SHIVANNA BHIMSEN LOKHANDE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant stands convicted for the murder of his wife Sakhubai. Sakhubai and the Appellant were labourers. Their worldly belongings were housed in a shed made from tin sheets. The shed was home. Typical of life in urban India, their tin shed lay in close proximity to a building by the name of Amit Apartments at Kondhwa, a Suburb of Pune. The couple had a child who was barely three. Sakhubai had worked as a maid with Pramila and Charles Pillai for seven or eight months. The prosecution alleges that on 3rd May, 2002 Sakhubai had reported for work with the Pillais and was present until nine in the night. She was addicted to alcohol. That evening was no exception. The Appellant was summoned by the Pillais to their residence and was asked to take away his wife. The next morning between seven thirty and eight, the Appellant came to the Pillai home in Amit Apartments for a morning snack. Upon being asked about the whereabouts of his wife he stated that she had left to meet her sister that morning. The Appellant is alleged to have left the temporary shed in which he lived with his family and to have shifted to another construction site at Nanapeth in Pune. Netaji Shinde was on duty as a Senior Police Inspector at the Sahakarnagar Police Station. At eight thirty in the morning, he received a wireless message of a dead body being found near the Suryamukhi Ganesh Temple. Upon reaching the spot he found the dead body of a woman lying on an open ground in a pool of blood. Her face was crushed. A large stone was found lying by the side of the body. P.I. Shinde who deposed at the trial lodged a complaint, at Exh. 33. A crime, C.R. 87/2002 was registered. P.I. Shinde prepared a Panchanama of the scene of offence in the presence of two panch witnesses (Exh. 18). The dead body was transmitted for postmortem analysis. The investigation led to Charles and Pramila Pillai who resided in Amit Apartments and at whose house Sakhubai had been employed. Pramila Pillai informed the police that a woman of a similar description had resided in a hut in front of the apartment complex, but had not reported for work with them for the previous four or five days. Mr. and Mrs. Pillai were taken to the Sassoon Hospital where the body was stored in the morgue. The morgue has been euphemistically referred to at the trial as a dead house. The Pillais identified the body. They informed the Investigating Officer that the brother and sister of Sakhubai resided at village Dhanori. The trail led to the brother and sister who in turn are alleged to have identified the body of the deceased. The Appellant was arrested on 10th May, 2002. It has been alleged that in pursuance of a statement made by the Appellant in the presence of panch witnesses the Appellant led the police to the tin shed in front of Amit Apartments where a bloodstained shirt and pant belonging to him came to be recovered from a gap in the tin sheets.

(2.) The Appellant was charged under Section 302 of the Penal Code of the murder of Sakhubai and was committed to trial before the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune. The prosecution examined ten witnesses. P. Ws.1, 2 and 3 were panch witnesses - P.W. 3 to the discovery Panchanama. P.W. 4 and P.W 7 were respectively the employers at whose house the deceased had worked as a maid. P.W. 4 was, however, declared hostile. P.W. 5 was the doctor who had conducted the postmortem. P.W. 6 and P.W. 9 were the Investigating Officers. P.W. 8 Devidas was the brother of the deceased. The Additional Sessions Judge at Pune by his judgment dated 26th December, 2002 convicted the Appellant of an offence under Section 302 of the Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life. The judgment of conviction has been called into question in these proceedings.

(3.) On behalf of the Appellant reliance has been placed on the evidence of P.W. 9 Sunil Korde who was the Investigating Officer. P.W. 9 deposed that the clothes of the deceased were shown to Mr. and Mrs. Pillai at the police station. Those clothes were seized under a Panchanama, but the clothes were not sealed. P.W. 9 deposed that the clothes could not be sealed because the dead body was unknown and the victim could be identified on the basis of the clothes. Similarly, P.W. 7 stated that she was shown the clothes of the deceased at the police station. Reliance was sought to be placed on the following judgments in order to support the submission that when the bloodstained clothes of the victim have not been kept sealed till the time that they were sent to the Chemical Analyst, this would affect the probative value of the findings of the Chemical Analyser: (i) The State v. Motia AIR 1955 Raj 82; (ii) Dasu v. State of Maharashtra 1995 Cri. L.J. 1933; and (iii) State of Maharashtra v. Prabhu Barku Gade . The learned Counsel submitted that the opening of the packet containing the clothes at the police station on 10th May, 2007 seriously affects the probative value of the evidence of the Chemical Analyser. Moreover, learned Counsel submitted that the prosecution has failed to examine the carrier. Finally, it was urged that the identification of the dead body of the deceased has not been proper and it is impossible to infer that the body which was recovered was the body of the wife of the Appellant. These submissions would now fall for consideration.