The State of Maharashtra v. Ravindra Ananda Mhatre & Ors.

2. After commitment of the case it was tried just like a police case. Learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charge for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. They have pleaded not guilty. Sum and substance of the Complainant’s/prosecution case is that both the accused murdered the deceased on 23rd December 1999 near Bal Gandharva Rang Mandir, Pune. The prosecution has examined 7 witnesses. The job of the prosecution was too onerous. On one hand they have to explain the action taken by the local police on the complaint of wife of the deceased whereas on the other hand they have to lead the evidence. It is very well true that admittedly there is no eye witness to the incident. It seems that the prosecution more relied upon motive and lack of satisfactory explanation given by both these respondents. The deceased was in the company of both these respondents on 23rd December 1999 in the evening. The deceased Laxmikant left house in the evening along with both these respondents under the pretext of walking and instead of returning safe, deceased was brought in an injured condition by both these respondents. So prosecution claims that it is for the respondents to give explanation as to how the deceased suffered injuries. The accused Nos.[1] and 2 gave an explanation in a statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On the date of incident i.e. 23rd December 1999 at 7.00 to 7.30 p.m. both the respondents and the deceased had gone to Bal Gandharva Rang Mandir theater for viewing the drama. The deceased Laxmikant went ahead for purchasing of tickets. When both these respondents went there, they could not see deceased. As a result both were about to return home. Near Omkareshwar temple they noticed a crowd. They also noticed deceased Laxmikant lying on the ground in an injured condition. Respondent No.1 also gave an explanation that deceased was beaten by auto-rikshaw driver on failure to pay charges. In such a manner, they brought deceased Laxmikant home through an autorickshaw.

3. Learned Additional Sessions Judge considered this explanation while disbelieving the prosecution case whereas according to the appellant, this is false explanation and giving a false explanation goes against both these respondents and it shows their culpability.

4. After hearing learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perusing the record with her assistance, we do not find that any interference in the judgment by the trial Court is called for. Trial Court has acquitted both these respondents as per the judgment dt.30.11.2002. As said above there is no direct evidence. There are 7 witnesses being examined. The evidence consists of the testimony of Bharti Laxmikant Kadam – PW No.2 (wife of the deceased), Sainath Gulab Kadam – PW No.3 (brother of the deceased Laxmikant), Subhash Gulab Kadam – PW No.4 (brother of the deceased). All are relatives of the deceased. Apart from that, on the circumstance of last seen together prosecution examined Sushma Balkrishna Hingankar –PW No.5. The PW No.1 - Dnyaneshwar Rambhau Varpe was examined on the point of carrying out spot panchnama. This panchnama was carried out by the Deccan Police Station on 25th December 1999. Nothing incriminating was seized from the spot. The spot was shown by both these respondents. Whereas Dr.Shrikant Suresh Chandekar - PW No.6 was examined on the point of proving of the cause of death. Head injury was the cause of death whereas PW No.7 - Karbhari Ganagaram Handore is a last witness and he is P.S.I. with Deccan police station.

5. As the injured Kashinath died at KEM Hospital, Pune, intimation was given to Samartha police station. They have prepared inquest panchnama. When he received report (Exhibit 46) of accidental death from Samarth Police Station, he took a entry in the accidental death register. He received the papers of inquest panchnama and death certificate from Samarth Police Station. Even he received the complaint from Sainath Gulab Kadam – brother of the deceased. He prepared a spot panchnama which is at Exhibit 30. He was crossexamined on the point of certain improvements made by the witness as compared to their police statements.

6. PW No.7 admits about certain improvements by way of omissions made by PW No.2 Bharati and PW No.4 Subhash. Trial Court has elaborately dealt with the same in para 12 to 14 and its effect on the prosecution case. Head injury was the cause of death. But it is possible due to impact of hard and blunt object like stone, stick, iron rod etc. (stated in chief). Whereas, during investigation further opinion was sought. After scrutinizing the evidence trial Court observed “it will be seen from the above discussion that deceased Laxmikant was under the influence of liquor and due tot he loss of balance he fell on the foothpath and sustained injuries on his person”. We do not find any reason to differ with this opinion. The observations are made by the trial Court on the basis of correct appreciation of evidence.

7. From the above evidence one can certainly say that deceased died unnatural death. Now whether it was accidental or homicidal that is an issue. One fact also remains and it is that the police have not converted accidental death into homicidal death. There was a complaint from the side of the relatives of the deceased. The inaction of the police may be influenced by dishonesty or it may be the natural. However, when we peruse the judgment of trial Court, we find that this issue has been elaborately discussed in para 17, 18. There are 2 probable cause of death which had come in evidence.

8. We have perused the judgment of the trial Court. What we find is that except the circumstance of last seen together, no other incriminating circumstance was brought in evidence. A motive was suggested on behalf of prosecution that the respondent no.1 was suspecting on a deceased. According to respondent No.1 instead of watching TV deceased was having an evil eye on his wife. This incident took place 10 days prior to the main incident. There was a quarrel between deceased and respondent no.1. But it was settled by Subash Kadam - PW No.4. It does not appear that the motive as mentioned above is clearly spelt out from that incident.

9. It is true that there is no evidence about use of weapon for causing injuries noticed by the Medical Officer.

10. We also agree to the conclusion drawn by the trial Court for not drawing an adverse inference against the respondents for giving false explanation about injuries sustained to deceased. PW No.7 Investigating Officer has not deposed about explanation given by the respondents as false. It weighed in the mind of the trial Court. There is no evidence adduced to the effect that “the said explanation was found false after investigation.” Due to favouring the respondents, no investigation might be carried out. But the Complainant ought to have brought evidence to suggest that the investigation was tented. Neither has happened.

11. In fact trial Court considered the circumstance of “bringing back the deceased by the respondents” as an instance of good conduct. It is consistent with the presumption of innocence. We agree to this observation.

12. This can be considered as a circumstance showing the culpability only if there are other convincing circumstances. Merely on the basis of that circumstance, inference about involvement of the culprits cannot be drawn.

13. So we agree to the conclusion drawn by the trial Court. Neither prosecution could prove the homicidal death nor involvement of these respondents. We can certainly understand sentiments of the relatives of the Laxmikant who died unnatural death, but we cannot hold these respondents responsible unless and until acceptable legal evidence is adduced. Ultimately, the liberty of an individual can be curtailed only after the process of law is followed. The prosecution including the complainant could not adduce evidence to show the involvement of these respondents thereby making them responsible for the death of Laxmikant. Hence, the appeal needs to be dismissed. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. S.M.MODAK, J PRASANNA B. VARALE,J L.S. Panjwani, P.S.