case. Victim contacted A-1, through the phone of PW-12:-

37. PW-12 Ranjeet Mohite has deposed that in the year 2012, he used to work as a part-time ‘salesman’ at Pruthwiraj Wine Shop and he was studying in 12th Standard, in a school at XYZ. He was using the Mob.No.830****675. PW-12 has deposed that, on 13/10/2012, at around 8:00 a.m., he had gone to his college. At about 12:30 p.m., he was proceeding to his workplace and had reached the bridge at Mayani Road. There, one girl approached him and asked for his mobile phone on the pretext of making a phone call. Said girl did not reveal the reason why she was making the phone call. He handed over his mobile phone to the girl, whereupon, she stepped aside to make the call. On completing the call, she returned the phone but after deleting the call history. Then the girl proceeded towards XYZ Road and he went to work. 37.[1] PW-12 has deposed that the Mob.No.830****675 was issued in the name of one Mahesh Bhise, who was his friend for the past 3- 4 months. He had been using that mobile SIM card in his mobile phone for 2 to 3 months prior to 13/10/2012. He has deposed that on 19/10/2012, he read a news and also saw a photograph (of victim) published in the newspaper. He has deposed that, the victim (in the photo) was the same girl who had used his mobile phone on 13/10/2012. Therefore, he immediately went to the Police Station and informed the said fact to the police. 24th

38. The subscriber’s application etc. (Exh.120) and the allied CDR (Exh.122) produced and proved by PW-15 Milind Kolwadkar show that, a mobile bearing No.997****956 was in the name of A-1. The subscriber’s applications etc. (Exh.137) and the allied CDR (Exh.138) produced and proved by PW-17 show that, a mobile No.830****675 was in the name of one Mahesh Bhise. The said CDRs (Exhs.127 & 138) show that, on 13/10/2012, at about 13:10.06 hrs and 13.11.19 hrs, mobile No.830****675 had contacted with the said mobile No. of A-1.

39. However, the aforesaid testimony of PW-12 is not reliable and the said CDRs (Exhs.127 & 138) are not sufficient to hold that on 13/10/1012, PW-12 was using the Mob. No.830xxx675; he was carrying that mobile phone number; and that, the victim had called A-1 and talked with him, through that mobile phone, allegedly carried by PW-12. And the reasons are as under: 39.[1] In this context, it is significant to note that, in the cross, PW-12 has admitted that while recording his police statement, he did not inform the police that the said SIM card was issued in the name of Mahesh Bhise. He has also admitted that Mahesh Bhise was not his classmate. He has also admitted that, Mahesh Bhise used to reside at Ghumat Mal, which is not near his residence. It is not the case that PW-12 had any relationship with Mahesh Bhise, whatsoever. PW-12 has admitted that Mahesh Bhise had his independent mobile phone with a different SIM card registered in his name. However, PW-12 has not informed as to why Mahesh Bhise gave him his said mobile phone and allowed him to use it. Moreover, said Mahesh Bhise is not examined as a witness to prove 24th that he had obtained the Mob.No.830****675; the related documents; and that he had given that Mob. SIM to PW-12. PW-12 was resident of XYZ place. PW-12 has admitted that after completing 10th Standard, he had been working in the said wine shop. PW-12’s evidence indicates that he was literate, had local acquaintances and had the proof of his permanent residence. Thus, he was eligible to get his own mobile phone. Yet, PW-12 did not inform the reasons that hindered him from getting a mobile number of his own, as well as the circumstances that led to his use of Mahesh Bhise’s mobile SIM. Therefore, the testimony of PW-12 is not reliable that, at the relevant time, he had the mobile SIM No.830****675 in his mobile handset. 39.[2] Admittedly, the victim was a stranger to PW-12, as he had never seen her prior to 13/10/2012. As provided in Section 228A of I.P.C. publication of a matter relating to a rape victim alongwith her photograph is permissible but only in the conditions stated in the said Section. However, the prosecution did not produce the authorisation or the source of the publication of the photo of the victim as deposed by PW-12. Furthermore, PW-12 did not disclose the name of the said newspaper, nor was a copy of it produced by the prosecution. PW-12 did not clarify whether the photograph of the victim was of the time when she was alive or of her deadbody showing her face, post her death. The body of the victim was fully decomposed and her face was not recognizable. PW-12 has admitted that he did not ask the victim her name and the reason to make the phone call. He has admitted that, until 19/10/2012, he did not inform anyone that a girl had met him and used his mobile phone to make a call. PW-12 has admitted that the victim had spoken on the 24th call for about 10 minutes. But the total duration of the said calls was 27 + 18 = 45 seconds. For all these reasons, we find that the testimony of PW-12 is not reliable. Therefore, even if, for the sake of argument, it is assumed that PW-12 had the said mobile SIM No.830****675 in his mobile, it is not safe to accept PW-12’s assertion that the victim had taken his mobile phone and she contacted A-1, from his mobile. No doubt, the A-1 has not explained the said call. But it is of no consequence because the evidence of PW-12 is not found to be reliable. Last seen together:-

40. PW-8 Sandeep Shinde has deposed that, on 13/10/2012 in between 4.00 pm and 4.30 pm, he alongwith his friend Manoj Pawar had gone to Gardi, by riding on a motor-cycle. When they were returning, at about 7.30 to 7.45 pm, they saw the victim and the accused persons together at Pawaitek. Two motor-cycles were standing there. PW-8 has deposed that till such time they alighted from the motor-cycle, A-1 and the victim sat on one motor-cycle and the three accused persons sat on the other, and they all went towards the water tank of village Gardi.

41. Ms. Rane, the learned APP has submitted that the said evidence of PW-8 regarding the “last seen together” circumstance remained unshaken. Secondly, it is substantiated by the testimonies of the various Nodal Officers, who have proved the CDRs demonstrating constant telephonic contact between the victim and A-1 and the accused persons inter se. Therefore, the learned Trial Court has committed no error in accepting the said evidence. 24th 41.[1] In Pappu (supra), in paragraph 22.13, as regards the last seen theory and operation of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to its earlier decision in State of Rajasthan vs. Kashi Ram, reported in (2006) 12 SCC 254 and quoted its paragraph 23 with approval, which reads as follows:- “23. It is not necessary to multiply with authorities. The principle is well settled. The provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act itself are unambiguous and categoric in laying down that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of a person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Thus, if a person is last seen with the deceased, he must offer an explanation as to how and when he parted company. He must furnish an explanation which appears to the court to be probable and satisfactory. If he does so he must be held to have discharged his burden. If he fails to offer an explanation on the basis of facts within his special knowledge, he fails to discharge the burden cast upon him by Section 106 of the Evidence Act. In a case resting on circumstantial evidence if the accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation in discharge of the burden placed on him, that itself provides an additional link in the chain of circumstances proved against him. Section 106 does not shift the burden of proof in a criminal trial, which is always upon the prosecution. It lays down the rule that when the accused does not throw any light upon facts which are specially within his knowledge and which could not support any theory or hypothesis compatible with his innocence, the court can consider his failure to adduce any explanation, as an additional link which completes the chain. The principle has been succinctly stated in Naina Mohd., Re. [AIR 1960 Mad 218]” 41.[2] The learned Counsel for the accused contend that the evidence regarding the last seen together circumstance suffering from inexcusable debility which made it liable to be discarded. In this 24th regard, our attention has been drawn to some admissions made by PW-8, PW-11, and PW-18, during their cross.

42. Let us deal with the said controversy. As noted above, the relationship between PW-11 and PW-8 was cordial. However, PW-11 did not make a phone call to PW-8 to assist in searching the victim. PW-11 has admitted that, after 16/10/2012, for about 4 to 5 days, he did not meet PW-8. In his deposition, PW-8 has claimed that after reading a newspaper on 19/10/2012, he came to know about the victim’s death. But, in the cross-examination, PW-8 himself has deviated when he admitted that, on 16/10/2012, at about 7 pm to 8 pm, he had come to know about the death of the victim. Yet, PW-8 has stated that he did not meet PW-11 on 17/10/2012. According to PW-8, upon learning about the victim’s death, he met PW-11 during the third-day ritual following her death, and not before. When confronted, PW-11 denied having stated the “Portion marked–A, (Exh.159)” in his statement before PW-18 to the effect that, “on getting the said news, he had gone to PW-11’s residence on the next day, to meet him”. However, this contradiction was proved through PW-18. Thus, it is evident that PW-8 had visited PW-11 not once, but twice, immediately following the victim’s death. Yet PW-8 has admitted that he did not feel it necessary to disclose PW-11 that he had seen the victim and all the accused persons together on 13/10/2012. But, in the very next breath, he has stated that upon learning of the victim’s death on 16/10/2012, he did feel it necessary to disclose the said fact to PW-11. PW-8 has admitted that he was with PW-11 for approximately 10 to 15 minutes during the third-day rituals. However, he did not inform PW-11 about the “last seen together” fact, thus contradicting this statement made to the police. 24th 42.[1] According to PW-8, after reading the news paper on 19/10/2012, on the next day, he went to the Police Station accompanied with Manoj Pawar. The record also shows PW-8’s statement was recorded on 20/10/2012 by PW-18. However, PW-8 has not informed the circumstances which stopped him from going to the police immediately after he learnt about the victim’s death on 16/10/2012 and/or on the same day, when he read the news about her death in the newspaper. 42.[2] Ms Rane submitted that, since the family was grief-stricken, PW-8 avoided to share the “last seen” fact with PW-11. However, PW-8 has not offered this explanation in his deposition, although, according to Ms Rane, it forms part of his statement before PW-18. 42.[3] It is commonly observed that those who attend the post-death rituals typically discuss with one another and with the grieving family when and how the deceased passed away. Therefore, since PW-11 and PW-8 were from the same place XYZ and they shared a friendly relationship, it was highly probable and it can reasonably be inferred, that when PW-8 had visited PW-11 on the two occasions, he learned about the suspicious circumstances surrounding the victim’s death, its cause, and the condition of her body. However, PW-8 did not convey to PW-11 that he had seen the victim alongwith the accused persons on 13/10/2012. Nor did he met the police immediately after 16/10/2012, when the said suspicious circumstances were very fresh and within his knowledge. Thus, this stoic and unexplainable silence of PW-8 again projects an element of unnaturalness, which, in the given circumstances, cannot be regarded as a mere coincidence. 24th 42.[4] We are qui vive on the caution expressed in Bodhraj @ Bodha (supra) that mere delay in examination of a particular witness by police, will not make the prosecution version a suspect. It would depend upon several factors. If the explanation offered for such a delay is plausible and acceptable, the Court would accept it. In the case in hand, the conduct of PW-8 in remaining indifferent and failing to disclose the vital information to PW-11 and the police entirely discredits his version and thus, makes his above testimony unreliable. Purchase of liquor from PW-5 by A-2:-

43. PW-5 Dhananjay Mahamuni has deposed that, at the time of the incident, he was working as a Manager with M/s Neelam Wine Shop, owned by one Mr U N Shaikh. The timings of the wine shop were from 9.30 am to 10.00 pm. On 21/10/2012, the police had called him at XYZ Police Station and confronted with the accused persons. On seeing all the accused, he had remembered that A-2 had visited his shop to purchase liquor. He had identified the A-2, as he was young and bald. The police had told him the name of A-2.

44. In the cross-examination, PW-5 has admitted that he has no documentary evidence to show that he had sold liquor to A-2. PW-5 has voluntarily stated that A-2 had been to the shop in the evening, in busy hours. However, he has admitted that the police did not ask him the time of the visit by A-2; that, there were 4 employees in the Wine Shop; that, three employees were responsible for handing over the liquor to the customers, and he himself was in charge of collecting payments for the liquor. 24th 44.[1] From this evidence it was clear that, due to rush hours, PW-5 had very little time to observe the appearance of A-2, when the A-2 had allegedly visited his wine shop. It is a matter of common understanding that it does not take one a long time to purchase a liquor bottle from a shop. PW-5 has admitted that he cannot state the number of bald persons, age old persons and young persons who had visited his shop on that particular day. Admittedly, PW-5 was responsible to collect the payment and not to deliver the liquor. However, PW-5 did not depose as to how he was able to keenly observe the appearance of A-2 in such a brief span of time, especially when he was occupied with collecting payments during busy hours, and was unable to specify the number of bald individuals, elderly persons, or young persons who had visited his shop on that particular day. PW-5 has admitted that “Imperial Blue” liquor was available in all the wine shops. Therefore, in our considered view, there was a need to hold ‘Test Identification Parade’ (TIP) to ascertain as to whether A-2 had really visited the wine shop of PW-5 to purchase the liquor or not. Had such evidence been available, it would have corroborated the identification of A-2 by PW-5. However, the record does not disclose any reason for not conducting the Test Identification Parade (TIP) of the accused. For these reasons, we have difficulty in accepting the evidence of PW-5 that the A-2 had visited his wine shop and purchased the liquor. 44.[2] PW-5 has not deposed as to why the police had called him to the Police Station. PW-18 has not deposed as to why it was necessary to call PW-5 in the Police Station to confront him with the A-2 for the purpose of identification and how far such a method of the identification was permissible in law. Thus, a completely illegal way was adopted by PW-18 to get A-2 identified to serve the purpose of the prosecution. Considering the evidence of PW-5, it appears that, 24th A-2 had not at all visited his wine shop or PW-5 was not at all capable of identifying the A-2. Therefore, PW-5 was called at the Police Station to get the A-2 identified, and accordingly, he had identified the A-2 in the Police Station and then in the trial Court. PW-5 has admitted that liquor “Imperial Blue” was available in all the wine shops. The empty bottles of said brand were available on road. Therefore, according to us, PW-5 is also an unreliable witness. Purchase of water bottle and condom packet by A-2:-

45. PW-9 Vaibhav Kupade has deposed that, he has been running a medical shop named Madhuri Medicals, located on XYZ-Mayani Road. Its timing are 8.30 am to 9.00 pm. On 21/10/2012, police had called him at the XYZ police station. At that time, all four accused were shown to him. He has deposed that A-2 had identified him and then, the A-2 had disclosed that he had purchased a water bottle and a packet of condoms from his medical shop on 13/10/2012, at about

7.00 pm to 7.30 pm. The condom packet/Art.14 was of “Zaroor” brand and it contained three pieces. The water bottle/Art.17 was of the Davar’s brand. PW-9 has identified these articles.

46. In his cross, PW-9 has admitted that he had learnt about the incident from a newspaper in which photographs of the accused were published after the incident. He has admitted that thereafter, he did not go to the Police Station on his own and informed the aforesaid facts to the police. He has admitted that, the subject condom packet and the water bottle have no mark of his shop. However, he has not disclosed as to on what basis he has identified these articles. He has admitted that while recording his statement, he did not state before the police that, originally, the condom packet 24th had three pieces inside. He has admitted that, the condom packet had contained only two pieces and the said packet was not sold by him. He has admitted that, in his statement before the police he had stated the ‘Portion Marked ‘A’ (Exh.65), which is to the effect that, “However, I does not remember as to where I had seen the said accused (four) persons”. He has admitted that since the A-2 had not visited his shop, he could not recognize him. This has rendered his version self contradictory. Therefore, we hold that the testimony of PW-9 is of no avail to the prosecution. In fact, PW-9 appears to be a planted witness. Arrest of A-1 and seizure of his clothes:-

47. The testimonies of PW-7 and PW-18 is that, on 17/10/2012, PW-18 had arrested A-1 at the Police Station and seized the clothes which were on his person, vide Arrest-cum-Seizure Panchnama (Exh.59). Said clothes are; shirt Art.20, pants Art.21 & underwear Art.22. PW-18 has deposed that then he handed over the clothes to PW-20, the Muddemal Clerk, as per the Receipt (Exh.142). 47.[1] In the cross-examination, PW-7 has admitted that except the seized clothes, he did not see another set of shirt, pant and underwear at the Police Station. He has admitted that in his presence nothing was mentioned in the panchnama about giving another set of the clothes to A-1, as the replacement of the seized clothes. He has admitted that the Panchnama does not mention that someone brought the second set of clothes to give it to A-1. He has admitted that he had no knowledge as to who had brought the second set of clothes and gave it to A-1, to wear. 24th Discovery by A-1 leading to the recovery:-

48. The panch, PW-4 Sagar Patil deposed that, on 18/10/2012 at 3:45 PM, in the presence of the panchas, “A-1 shown his willingness to show the spot where he had committed the rape”. PW-18 has deposed that he recorded the Memorandum (Exh.47) of the said voluntary statement by A-1. Thereafter A-1 led the police and panchas to Shivaji Chowk, then, A-1 led them to Pawaitek by XYZ- Mayani Road and he took them 100 mtrs. inside from the road and shown the said spot admeasuring 6 x 6 ft. It was a barren piece of land with grass approximately six inches in height. The grass appeared to be in a pressed or flattened condition. The following articles were found at the center of the said spot:- 3 used condoms of Zaroor company, a hair clip (Art.11), a pair of ear rings (Art.12), nicker (Art.13), a condom packet (Art.14), 2 empty sachets of Yatri Gutka (Art.15), an empty liquor bottle namely ‘Imperial Blue’ (Art.16), a plastic water bottle of “Dawar Co.” (Art.17), broken belt of a brassier (Art.18) and A-1’s election ID card (Art.19). PW-4 has deposed that, the police kept the said articles in separate carry bags and sealed the same with the label bearing signatures of the panchas. Lastly, PW-18 recorded the Recovery Panchnama (Exh.48). PW-4 has identified the said article. 48.[1] PW-18 has deposed that, on 18/10/2012, A-1 showed his willingness to show the spot of the incident. He recorded its Memorandum (Exh.47). He has deposed that, then A-1 led them to the spot and there, he found the said articles. PW-18 has deposed that, he seized the said articles in the presence of panchas and, accordingly recorded the Recovery Panchnama (Exh.48). PW-18 has 24th also identified the said articles including the 3 used condoms the chappals (Art.10). 48.[2] PW-18 has deposed that, on 18/10/2012 he had deposited the aforesaid articles with the Muddemal Karkun PW-20 Shahaji Jadhav. PW-20 has deposed that he had received the said articles in his charge on that day, thus, he has supported PW-18. In this regard, PW-20 has referred to the muddemal Receipt (Exh.172) and its entry bearing M.R. No.113/2012 (Exh.173).

49. However, we are not persuaded to hold the said recovery at the instance of A-1, as worthy of reliance. In this context it is significant to note that, as admitted by P.W18, the distance between the said Well and the spot of the incident (rape) was 100 meters. But, in the cross, PW-4 has stated that the said spot was situated at the distance of 100 ft. from the said Well. Be that as it may, PW-18 has admitted that he had visited the said Well on 17/10/2012. He had personally inspected the area near the Well to find out incriminating article (evidence), if any (lying there). He had conducted that inspection for about 4 to 5 hours, covering an area of about 500 meters around the said Well. During that inspection he did not notice anything incriminating. In the light of these admissions, one is compelled to pose a question as to why despite such a through search, PW-18 had failed to notice the allegedly recovered articles lying at the spot?” PW-4 has deposed that, police were present with them when they were led to the spot. Therefore, and considering the grave nature of the offence, it would be reasonable to presume that the said police personnel assisted PW-18 during the said inspection. Nevertheless, PW-18 or his assisting police did not see those articles there on 17/10/2012. This is highly 24th improbable. In the cross, PW-19 has admitted that huge mob had gathered on the spot to see the dead body. This fact indicates that public must have came from all directions of the Well. In the cross, PW-4 has admitted that, 1 police officer and 4 other police were present at the spot with PW-19 on 16/10/2012. However, surprisingly no one saw the said articles at the spot. 49.[1] That apart, during the cross of PW-3, when the nicker (Art.13) was shown to her, she admitted that the nicker was on the dead body of the victim at the time of the inquest. This evidence is inconsistent with the prosecution case, because, the Inquest Panchnama was recorded on 16/10/2012 and the nicker was allegedly recovered on 18/10/2012. However, PW-3 was not re-examined to clarify the said ambiguity. 49.[2] The combined testimonies of PW-18 and PW-20 Shahaji Jadhav, P.H.C./Muddemal Clerk, muddemal receipt (Exh.172) and the muddemal register entry extract (Exh.173) show that, the seized clothes of A-1 were put in charge of PW-20 on 17/10/2012. PW-20 had entered the said clothes at M.R.No.114 of 2012. Further, the articles allegedly recovered at the instance of A-1 were deposited with PW-20 on 18/10/2012, which he had entered at M.R. No.113 of

2012. In the cross, PW-20 has admitted that since the muddemal deposited with him on 18/10/2012 was given the M.R. No.113, the muddemal deposited with him on 17/10/2012 cannot be entered as M.R. No.114. PW-20 has admitted about applying whitener below the date ‘18/10/2012’. Same is the case with the date ‘17/10/2012’. Thus, it is clear that the M.R. Entries were tampered. To salvage this situation, PW-20 has deposed that it was the mistake of the Mudddemal Clerk. However, PW-20 has not specifically deposed 24th that there was such a mistake on his part, in assigning the correct M.R. Nos., as stated above. On the contrary, in his chiefexamination, PW-20 has not spoken about the deposit of the clothes of A-1 on 17/10/2012, at M.R. No.114. Thus, it is safe to infer that, by not deposing the said fact, PW-20 wanted to conceal the tampering of M.R. Nos.113 & 114. Therefore, possibility of manipulation of record, also cannot be completely ruled out in this case. 49.[3] As admitted by PW-18, the A-1 was produced before the Court on 18/10/2012, at about 15.40 hrs., for the remand purpose. Immediately thereafter, at 16.00 hrs. PW-18 started to record the voluntary statement of A-1 and finished it at about 16.15 hrs. But, after grant of the remand, at what time the police party alongwith A- 1 returned to the Police Station; at what time the interrogation was started with A-1; whom did and at what time PW-18 sent to call the panchas; and in what time the messenger returned accompanied with the panchas, all these facts were not informed by PW-18. 49.[4] As noted in the cross of PW-13, on 17/10/2012, at 11.00 am, the A-1 was referred to the local Rural Hospital by local police. However, both PW-18 and PW-19 have not informed as to exactly when, where and who had apprehended the A-1; why immediately thereafter and/or before referring A-1 to the hospital he was/could not be shown as arrested; how long A-1 was in the charge of police until he was referred to the hospital as above; who gave the relevant medical Yadi on that occasion; which police attended A-1; how much time was required for A-1’s medical and where A-1 was taken after that medical; and why A-1 was shown arrested on that day but at

22.15 pm. Answers to all these questions were necessary in the 24th testimonies of PW-18 and PW-19 to complete the chain of circumstances, which the prosecution has not brought on record. 49.[5] Considering the timings of A-1’s production in the Rural Hospital on 17/10/2012, it can be safely inferred that, after the police had apprehended A-1, he was under the charge of PW-18/police for more than 24 hours until the PW-18 produced him before the Court on 18/10/2012, for the remand purpose. As noted in the format of FIR (Exh.158), the spot of the incident was situated at the distance of 3 kms. toward the north of the XYZ Police Station. However, PW-18 did not depose as to why he could not complete the investigation with A-1 during the said 24 hours time notwithstanding the fact that, on 17/10/2012, he could spent 4 to 5 hours of investigation time in inspecting about 500 meters area around the said Well. Yet, he could carry out the investigation with A-1 at 16.00 hours, i.e., just 20 minutes after the sanction of his remand and miraculously, could also finish it within the next two hours, i.e., 18.00 hours, including the recovery. Therefore, and considering the discrepancies in respect of MR Nos.113 and 114, it would be safe to presume that on 17/10/2012 itself, some of the articles allegedly recovered by A-1 were found at the spot by PW-19 or PW-18 and, on the same day, the said articles were deposited with PW-20. Therefore, there is reasonable doubt about the truthfulness of the said recovery. 49.[6] In the case of Pappu (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that in the case of Rammi Alias Rameshwar vs State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in (1999) 8 SCC 649, after finding that there was material discrepancy as to the time of arrest of the accused, the top Court had declined to place reliance on the evidence 24th of the IO as to the recovery of weapon on the information furnished by the accused in police custody. 49.[7] In the cross, PW-4 has admitted that, on 18/10/2025, he had no special reason to visit at the XYZ Police Station. He had gone to the vicinity of that Police Station to get a photocopy of a document. He used to reside at a distance of 2 kms from the Police Station. He has admitted that there were various shops including shops for typing and photocopying, at a distance of ½ km from his residence. He has admitted that besides photocopying, he had no other work to visit in the said vicinity. According to him, the said shop was situated opposite to the Police Station. He has admitted that the police had called him from the said photocopying shop. The police had not called him by his name but had only asked to come to the Police Station. However, PW-4 has not informed as to why he had gone that far to get the photocopying done. Thus, the conduct of PW-4 in going up-to 2 kms for photocopying appears unnatural. PW-4 has admitted that he drives his own car on hire. He used to rent his car on hire for carrying passengers. He did not possess necessary permit to run the vehicle on hire. He has admitted that police used to check vehicles for permit. He has admitted that, police had stopped his vehicle for the said purpose. He has admitted that till the date of his evidence, he had no permit to ply his car for hire. He has admitted that police did not file any case against him for driving without permit. From this evidence and considering the other circumstances revolving around the said recovery, it appears that, since PW-4 has been working in transport line without a valid permit to operate the vehicle, therefore, he was acquainted with the police. As a result, he had signed the ready-made Memorandum and the Recovery Panchnama to help the police. 24th 49.[8] In view of the above discussion, the claim of PW-4 and PW-18 that the A-1 had made the voluntary statement and the said articles were recovered from the spot at the instance of A-1, is not only in the girth of doubt but it is also found not reliable. Arrest of A-2 to A-4 and seizure of their clothes:-

50. PW-18 deposed that he had arrested A-2, A-3 and A-4 on 18/10/2012 and seized the clothes on their person under Arrestcum-Seizure Panchanama (Exh.144). He has identified the clothes of A-2 (Arts.23, 24 & 25); the clothes of A-3 (Arts.26, 27 & 28) and the clothes of A-4 (Arts.29, 30 & 31). He deposited the said clothes with the Muddemal Clerk under receipt (Exh.145). This evidence remained firm in the cross-examination of PW18. Discovery and Recovery by A-3:-

51. PW-6 Suresh Pawar has deposed that, on 26/10/2012, at about 1.30 pm, when he was proceeding to XYZ S.T. Stand, police had called him to the Police Station. At that time, in the presence of the panchas, A-3 had voluntarily stated that the purse was kept at Gardi, which was situated near XYZ-Mayani Road. The police recorded the Memorandum (Exh.55) of the said statement. PW-6 has deposed that then they boarded in the police vehicle. The A-3 led the police and panchas to Pawaitek, on Gardi Road. From there, A- 3 led them to a gutter, at a distance of 150 to 175 ft. There, A-3 produced the purse by inserting his hand in a cement pipe. Then, A-3 opened that purse. Following articles were found in the purse:- a tin of talcum powder, a small bottle, a comb, brown talcum powder and 2 mobile chargers with wires. All the aforesaid articles were 24th placed back into the purse. Then, the police packed the mobile and the purse separately in brown paper and sealed the packets with wax seal and paper seal bearing signature of the panchas. Lastly, the police recorded the Recovery Panchnama (Exh.56) of the said action. PW-6 identified the purse (Art.7) and the mobile (Art.8). PW-6 has deposed that thereafter, they had returned to the Police Station. In support of the aforesaid evidence, PW-18 has deposed that, on 26/10/2012, A-3 had made the voluntary statement (Exh.55). Then, A-3 produced the aforesaid purse and black mobile handset of Samsung company. He had recorded its Recovery Panchanama (Exh.56). Lastly, the PW-18 had showed the said Articles to the relatives of the deceased and they identified the same. In this regard, PW-18 had recorded the Panchanama (Exh.57). 51.[1] In the cross-examination, PW-6 has admitted that, for the first time, he came to know that the said mobile was inside the purse, when one of the shelves of the purse was opened at the spot. He has denied that, while giving the voluntary statement, the exact spot of concealment was not stated. 51.[2] However, according to us, the above facts stated by the PW-6 and PW-18 do not sufficiently prove the voluntary disclosure by A-3 leading to the recovery of said articles at his instance. In this context we have noted that, as recorded in the Memorandum of discovery (Exh.55), the A-3 had stated that, when they threw the victim’s body into the Tarlekar’s Well, he put the victim’s mobile in her own purse (Art.7) and while going home, he concealed the purse to the side of a road. However, these contents have not been exactly reproduced by PW-6 and PW-18 in their deposition. In fact, PW-6 has stated that the A-3 merely stated that the purse was kept at Gardi, which was 24th situated near XYZ-Mayani Road. There is not even a whisper about the mobile. On the contrary, in the cross, PW-6 has admitted that, for the first time, he had come to know that the said mobile was inside the purse, when one of its shelves was opened at the spot. 51.[3] In so far as the evidence of PW-18 is concerned, he has only deposed that, on 26/10/2012, A-3 had made the voluntary statement (Exh.55). Then, A-3 produced the aforesaid purse and black mobile handset of Samsung company. He had recorded its Recovery Panchanama (Exh.56). Thus, it is apparent that PW-18 has also has not even attempted to reproduce the voluntary disclosure statement made by A-3 before him. Similarly, PW-18 has not deposed exactly how and where the A-3 had led him and the panchas for the purpose of the said recovery. In fact, both PW-6 and PW-18 have not ascribed to A-3 the act of concealment of the recovered articles. As such, the said recovery cannot be accepted. 51.[4] To fortify this conclusion we have considered the decision in Babu Sahebagouda Babu Rudragoudar and Anr. vs State of Karnataka, 2024 INSC 320, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed that, when the Investigating Officer steps into the witness box for proving such disclosure statement, he would be required to narrate what the accused had actually stated to him. The Investigating Officer essentially testifies about the conversation held between himself and the accused which has been taken down in writing leading to the discovery of incriminating fact(s). Further, the Apex Court has referred to its earlier decision in the case of Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1396, wherein it held that mere exhibiting of memorandum prepared by the Investigating Officer during 24th investigation cannot tantamount to proof of its contents. While testifying on oath, the Investigating Officer would be required to narrate the sequence of events which had transpired, leading to the recording of the disclosure statement. 51.[5] In Babu Sahebagouda (supra), the Investigating Officer (PW-

27) gave no description at all of the conversation which had transpired between himself and the accused which was recorded in the disclosure statements. The Investigating Office also stated that in furtherance of the voluntary statements of A-1 and A-2, he recovered and seized two axes and one koyta produced by A-1 in certain field and one jambiya produced by A-2. The Investigating Officer nowhere stated in his deposition that the disclosure statement of the accused resulted into the discovery of these weapons pursuant to being pointed out by the accused. The Investigating Officer further stated that he arrested A-3, recorded his voluntary statement and seized two sickles. However, neither the so called voluntary statement nor the seizure memo were proved by the Investigating Officer in his evidence. Therefore, it is held that, these disclosure statements cannot be read in evidence and the recoveries made in furtherance thereof are non est in law. Other CA and DNA Reports:-

52. The testimonies of PW-13 and PW-18 together show that, on 20/10/2012, PW-18 gave his letter (Exh.89) bearing Ow. NO. 2540/2012, dtd.20/10/2012 to the Rural Hospital to obtain the samples of semen, pubic hair, nail-clippings and blood of all the accused. PW-13 examined the accused persons at about 12.15 pm and on the same day, the said samples of each accused were handed 24th over to the police. In this regard PW-13 has referred to the relevant MLC entries bearing Nos.670/A-1, 671/A-2, 672/A-3 and to 673/A-4 (at Exhs.90 to 93, respectively). 52.[1] As per the CA Report (Exh.21) the results of the analysis of the semen samples were “Inconclusive”. As per the CA Report (Exh.24), no semen was detected on samples of the pubic hairs. As per the CA Report (Exh.25), no blood and semen was detected on samples of the nail clippings. As per the CA Report (Exh.26), the blood of A-2 is of “Group-O”. But, the results were “Inconclusive” in respect of the analysis of the blood samples of A-1, A-3 and A-4.

53. The testimonies of PW-13 and PW-18 further show that, again on 22/10/2012, PW-18 gave a letter No.2543/2012, dtd.22/10/2012 (Exh.98) to the Rural Hospital to take fresh samples of the blood and the semen of all the accused, for DNA purpose. PW-13 has deposed that on this occasion such samples were taken by the 2nd Medical Officer Mr Shashikant Bhise and handed over to the police on the same day. To confirm this assertion, PW-13 has referred to the case papers/OPD papers of the accused, i.e., Exh.95/A-1, Exh.96/A-2, Exh.94/A-3 and Exh.97/A-4. Additionally, PW-13 has referred to the ‘Form to CA’ dated 22/10/2012 (Exh.99). These samples were taken at 2.30 p.m. and having reference, “No.679/2.30pm, 22/10/2012 and handed over to the police”. 53.[1] On 22/10/2012 itself, PW-18 gave a letter bearing Ow. NO. 2544/2012, dtd. 22/10/2012 (Exh.147) to the FSL for the purpose of DNA and forwarded the aforesaid blood and semen samples alongwith the nicker and the 3 pieces of used condoms recovered from the spot (vide Exh.48). 24th 53.[2] The relevant CA Report (Exh.20) of the blood mentions that, the blood of A-1, A-3 and A-4 is of “Group-B”. The blood of A-2 is of “Group-O”. The semen of A-1 and A-3 is of “Group-B”. But, the results of the analysis of the semen of A-1 & A-4 were “Inconclusive”. 53.[3] Another relevant CA Report (Exh.22) of the nicker and the semen states that, ‘no blood’ and ‘no semen’ detected on the nicker. The 3 used condoms were referred for DNA analysis.

54. Jointly, the evidence of PW-13 and PW-18 show that, on 25/10/2012, PW-18 gave a letter (Exh.100) to the Rural Hospital to preserve the DNA kits as the earlier blood samples for the DNA were not accepted by the FSL. On 29/10/2012, PW-18 gave a letter (Exh.101) to the Rural Hospital and obtained fresh blood sample of all the accused, for the DNA test. On the same day, PW-18 forwarded said blood samples to the FSL with his letter bearing Ow.No. 2610/2012, dtd. 29/10/2012 (Exh.153), for DNA test. 54.[1] The relevant DNA Report (Exh.177) states that, the semen found in the used condom (vide police ex/2, ex/3 and ex/4 in the letter Exh.147) matched with the DNA of deceased A-4. However, the DNA of the semen found in the other two condoms did not match with the DNA of A-1, A-2 or A-3.

55. On 30/10/2012 PW-18 issued a letter (Exh.154) to the FSL and forwarded the clothes of all the accused, clothes of the victim and the remaining articles recovered by A-1 and A-3, for the purpose of CA. The relevant CA Report (Exh.27) in respect of the aforesaid clothes and other articles is as under:- 24th i) No blood and semen found on victim’s Bra-Art.3. Human blood stains found on her clothes Arts.1, 2, 4, 5 and 6. Said blood is of “Group-B” in respect of Arts.1, 4 and 6 and result “Inconclusive” in respect of Arts.[2] & 5. ii) Human blood and semen stains found on A-1’s pants (Art.21) and underwear (Art.22). Said blood is of “Group-B” and semen result “Inconclusive”. iii) Human blood stains found on A-2’s shirt (Art.24) but result “Inconclusive”. Human semen stains found on A-2’s underwear (Art.26), but, result “Inconclusive”. iv) Human blood stains found on A-3’s Track pants (Art.27) and underwear (Art.28), but, result “Inconclusive”. Human semen stains found on A-3’s underwear (Art.28), but, result “Inconclusive”. v) Human semen stains found on A-4’s underwear (Art.31), but, result “Inconclusive”. vi) The CA Report (Exh.28) states that the belt of the brassier (Art.18) recovered from the spot tallied with the brassier, (Art.3) seized under Panchnama (Exh.43). This opinion fortifies our conclusion that the victim was raped.

56. However, the aforesaid CA Reports are not enough to draw the conclusion of the guilt against the A-1, A-2 and A-3. That is because, firstly; the evidence as to the crucial circumstances, i.e., love affair between the victim and A-1 plus the “last seen”, are not reliable. Secondly; it is not probable that after committing such a serious offence, till their arrest, the accused would carry the same clothes on their person, which they had at the time of the incident. Thirdly; the blood of A-1, A-3 and A-4 is/was of “Group-B”. Fourthly; it is not proved that A-2 had purchased the wine, condoms and the water bottle. Fifthly; the recoveries at the instance of A-1 & 24th A-3 are not reliable. Lastly; the DNA test is negative as against the A-1, A-2 and A-3. Other CDRs:-

57. The prosecution has alleged that, at the time of the incident, the A-2, Anuj pawar was using the Mob.No.909****349 which was regd. in the name of A-2’s mother namely Mrs Sita Arjun Pawar (vide subscriber’s application etc. Exh.121). As alleged, the deceased A-4, Sagar hattekar was using the Mob.No.957****683 which was registered in the name of Mr. Shankar Jagannath Jadhav (vide subscriber’s application etc. Exh.112). The CDRs proved by PW-14 to PW-17 show that, around the day of the incident and immediately thereafter, the accused persons had allegedly exchanged several phone calls amongst themselves. It is as under:- A-1: Laxman Sargar: 997****956 (Exh.122) Call mobile Date Call time Duratio n Incoming/ (A-2) 997****956 (A-1) 13.10.2012 13:00:43 67 In-call 830****675 (PW-12) (A-1) 13.10.2012 13:10:06 27 -"- The victim called A-1 from mobile of PW-12 -"- (A-1) 13.10.2012 13:11:19 18 -"- (A-2) (A-1 13.10.2012 14:18:39 08 In-call Cell ID-3132; 29472 At present Gardi Tal. Khanapur Dist.Sangli -"- -"- -"- 14:19:20 15 -"- -"- -"- -"- 14:35:30 01 -"- 997****769 (A-3) 997****95 13.10.2012 22:19:00 27 In-call 24th (A-1) (A-2) 997****85 (A-1) 13.10.2012 13:00:43 67 Out call Cell ID-3132; A.P.Gardi Tal. Khanapur Dist.Sangli -"- -"- -"- 14:18:39 08 Out call -"- -"- -"- 14:19:20 15 Out call -"- -"- -"- 14:35:30 01 Out call A-2: Anuj Arjun Pawar: 909****349 (Exh. 122). Call Mobile Date Call time Duration Incoming/ (A-1) 13.10.2012 13:00:43 67 In-Call 909****349 997****956 13.10.2012 14:18:39 8 In-Call 909****349 997****956 13.10.2012 14:19:20 15 In-Call 909****349 997****956 13.10.2012 14:35:30 01 In-Call A-3: Dadaso Athawale: 997****769 (Exh.122) Outgoing 997****769 997****956 (A-1) 13.10.2012 22:19:00 27 In-Call A-4: Deceased Sagar Hattekar (Exhs.112 to Exh.114) (A-4) (A-1) 12.10.2012 10:30:42 16 Out Call -"- -"- -"- 10:31:15 85 Out Call -"- 997****956 -"- 13:33:17 15 Out Call -"- -"- -"- 13:34:11 17 Out Call -"- 997****956 13.10.2012 09:16:47 32 Out Call RM-615181 957****683 13.10.2012 12:30:10 In SMS 957****683 997****956 (A-1) 14.10.2012 09:49:38 104 Out call 957****683 997****956 14.10.2012 12:14:57 47 Out call 24th 997****956 957****683 14.10.2012 12:45:7 08 In-Call 957****683 997****769 (A-3) 15.10.2012 19:51:38 78 Out call 957****683 997****956 (A-1) -"- 20:44:03 16 Out Call (A-3) -"- 21:32:45 94 Out Call 957****683 997****769 -"- 23:04:50 02 Out Call 957****683 997****769 -"- 23:05:06 57 Out Call 957****683 997****769 15.10.2012 23:57:39 68 Out Call 957****683 -"- 16.10.2012 00:34:34 57 Out Call 957****683 -"- 16.10.2012 01:12:55 21 Out Call 957****683 -"- -"- 01:24:23 53 Out Call 957****683 -"- -"- 01:58:56 33 Out Call 957****683 -"- -"- 15:31:01 252 Out Call (A-3) -"- 15:50:48 209 Out Call 957****683 -"- -"- 16:32:00 137 Out Call 957****683 -"- -"- 18:16:06 74 Out Call --"- -"- 16.10.2012 21:23:00 85 Out Call -"- (A-3) 17.10.2012 10:31:27 105 Out Call -"- -"- -"- 12:40:52 22 Out Call -"- -"- -"- 13:14:11 21 Out Call -"- -"- -"- 13:20:03 26 Out Call -"- -"- 17.10.2012 21:07:24 18 Out Call 57.[1] The aforesaid extract from the CDRs on record indicate that on 13/10/2012, there were 4 calls between the mobile numbers allegedly used by the victim and the A-1. However, as held above, said calls are not sufficient to hold that only the victim and the A-1 had talked with each other. Secondly, the timings of the said calls do not suggest that, at the time of the incident, the victim, the A-1 and all other accused were together. No doubt, the CDRs show that there was little surge in the calls allegedly exchanged amongst the A-1, A-3 24th and A-4 on 15/10/2012 and 16/10/2012. However, that itself is not sufficient to draw any adverse inference. Because, the prosecution asserted that the accused were friends. So a surge in calls like that was not completely unusual. Be as it may, said calls, in the absence of the proof of the other circumstance, will not make the prosecution case totally acceptable. Moreover, no evidence is produced about the relationship betweeen A-4 and Shankar Jagannath Jadhav, in whose name Mob.No.957****683 was registered. The seizure of the motorcycles:-

58. The deposition of PW-7 Mangesh Chaugule and PW-18 show that on 21/10/2012, brother of A-1 produced a motorcycle bearing No.MH-10/BH-1588. PW-18 seized it under Panchanama (Exh.60) and deposited with the muddemal Clerk under a Receipt (Exh.146). The defence has admitted the Panchanama (Exh.66) of the seizure of Bajaj motorcycle No.MH-10/AD-5759, produced by the brother of A-3. However, this evidence is of no use in the absence of the proof of other crucial circumstances.

59. The law is well settled as to appreciation of evidence in cases based on circumstantial evidence. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 1984 SC 1622, introduced the Panchsheel Test for the relevance and evaluation of circumstantial evidence in cases where direct evidence is not available. The five principles of the Panchsheel Test are:

1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn must be fully established. 24th

2. The facts established should be consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused.

3. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency.

4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved.

5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that within all human probability, the act must have been done by the accused. 59.[1] As held in the case of Shri. Sujit Biswas vs. State Of Assam, reported in AIR 2013 SC 3817, “… In a criminal trial, suspicion no matter how strong, cannot and must not be permitted to take the place of proof. This is for the reason that the mental distance between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’ is quite large, and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions. In a criminal case, the Court has a duty to ensure that mere conjectures or suspicion do not take the place of legal proof. The large distance between ‘may be’ true and ‘must be’ true, must be covered by way of clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence produced by the prosecution before an accused is condemned as a convict, and the basic and golden rule must be applied. In such cases, while keeping in mind the distance between ‘may be’ true and ‘must be’ true, the Court must maintain the vital distance between mere conjectures and sure conclusions to be arrived at, on the touchstone of dispassionate judicial scrutiny, based upon a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all 24th features of the case, as well as the quality and credibility of the evidence brought on record. The Court must ensure, that miscarriage of justice is avoided, and if the facts and circumstances of a case so demand, then the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused, keeping in mind that a reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely probable doubt, but a fair doubt that is based upon reason and common sense.” In Shri. Sujit Biswas (supra), it is also laid down that, in a case of circumstantial evidence, the Judgment remains essentially inferential. Inferences are drawn from established facts, as the circumstances lead to particular inferences. The Court must draw an inference with respect to whether the chain of circumstances is complete, and when the circumstances therein are collectively considered, the same must lead only to the irresistible conclusion, that the accused alone is the perpetrator of the crime in question. All the circumstances so established must be of a conclusive nature, and consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. 59.[2] In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that, “fouler the crime higher the proof”. Meaning, graver the charge, greater should be the standard of proof. In Kali Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, reported in AIR 1973 SC 2773, the Hon’ble Supreme Court enunciated that, “A golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that, if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. This principle has a special relevance in cases wherein the guilt of the accused is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence”. 24th Summary:-

60. The summary of the aforesaid discussion is that, on careful scrutiny and re-appreciation of the evidence on record in the light of the settled principle of law, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove the chain of circumstances including the ‘motive’ for the crime and the ‘last seen together’ theory so as to point towards the only hypothesis that, except the Appellants, no other person has committed rape on the victim, caused her murder and the disappearance of the evidence. A reasonable doubt lingers with respect to the probability or conclusiveness of the circumstance relied on by the prosecution, forming a link in the chain of circumstances pointing towards the guilt of the Appellants. On the contrary, we find from the material on record that the possibility of planting witnesses by the police so as to stage manage the prosecution story cannot be ruled out in this case. There is, therefore, reasonable doubt as to the veracity of the prosecution story. The benefit of doubt, therefore, must go to the Appellants. As a result, all the Appeals deserve to be allowed. 60.[1] Hence, the following Order:- 60.[2] The impugned Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence dated 16/07/2019, passed in Sessions Case No.29/2013 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli, is quashed and set aside. 60.[3] The Appellants -Anuj Arjun Pawar (Accused No.2), Lakhya @ Laxman Sandipan Sargar (Accused No.1) and Dadaso Bhaskar Athawale (Accused No.3) are acquitted of the offences punishable 24th under Sections 376, 302, 201 and 34 of the I.P.C. by giving them the benefit of doubt. 60.[4] Record indicates that, presently Appellants -Anuj Arjun Pawar (A-2), Lakhya @ Laxman Sandipan Sargar (A-1) and Dadaso Bhaskar Athawale (A-3) are lodged in Kolhapur Central Prison, Kalamba. Hence, said Appellants shall be released from the prison forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other crime/case. 60.[5] All the Appellants shall execute a P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each, under Section 481 Of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding u/Section 437A of the Cr.P.C.), for their appearance, in case an Appeal is preferred. 60.[6] Fine amount, if any, paid by the Appellants be returned. 60.[7] Criminal Appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms. Consequently, the Interim Applications, if any, are also disposed off. (SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.) (SUMAN SHYAM, J.) 24th