SITARAM Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has been convicted of the offences punishable under sections 302 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur for committing the murder of Rukhminibai on 6-3-1984 at village Jaitala, taluka and District Nagpur. The appellant is the distant relative of the deceased and is a resident of village Gumgaon. According to the prosecution, 8 days prior to the date of the incident, the appellant has been to the house of the deceased and had his meals there. Again on the day of the incident i.e. 6-3-1984, it is alleged that he had come between 11-30 a.m. and 12-00 noon to the house of the deceased and committed the murder of the deceased while the other members of the family were out, and removed the silver patlis and bangles from her body. A report came to be lodged by Prabhakar ( P.W. 1) on the same day, which implicates the appellant. On the basis of this report offence was registered by P.S.I. Hande ( P.W. 11). He did the necessary investigation. The appellant was arrested on 7-3-1984 at 10-30 a.m. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed and the appellant came to be tried for offences under sections 302 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, found on the basis of the evidence on record that the prosecution has proved the charge against the appellant and, therefore, convicted him under sections 302 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, this appeal.

(2.) The case essentially rests on circumstantial evidence. The important evidence consists of Prabhakar ( P.W. 1) and Chhaya ( P.W. 5). They are the grand- children of the deceased and were residing with the deceased. They were examined on the point that they saw the appellant in the close vicinity of the scene of the incident at the time of the incident as soon thereafter Rukhminibai was found dead. In addition to the above evidence, there is the memorandum ( Ex 15) recorded by P.S.I. Hande in pursuance of which the silver patlis and bangles were recovered from the shop of Kothiram Hatewar, ( P.W. 7) and Narayan ( P.W. 9). The discovery is proved by Shrihari ( P.W. 6), who has been examined as a panch, and P.S.I. Hande. The prosecution has also relied on the evidence of P.W. 7 Kothiram, from whose shop the patlis and bangles were seized, P.W. 8 Balkrishna, an employee of the shop of Kothiram and P.W. 9 Narayan from whose shop the silver bangles were seized. The identity of the ornaments has been proved by Saraswatibai ( P.W. 3) daughter -in-law of the deceased. In addition to the above evidence, there is a report of the Chemical Analyser, which shows that human blood was found on the white metal bracelets. The defence of the accused is merely one of denial.

(3.) Mr. Daga, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, contented that the prosecution has not proved beyond all doubts that the appellant is responsible for the murder of Rukhminibai. He has further contended that mere presence of the appellant near the house of the deceased at the time of the incident would not be conclusive piece of evidence about his guilt. According to him, the prosecution has not been able to establish the exact time of the death of the deceased. He has further submitted that it would not be safe to rely on the testimony of Chhaya who is a child witness. Mr. Ahmed appearing on behalf of the State submitted that though there are no eye-witnesses to the incident nonetheless the prosecution has established the chain of circumstances which leads to the irresistable conclusion that the appellant committed the murder of Rukhminibai for ornaments which were on her person.