# KISHORE BHADKE v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

- **Citation:** [2017] 1 S.C.R. 330
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2017-01-03
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 467 of2010
- **Bench:** Jagdish Singh Khehar, Arun Mishra, A. M. Khanwilkar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/kishore-bhadke-v-state-of-maharashtra-31758
- **Pages:** 36

## Headnote

Penal Code, 1860: ss.364, 302, 201 rlw ss.341120-B -
Abduction and murder by strangulation - Destruction of clothes
and articles of deceased - Recovery of wrist watch and gold ring
from accused persons - Motive - Transaction of purchase of land
by deceased from appellants - Conviction by courts below on the
ground that complete chain of circumstances pointed towards the
guilt of appellants - Held: Evidence of mother of the deceased was
to the effect that on the fateful day, the deceased received a phone
call from accused no. I whereafter he left home with relevant
documents/papers to finalise deal of land - This was relevant fact
in support of circumstance of motive - Prosecution also established
the vital circumstance of last seen together - The circumstance was
further strengthened by evidence to the effect that concerned
accused persons loaded a gunny bag in a vehicle - Gunny bag as
found by courts below was used to carry dead body of deceased
which was transported in a vehicle and then thrown at the isolated
location - The fact where the dead.body of deceased was disposed,
was disclosed by accused nos. 2 and 3 in quick succession to the
Investigating Officer - The discovery was made only after accused
nos.2 and 3 were taken together by the police to the spot - Dead
body was discovered at the instance of accused Nos. 2 and 3 from
the spot in a valley about 600 ft. deep - The fact disclosed by them,
therefore, and the discovery made at their instance, was admissible
against both the accused in terms of s.27 of the Evidence Act -
There was clinching evidence to point towards the involvement of
the appellants in the commission of the crime - No tangible reason
to deviate from the concurrent findings of the courts below -
Evidence Act, 1872 - s.27.
Evidence Act, 1872: s.27 -Applicability of - Held: When two
330
KISHORE BHADKE v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
persons in custody are interrogated separately and in quick
succession and both of them furnish similar information leading to
the discovery of fact, such disclosure by two or more persons in
police custody does not go out of the purview of s.27 altogether -
What is relevant is that information given by one after the other
without any break, almost simultaneously and such information is
followed up by pointing out the material things by both of them
then there is no good reason to eschew such evidence from the regime
of s.27.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD:
1. The evidence given by PW-1 (brother of the
deceased) and corroborated by PW-15 (mother) revealed that
there was transaction in respect of land between the accused
no.1 and the deceased. That version could not be demolished in
the .cross-examination. Another piece of.evidence relied by the
prosecution is about the destruction of clothes and articles of
deceased. The Police could only recover ash from the spot along
with bunch of keys. That would lend support to the prosecution
case that the possibility of documents having been destroyed also
cannot be ruled out. Hence, it was open to the trial court as well
as the High Court to rely on the evidence of witnesses for the
limited purpose. The fact that deceased while leaving bis house
bad carried some papers/documents with him has been stated by
PW-15, when be went to meet accused No.1. Therefore, there is
no tangible reason to discard the relevant fact established by the
prosecution witnesses in support of the circumstance of motive.
[Para 151 1352-C-D, HJ
2. The prosecution also established the vital circumstance
of last seen together. That evidence is given by PW-11 and PW12 in particular. Their evidence will have to be juxtaposed with
the evidence of PW-15, who bas spoken about the telephone call
received from accused no.1 and pursuant to which the deceased
left his house in her presence with relevant documents/papers.
The courts below accepted her version as truthful and reliable.
The evidence of PW-11 corroborated the fact that deceased bad
gone to the Bank for with

## Text

_Characters 0–39,918 of 86,587. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39918 for what follows._

A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
[2017] 1 S.C.R. 330
KISHORE BHADKE
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
(Criminal Appeal No. 467 of2010)
JANUARY 03, 2017
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, ARUN MISHRA AND
A. M. KHANWILKAR, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860: ss.364, 302, 201 rlw ss.341120-B -
Abduction and murder by strangulation - Destruction of clothes
and articles of deceased - Recovery of wrist watch and gold ring
from accused persons - Motive - Transaction of purchase of land
by deceased from appellants - Conviction by courts below on the
ground that complete chain of circumstances pointed towards the
guilt of appellants - Held: Evidence of mother of the deceased was
to the effect that on the fateful day, the deceased received a phone
call from accused no. I whereafter he left home with relevant
documents/papers to finalise deal of land - This was relevant fact
in support of circumstance of motive - Prosecution also established
the vital circumstance of last seen together - The circumstance was
further strengthened by evidence to the effect that concerned
accused persons loaded a gunny bag in a vehicle - Gunny bag as
found by courts below was used to carry dead body of deceased
which was transported in a vehicle and then thrown at the isolated
location - The fact where the dead.body of deceased was disposed,
was disclosed by accused nos. 2 and 3 in quick succession to the
Investigating Officer - The discovery was made only after accused
nos.2 and 3 were taken together by the police to the spot - Dead
body was discovered at the instance of accused Nos. 2 and 3 from
the spot in a valley about 600 ft. deep - The fact disclosed by them,
therefore, and the discovery made at their instance, was admissible
against both the accused in terms of s.27 of the Evidence Act -
There was clinching evidence to point towards the involvement of
the appellants in the commission of the crime - No tangible reason
to deviate from the concurrent findings of the courts below -
Evidence Act, 1872 - s.27.
Evidence Act, 1872: s.27 -Applicability of - Held: When two
330
KISHORE BHADKE v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
persons in custody are interrogated separately and in quick
succession and both of them furnish similar information leading to
the discovery of fact, such disclosure by two or more persons in
police custody does not go out of the purview of s.27 altogether -
What is relevant is that information given by one after the other
without any break, almost simultaneously and such information is
followed up by pointing out the material things by both of them
then there is no good reason to eschew such evidence from the regime
of s.27.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD:
1. The evidence given by PW-1 (brother of the
deceased) and corroborated by PW-15 (mother) revealed that
there was transaction in respect of land between the accused
no.1 and the deceased. That version could not be demolished in
the .cross-examination. Another piece of.evidence relied by the
prosecution is about the destruction of clothes and articles of
deceased. The Police could only recover ash from the spot along
with bunch of keys. That would lend support to the prosecution
case that the possibility of documents having been destroyed also
cannot be ruled out. Hence, it was open to the trial court as well
as the High Court to rely on the evidence of witnesses for the
limited purpose. The fact that deceased while leaving bis house
bad carried some papers/documents with him has been stated by
PW-15, when be went to meet accused No.1. Therefore, there is
no tangible reason to discard the relevant fact established by the
prosecution witnesses in support of the circumstance of motive.
[Para 151 1352-C-D, HJ
2. The prosecution also established the vital circumstance
of last seen together. That evidence is given by PW-11 and PW12 in particular. Their evidence will have to be juxtaposed with
the evidence of PW-15, who bas spoken about the telephone call
received from accused no.1 and pursuant to which the deceased
left his house in her presence with relevant documents/papers.
The courts below accepted her version as truthful and reliable.
The evidence of PW-11 corroborated the fact that deceased bad
gone to the Bank for withdrawing cash amount and then
proceeded to the house of accused no.1. He deposed that
deceased went inside the house of accused no.1 and saw accused
331
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
332
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] I, S.C.R.
nos.2, 3, 4 and 6 standing near the cattle shed. While returning
back be saw accused no.5 standing near the water tank. The fact
of deceased having gone to the Bank for withdrawing the amount
bas been corroborated by PW-8 who was Cashier in the Bank at
the relevant time. Even the evidence of PW-8 was found to be
truthful and reliable. There was sufficient evidence about the
factum of last seen together. This circumstance is further
strengthened by the evidence given by other prosecution
witnesses (PW 9, 6 and 12), who bad seen the concerned accused
persons loading a gunny bag in Sumo vehicle after some time;
and that accused Nos. 3 and 6 were also seen in the vehicle
carrying that gunny bag. The gunny bag, as found by the two courts
below was used to carry the dead body of deceased which was
transported in a vehicle and then thrown at an isolated location
in the valley. There was no tangible reason to doubt the
correctness of the concurrent finding recorded by the two courts
below in this behalf. Thus, the prosecution succeeded in
establishing the circumstance of motive and last seen together
indicating the involvement of the appellants-accused nos.1, 3 and
6 in particular. [Paras 16, 17] [353-A-D; 354-B-D]
3. The trial court examined the evidence of the doctor (PW16), letter of requisition and the post mortem report. The Doctor
explained the fracture injury noticed on the dead body, which, in
his opinion, was due to strangulation and asphyxia. Thus, there
is no merit in the contention that the nature of injury noted in the
post mortem report would rule out the possibility of homicidal
death. The dead body was discovered at the instance of accused
nos.2 and 3 from the spot in a valley about 600 ft. deep. The
Police reached that spot on the basis of the disclosure made by
the said accused nos. 2 and 3 under Section 27 of the Evidence
Act. Section 27 provides that any fact deposed to and discovered
in consequence of information received from a person accused
of any offence, in the custody of a Police Officer, so much of such
information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates
distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved. The
fact where the dead body of deceased was disposed, was disclosed
by both the accused nos.2 and 3 to the Investigating Officer in
the presence of (PW 2) one after another. The discovery was
KISHORE BHADKE v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
made only after accused oos.2 and 3 were taken together by the
police to the spot in the neighbouring State. Io other words, the
disclosore of the relevant fact by accosed No.3 to the
Investigating Officer preceded the discovery of dead body from
the disclosed spot at the instance of both the accused nos. 2 and
3. It was not a case of recording of statement of accused No.3
after discovery nor a joint statement of accused oos.2 and 3, -but
disclosure made by them separately in quick soccessioo to the
Investigating Officer, preceding the discovery of the fact so stated.
The fact disc!Osed by them, therefore, and the discovery made at
their instance, was admissible against both the accused in terms
of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The disclosure made by
accused no. 3 about the relevant fact, per se, is not inadmissible.
The statement of accused no.2 and 3 has been recorded separately
and both the accused accompanied the Police and disclosed the
spot where the dead body of deceased was thrown. On the basis
of that disclosure, the dead body of deceased and the remains of
the burnt articles of deceased were recovered for which that fact
becomes relevant fact and can be used _against the appellants
(accused nos.2 and 3). (Paras 18, 19, 20, 23] (354-F-H; 355-A,
F-H; 356-A-B, E-F; 358-A-B]
State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu [2005] 2
Suppl. SCR 79 : (2005) 11 SCC 600 - relied on.
A.R. Khima v. State.of Saurashtra AIR 1956 SC 217 :
[1955] SCR 1285 - distinguished.
Lohit Kaushal v. State of Haryana (2009) 17 SCC 106
- held inapplicable.
-5. The Courts found that no explanation was offered by the
accused no.3 in respect of presence of human blood on his clothes.
The presence of accused no.3 at the relevant time in the house
of accused no.I and also seen while loading the gunny bag in
Sumo vehicle and also travelliug in that vehicle, leaves no manner
of doubt about his complicity in the commission of offence. (Paras
24, 25) (358-D-E, F-G]
6. It is well established that, ordinarily, direct evidence
regarding conspiracy may not be forthcomiug. Hence, in most of
333
A
B
c
E
F
G
H
334
A
B
c
D
.E
F
G
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[20 l 7] l S.C.R.
the cases, the Courts have to infer conspiracy on the basis of
established facts. In the present case, on analyzing the facts and
the events that unfold, the Courts below have answered the factum
of conspiracy against the appellants-accused nos. 1, 3 and 6.
Further, ihe prosecution did not rest only ;on the factum of last
seen together but also on other circumstances to "point out the
involvement of the appellants in the commission of crime. [Para
26] [359-A-B]
Malleshappa v. State of Karnataka [2007] 10 SCR 153 :
(2007) 13 SCC 399; Ashok v. Slate of Maharashtra
(2015] 6 SCR 375 : (2015) 4 SCC 393; Mousam
Kanhaiya Lal v. State of Rajasthan [2014] 3 SCR 744:
(2014) 4 sec 715 - relied on.
Keshav v. State of Maharashtra (2007] 13 SCR 264 :
(2007) 13 SCC 284; Singha Roy & Ors. 1( State of W.B.
(2003) 12 SCC 377; Sangili v. State of Tamil Nadu
[2014] 7 SCR 788 : (2014) 10 SCC 264; Guiab Singh v.
State of UP. (1995) Supp. 4 SCC 502 - distinguished.
7. The argument of accused no. 3 that he may be given the
same benefit as given to accused no. 7 is also liable to be rejected.
Because, the High Court has given tangible reason for treating
the case of accused no. 7 differently. As regards accused no. 3,
there is consistent evidence that he was present in the house of
accused no.1 at the relevant time and also participated in loading
of the gunny bag containing dead body of deceased in the vehicle
and then travelling in the same vehicle for disposing the dead
body in a valley. This distinguishes his role from that of accused
no.7. Tbe role of accused no. 3 was rightly analyzed by the courts
below to be similar to accused no. 6 and liable for punishment for
the offence in question. [Para 34] (362-F-G]
8. Accused no. 6 stated that the dead body of the deceased
was discovered at the instance of accused nos. 2 and 3 with which
accused No. 6 had no concern. The fact that accused no. 6 did not
make similar disclosure about disposal of dead body of deceased,
as made by accused no. 2 and 3, cannot absolve him. The courts
below have rightly concluded that the concerned accused, in
particular accused nos. 1, 3 and 6 were party to the conspiracy to
KISHORE BHADKE v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
cause homicidal death of deceased and for disposal of the evidence
of crime. The fact that blood stains were not found on the gold
ring recovered at the instance of accused no.6 would not make
the recovery inadmissible. Similarly, the fact that the gold ring
was freely available in the market, would be of no avail to the
said accused. The accused has not produced any evidence to
explain the circumstances in which the said gold ring came in his
possession, which has been identified by the prosecution
witnesses as belonging to deceased. The fact that the no blood
stains were found on the clothes of accused no. 6 will also be of
no avail, considering the overwhelming evidence about other
relevant circumstances indicating his complicity in the commission
of crime.
[Paras 36, 37] . (363-B-E; 364-B)
Sunil Clifford Daniel v. State of Punjab (2012) 7 SCR
1100 : (2012) 11 sec 205 - distinguished.
335
A
B
c
S(Jju v. State of Kera/a [2000] 4 Suppl. SCR 621 :
(2001) 1 SCC J78; Arjun Marik and others v. State of
D
Bihar (1994) 2 SCR 265 : (1994) Suppl. 2 SCC 372;
Mohibur Rahman & Anr. v. State of Assam (2002) 6
SCC 715; Niranjan Panja v. State of W.B. [2010] 7
SCR 113 : (2010) 6 SCC 525; Sk. Yusuf v. State of W.B.
(2011] 8 SCR 83 : (2011) 11 SCC 754; Shyamal Ghosh
E
v. State of W.B. (2012) 10 SCR 95 : (2012) 7 SCC 646;
Nizam v. State of Rajasthan [20J5] 10 SCR 786 : (2016)
1 SCC 550; Jackaran Singh '" State nf Punjab AIR
(1995) SC 2345 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
F
Am (1995) SC 2345
referred tQ
Para9
[ 1955) SCR 1285
distinguished
Para9
[2012] 7 SCR 1100
distinguished
Para9
[2015] 10 SCR 786
referred to
Para 10
G
· [2000] 4 Suppl. SCR 621
referred to
Para 10
[2007] 13 SCR 264
referred to
Para 10
(19941 2 SCR 265
referred to
Para 10
H
336
A
B
c
D
E
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[20 l 7] l S.C.R.
c2002) 6 sec 115
referred to
Para 10
{2010) 7 SCR 113
referred to
Para 10
[2011) 8 SCR 83
referred to
Para 10
[2012) 10 SCR 95
referred to
Para 10
[2014) 3 SCR 744
relied on
Para 10
[2007) 10 SCR 153
distingnished
Para 10
[2015) 6 SCR 375
referred to
Para 10
(2015) 10 SCR 786
referred to
Para 10
(2003) 12 sec 377
distinguishe(J
Para 10
(2009) 11 sec 106
held inapplicable
Para 10
(1995) Supp. 4 sec 502
distinguished
Para 11
[2005) 2 Suppl. SCR 79
relied on
Para20
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 467 of2010.
From the Judgment and Order dated 15 .09 .2008 of the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Criminal Appeal
No. 444 of2005
Cr!. A. No. 854 of 20 I 0
Cr!. A. No. l I of2015.
WITH
F
Kishor Lambat, S. Rajappa, Gagan Sanghi, Rameshwar Prasad
Goyal, Satyajit A. Desai, Ms. Anagha S. Desai, Akash Kakade, N ishant
Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
A.M. KHANW'ILKAR, J. I. These appeals are filed by the ·
G
original accused No. I (Crl.A.No.854/2010), accused No.3
(Crl.A.No.467/20 I 0) and accused No.6 (Crl.A.No.1112015). They were
tried for offence punishable under Sections 364, 302, 20 I read with 34/
120-B oflndian Penal Code (!PC) along with four other accused.
2. The prosecution case is that, on IO"' May 2003, Shriniwas son
H
KISHORE BHADKE v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
337
(A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.]
of Wasudeorao Tonpe lodged a report (Exh.154) that his elder brother
A
Raman has gone missing since morning of 8'' May 2003. On the basis of
that report, a missing Register entry was effected by the Police Station,
Narkhed, District Nagpur (Maharashtra). On the next day i.e. 11 ''May
2003 another brother of the missing person, Madan son ofWasudeorao
Toupe lodged a second report (Exh.68) suspecting that accused No. l-
~B
Nalini, her husband Vijay Dhpake, accused No.2-Rinku, and accused
No.7- Suresh Chandra might have abducted his brother Raman in order
to commit his murder. On the basis of this report, Police Station registered
an offence punishable under Section 364 read with Section 34 of !PC
against the named persons. Police Inspector R.B.Bansod (PW-17) was
entrusted with the investigation of the case. On the same day, he called
C
accused No.1-Nalini and Accused No.2- Rinku to the Police Station for
interrogation. As nothing came out of that interrogation, the said accused
· persons were allowed to go back. However, on the same evening, he
arrested both Nalini and Rinku and thereafter accused No.3 - Kishor,
accused No.4-Tarachand in the mid night of 12"' May 2003. It is stated
that accused No.2- Rinku and accused No.3- Kishor, during interrogation
confessed that on 8'' May 2003 between 1.00 p.m.to 1.30 p.m. they
along with accused No.4-Tarachand and.accused No.6-Satish with the
help of accused No.1-Nalini and accused No.5-Arun had committed
murder of Raman by strangulation in the cattle shed of one Nitin Rai.
The <lead body of Raman was thereafter taken away in a gunny bag and
then thrown in a valley near "Deona Darshan Point". Before throwing
the dead body, they had removed the clothes and wrist watch from the
dead body. They then burnt the gunny bag as w 0 '! as the rope used for
strangulation including some documents possessed by the deceased by
pouring petrol at some other place at a distance of 10 km. before Deona
Darshan Point. They also agreed lo show the spot where the gunny bag,
cloth~s and documents were burnt and the place where the dead body
was disposed. Pursuant to the said revelation, the police party along
with accused No.2-Rinku and accused No.3-Kishor proceeded to the
locations disclosed by the said accused. Firstly, they showed the place
of burning the articles from where the remains in the form of ash and a
bunch of keys was seized. Thereafter, they proceeded to the other
location where the dead body was found lying in the valley near Deona
Darshan Point. The Investigating Officer R.B.Bansod completed the
necessary formalities of preparing memorandum of statements of the
said accused, Panchnamas, seizure panchnamas/memos, Inquest
D
E
F
G
H
338
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] I S.C.R.
panchnama etc. ·of the dead body. The dead body and the recovered
articles were then brought to Narkhed. The dead body was identified by
the comolainant Madan Tonpe (PW-I) at the spot i.e. Deona Darshan
Point itself. The dead body was then sent to Primary Health Centre,
Narkhed for post mortem examination. After the post mortem was
conducted on the dead body, it was handed over to the family members/
relatives for funeral. The mother of the deceased, Smt. Shantabai (PW
15) also identified the dead body of her son when it was brought to their
house. The offence was then converted and registered under Section
364, 302 and 261 read with Section 34/120-I\ of the !PC. Thereafter
remaining accused i.e. accused No.5- Arun, accused No.6-Satish and
accused No.7-Suresh Chandra were arrested.
3. The Investigating Officer R.B.Bansod carried out further
investigation. He recorded statements of the witnesses, seized the vehicle/
Tata Sumo used in the commission of offence for transporting the dead
body, recovered the wrist watch and gold ring at the instance of accused
No.3 - Kishor and accused No.6 - Satish respectively. He prepared a
panchnama of the place of incident in the cattle shed ofNitin Rai, seized
clothes of accused No.2 - Rinku, accused No.3-Kishore and accused
No.6-Satish and of deceased Raman. He then verified the bunch of
keys recovered from the spot disclosed by the accused by applying it on
the cupboard in the house of deceased Raman. He also arranged for
identification parade of the wrist watch and gold ring. He seized some
currenc) at the instance of accused No.6-Satish. The muddemaVproperty,
seized articles, viscera etc. was then sent to the Chemical Analyser for
analysis. After the investigation was completed, police report was filed
in the Court of J.M.F.C., Narkhed, who committed the case for trial of
the accused before the Sessions Court at Nagpur. The trial proceeded
before t'1e 3" Addi. Sessions Judge, Nagpur, who framed charges for
offence punishable under Section 364, 302, 201 read with Section 34 in
the alternative 120-B ofIPC. All the accused pleaded not guilty and to
have been falsely implicated. They claimed to be tried.
4. The-prosecution examined in all 18 witnesses. On considering
the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution, the Trial
Court held that the accused persons conspired to kill Raman. In
furtherance of that conspiracy on Slh May 2003, Raman was abducted
by the accused persons and on the same day in the noon he was killed in
the cattle shed of Nitin Rai. Thereafter with a view to dispose of the
KJSHORE BHADKE v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
[A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.]
dead body of Raman and to destroy the evidence of murder, they carried
the dead body of Raman and threw it in the valley near Pachmadi (in the
State· of Madhya Pradesh) at the spot later on disclosed to the Police by
the concerned accused. Similarly, the articles such as gunny bag used
for carrying the dead body and rope used for strangulation, clothes worn
by deceased Raman at the relevant time as also the documents in his
possession were burnt at a different spot which was disclosed to the
Police by the concerned accused. The Trial Court held that the death of
Raman was homicidal death. Accordingly, the Trial Court convicted the
accused for their involvement in the concerned offence. The operative
part of the Trial Court judgment reads thus:
"!.Accused No. 1 Nalini W/o Vijay Dhapke is hereby
convicted vide section 235 (2) Cr.P. Code for the offence
punishable under Section 302 read with 120-B of LP.Code
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine
of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) in default of
payment of fine amount to suffer further rigorous
imprisonment for four months.
2. Accused ·No.2 Rinku alias Anand S/o Suresh Chandra
Roy is hereby convicted vi de section 23 5(2) of Cr.P. Code
for the offence punishable under section 302 read with 120B of LP.Code to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life
and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-(Rupees two thousand only)
in default of payment of fine amount to suffer further
rigorous imprisonment for four months.
3. Accused no. 3 Kishor is hereby convicted vide Section
235(2) of Cr.P. Code for the offence punishable under
Section 302 read with 120-B of LP. Code to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/
-(Rupees two thousand only) in default of payment of fine
amount to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for four
months.
4. Accused No.4 Tarachand is hereby convicted vide Section
235(2) of Cr.P. Code for the offence punishable under
Section 302 read with 120-B ofIP.Code to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-
(Rupees two thousand only) in default of payment of fine
339
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
340
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] 1 S.C.R.
amount to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for four
months.
5. Accused No. 6 Satish is hereby convicted vide Section
235(2) of Cr.P.Code for the offence punishable under
Seciion 302 read with 120-B of LP.Code to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-
(Rupees two thousand only) in default of payment of fine
amount to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for four
months.
6. Accused Nos. I to 4 and 6 namely Nalini, Rinku, Kishor,
Tarachand and Satish are hereby convicted vide Section
235(2) of Cr.P.Code for the offence punishable under
Section 364 read with 120-B oflP.Code to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/
- (Rupees two thousand only) each in default of payment
oi fine amount to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for
two months.
7. Accused Nos. 1 to 4 and 6 namely Nalini, Rlnku, Kishor,
Tarachand and Satish are hereby convicted vide Section
235(2) of Cr.P.Code for the offence punishable under
rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of
Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) each in default of
payment of fine amount to suffer further rigorous
ir.iprisonment for two months.
·
8. The above sentence of Accused Nos. 1 to 4 and 6 namely
Nalini, Rinku, Kishor, Tarachand and Satish shall run
concurrently
9. Accused No. 7 Suresh Chandra B,oy is hereby convicted
vide Section 235(2) ofCr.P.Code forthe offence punishable
urider Section 201 of LP.Code to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. l,000/
-.(Rupees one thousand only) in default of payment of fine
amount to suffer simple imprisonment for two months.
10. Accused No. 7 Suresh Chandra Roy is directed to
si.rrenderhis bail bond forthwith.
11. Accused No. 7 Suresh Chandra Roy is acquitted vide
KISHORE BHADKE v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
341
[A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.]
Section 235 ofCr.P.Code for the offence punishable under
A
Section 302, 364, read wi.th 120-B of LP. Code.
12. Accused No. 5 Arun Nasre is acquitted under Section
235 ofCr.P.Code forthe offence punishable under sections
302, 364, 201 read with 120-B of LP.Code and his bail bonds
shall stand cancelled.
B
13. The period of undergone period by the accused by set
off against the above sentence of imprisonment under
Section 428 ofCr.P.Code.
14. The valuable muddemal property namely wrist watch,
golden ring and cash amount of Rs.4,600/- (Rupees four
thousand six hundred only) be returned to the complainant
Madan S.o Wasudeo Tonpe RIO Narkhed after the appeal
period is over.
15. The remaining muddemal property being worthless be
destroyed after the appeal period is over."
5. Aggrieved by the aforementioned decision, accused Nos. I to
4, 6 and 7 filed separate appeals before the High Court being Criminal
Appeal Nos.367, 435, 444 and 452 all of2005. The High Court dismissed
Appeal Nos.367, 435 and 444 of 2005 filed by the concerned accused
(Nos.2, 6, and 7; I; and 3 respectively); and allowed Appeal No.452 of
2005 filed by accused No.4, by a common judgment dated 15"' September
2008. After re-appreciating the entire evidence adduced by the
Pros~cution, the High Court in paragraph 44 of the impugned judgment
summed up the circumstances which led to the finding of guilt against
the concerned accused. The sa~ reads thus:
"44. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the
appellants that the motive is not established and everything
is in the air. We are, however, satisfied that the prosecution
has proved that Raman wanted to purchase the land of Al Nalini and her husband Vijay; that he entered into
transaction of purchasing the land from them; that two
agreements of sale were executed by Nalini and her husband
on consideration paid by Raman to them; that on 8.5.2003
A-1 Nalini called Raman to her house by giving him a ring;
that accordingly Raman went to her house after
c
D
E
F
G
H
342
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] I S.C.R.
withdrawing Rs. 58,000/- from the Bank of Maharashtra,
Branch Narkhed; that at that time A-3 Kishore Bhadke, A4 Tarachand Vaidya and A-6 Salish Baμsod were also at
the house of A-1 Nalini; that thereafter Raman was not
seen alive; that Tata Sumo of Avinash Kalbande was
engaged by A-2 Rinku Roy for taking goods from the cattle
shed ofNitin Rai to Parasiya; that San jay Kalkar was the
driver ofthe said vehicle; that gunny bags were loaded in
Tata Sumo in the cattle shed ofNitin Roy; thatA-3 Kishore
B!ladke, A-6 Salish Bansod and A-7 Suresh Roy travelled
by the said Sumo from Narkhed to Parasiya; thatA-2 Rinku
Roy followed Tata Sumo on motorcycle; that in the midnight
the gunny bags were unloaded from Tata Sumo at the house
of A-7 Suresh Roy; that on the next day morning San jay
Kalkar brought Tata Sumo to the house of owner thereof;
·that on I 0.5.2003 Sanjay Kalkar again came to take back
Tata Sumo and thereafter he never turned up."
After analyzing the other circumstances and contentions, the High
Court concluded that the finding reached by the Trial Court that the
dead bo1y discovered from the valley near Deona Darshan Point was ..
that of deceased Raman and that he met with homicidal death, was
unassaiiablc. The High Court also considered the circumstance of
discovery of wrist watch at the instance of accused No.3, gold ring of
Raman and cash of Rs.4800/- ( 48 notes of I 00 denomination) seized
. from accused No.6; including the blood stained earth seized from cattle
shed ofNitin Rai on I 6'h May 2003 under seizure memo (Exh.92) which
as per th~ report of Chemical A ,alyser (Exh.151) showed human blood.
Human blood was also found on the pant of Accused No.2 Rinku, which
circums.ance remained unexplained. Similarly, full pant and shirt of
accused No.3 Kishor which were seized on 15"' May 2003 from his
house and on analysis by the Chemical Analyser it showed human blood,
which also remained unexplained. After taking over all view of the matter,
the High Court concluded that the complete chain of circumstances
unequivocally point out towards the gUilt ofacc11~cd ';o.1- Nalini, accused
No.2 -Rinku, accused No.3- Kishore Bhadke, and accused No.6- Salish
Bansod, excluding any hypothesis consistent with their innocence.
Accordingly, they were convicted for offence punishable under Section
364/120-B, 302/120-B and 201/120-B of the !PC. The finding of guilt
KISHORE BHADKE v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
343
[A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.]
reached against these accused by the Trial Court was once again
A
reiterated by the High Court.
6. As regards accused No.4-Tarachand, in paragraph 74 of the
impugned judgment, the High Court observed thus:
"74. On close scrutiny of the evidence we find that though
there is evidence to show that A-4 Tarachand Vaidya was
at the house of A-I Nalini on 8.5.2003 when Raman came
to her house and he was also seen loading gunny bags in
Tata Sumo, he did not travel by Tata Sumo from Narkhed
to Parasiya thereafter. From the evidence it seems that
the role of A-4 Tarachand Vaidya is only to the extent of
loading gunny bags in Tata Sumo from the cattle shed of
Nitin Roy. There is no evidence to show that he was aware
of the murder of Raman. Immediately after loading gunny
bags in Tata Sumo, he left the place and did not travel by
Tata Sumo from Narkhed onwards. From these
circumstances A-4 Tarachand Vaidya is entitled to get
benefit of doubt. Accordingly we extend benefit of doubt to
him and acquit him."
7. While dealing with the case ofaccused No.7- Suresh, the High
Court in paragraph 75 ofthe impugned judgment observed thus:
"75. The role of A-7 Suresh Roy is only to the extent of
helping the other accused persons in removing the dead
body of Raman from Narkhed to Parasiya and thereafter
causing disappearance of the dead body and other evidence
of the offence. As such his conviction for the offence
punishable under Section 201/120-B of IPC needs to be
maintained."
'8. The High Court finally disposed of the appeals in the following
terms:
"(i)Appeal Nos. 367 of2005, 435 of2005 and 444 of2005
are dismissed. Bail bonds of original accused No.7/
Stireshchandra Jagannath Rai stand cancelled. He is
directed to surrender within four weeks to serve out the
sentence.
(ii) Appeal No. 452 of2005 is allowed. The conviction of
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
344
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] I S.C.R.
Tarachand s/o Shalikram Vaidya for the offence punishable
under Sections 364, 302 and 20 I r/w 120-B of IPC is set
aside and he is acquitted of the said charges. He be released
forthwith ifnot required in any other offence."
9. Aggrieved by the aforementioned decision, accused Nos. I, 3
and 6 have assailed the same by way of separate appeals before this
Court. The argument was led by Advocate R.R.Deshpande for accused
No.3. He submitted that the prosecution case hinges on circumstantial
evidence. If the chain of circumstances is not complete pointing towards
the guilt of the accused, it would be unsafe to uphold the finding of guilt
though concurrent by two courts below. He submits that the High Court
has not analyzed the circumstance about the nature of death of Raman
as to whether it was suicidal or homicidal death. He submits that
circumstance held against accused No.3 of recovery of blood stained
clothes ~this instance is questionable. In that, the prosecution has failed
to establish the blood group much less that the blood stains pertained to
the bloc,d group of deceased Raman. He submits that the evidence
regarding factum of motive produced by the prosecution is very weak.
In any case, motive is attributed to Nalini (Al) with which accused No.3
has no concern. Therefore, that circumstance cannot .be used against
him. He has also taken us through the evidence bf prosecution witnesses
who have spoken about the presence of accused at the scene of offence,
relied by the prosecution to substantiate the circumstance of last seen
together. He submitted that the evidence of PW-11 and PW-12 is not
reliable. Their statements wer~ recorded after a long gap and the reason
for such delay has not been explained. Further, the prosecution witness
(PW 12) examined in support of this circumstance is a chance witness.
He was residing in another village. The prosecution theory about homicidal
death is doubtful. Even the evidence regarding the manner in which the
body of deceased Raman was thrown is doubtful. For, no lacerated injury
wasfour.d by the Doctor while conducting post mortem. Only four injuries
have been noted which belies the prosecution theory that the body was
thrown in the valley from the height of aroun~ 600 ft. He submits that
the factual position mentioned in the memorandum of disclosure recorded
under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, relied by the prosecution qua
accused 1'10.3, is inadmissible and cannot be taken into account. In absence
thereof, there is no legal evidence about discovery of dead body of
deceased or articles belonging to the deceased ascribable to accused
KISHORE BHADKE v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
345
[A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.]
No.3 Thus, that circumstance cannot be used against him. He submits
thatthe said evidence is inadmissible also because no signature ofaccused
is tahn on the recovery panchnama. He then submits that the statement
of accused No.3 recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C., the who:e of it is
vitiated because it is a joint statement of ali the accused recorded by the
Trial Court. In support of this contention, he invited our attention to the
said statement recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C. Lastly, he submits
that benefit be given to accused No.3 on the same reasoning as given to
accused No.7. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the decisions of
this Court in the cases of Jackaran Sin1:!1 vs. State of Paniah1; A.R.
K/1ima vs. State of Saurashtra2; and Sunil Clifford Daniel vs. State
of Punjab3•
I 0. The accused No. I is represented by Advocate Mr. Gagan
Sanghi. His argument essentially revolved around the two circumstances
held against accused No. I. Firstly, of motive and secondly last seen
together. He submits that no recovery has been made at the instance of
accused No. I nor it is the case of prosecution that accused No. I was
seen along with other accused travelling in Tata Sumo vehicle wherein
the dead body of deceased Raman was carried away. As regards motive,
he submits that the prosecution theory about the illicit relations between
accused No. I Nalini and accused No.2 Rinku has been discarded by
both the courts below. The Trial Court as well as the High Court has,
however, accepted the prosecution case that there was some transaction
about land between accused No. I Nalini and deceased Raman over
which the matter got escalated causing death of Raman. The evidence
in this behalf produced by the prosecution, however, is very weak. PW1 in his cross-examination says that he had disclosed about the said fact
to PW-17 (1.0.) i.e. about the agreement executed between the parties.
But PW-I was not aware as to why that fact is not mentioned in his
statement recorded by the police. Further, PW-17(1.0.) in the crossexamination has denied of any such statement given by PW-I. PW-l 7 .
(1.0.) admitted in his cross-examination that he had not inveSiigatedtlie ·· ·
matter with regard to the land transaction. Moreover, PW-I in his ct6ssexamination admits that he does not know who and in whose name the
stamp papers were purchased and how payments were made. The other
witntss, who has spoken about the land transaction)s PW-15, mother of
1 AIR .1995 SC 2345 -Para 8
'AIR 1956SC217
' (20!2) I I sec 205 Para 37 to 40
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
346
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] I S.C.R.
deceasec Raman. She has spoken about the phone call received on S•h
May 2003 from Nalini. She wanted to talk to Raman. Raman attended
the phone call and thereafter disclosed to PW! 5 that Nalini (accused
No. I) had called him to her house and he will go along with docm'1ents
in respect of agricultural land to get her signature. She has stated that
deceased Raman left the house at about 11.30 a.m. According to the
learned counsel, evidence of PW-15 cannot be taken into account as
neither the documents regarding transaction have been produced by the
prosecution nor the documentary evidence regarding the fact that phone
call was received by PW-15 has been produced. As regards the factum
of last seen together, it is submitted that the evidence of PW- I I is
unreliable and is replete with material omissions and contradictions.
Similarly, the evidence of PW-12 is also unreliable. As a result, the
prosecution has failed to substantiate the crucial circumstance of last
seen tog~ther with accused No. I. This being a crucial link and as no
satisfactory evidence is forthcoming to indicate the complicity ofaccused
No. I, th~ finding of guilt qua accused No. I would be unsafe. Further,
being a case of circumstantial evidence, the Court must analyze the
evidence with utmost circumspection and even if one crucial I ink is
missing, benefit must go to the accused. He has placed reliance on Niz(lnt
(Ind (lnotller vs. St(lte of Rajastl1an'. On the issue of motive he has
placed n~liance on Saju vs. State of Kerafo' to contend that motive by
itself cannot be a proof of conspiracy. Reliance is also placed on Kes/iav
vs. State of Mallaras/1tra' to contend that conviction cannot be based
solely on the basis of motive; and the circumstal)ce oflast.seen together
becomes relevant only when the death is proved to have taken place
within a short time of the accused being last seen. Reliance is then
placed on Arjun Marik (Ind others vs. State of Bi/i(lr7 to buttress the
argument that the factum of motive assumes importance in a case of
circumstantial evidence, if it is established from the evidence on record
that the accused had a strong motive and also an opportunity to commit
the crime; and that the established circumstances along witl1 the
explanation of the accused, ifany, exclude the reasonable possibility of
anyone else being the perpetrator of the crime then the chain of evidence
may be considered to show that within all human probability the crime
must have been committed by the accused. Thus, the only circumstance
'(2016) 1 sec 550-Para 8,9, 18-20
'(2001) 1 sec 378
• (2007) 13 sec 284
'1994 SuiJpl.(2J sec 372
KISHORE BHADKE v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA·
347
[A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.]
of last seen together will not be enough to complete the chain of
A
circumstances to record a finding of guilt against accused No. I. He has
also placed reliance on the other decisions, more or less dealing with
similar aspect, in the case of Moltibur Rollman & Anr. vs. State of
Assam•; Niranjan Panja vs. State of W.B. •; Sk. Yusuf vs. State of
W.B.1°; Sf1yamaf Ghosfl vs. State of W.B. 11; K<mftaiya Lal vs. State
B
of Rajasthan11; Mafleshappa vs. State of Karnatakau; Ashok vs . .
State of Maharashtra,,; Nizam vs. State of Rajastftan'·'.; Mousam
Singha Roy & Ors. vs. State of W.B. 16 and Sangifi vs. State of Tamil
Nadu17 Reliance is also placed on the decision in the case of Lohit
Kaushal vs. State of Haryana18 about the efficacy of statement of a
co-accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
C
. I I. Ms. Anagha SJ)esai, Advocate appeared for accused No.6.
She contends that that the dead body was recovered at the instance of
accused Nos.2 and 3. The recovery of gold ring atthe instance ofaccused
No.6 is doubtful. The prosecution has not established the special identity
of gold ring and it has come on record that such gold rings are freely
availl!ble in the open market. Further, no blood stains or any incriminatory
evidence was noticed on the gold ring. The accused No.6 was arrested .
on JJth May 2003 on which day his statement was also recorc!ed. The
recovery of gold ring, however, is on I 8th May 2003, while the accused
No.6 was in police custody. Similarly, the cash amount recovered at the ·
instance of accused No.6 was of no avaiHo-the prosecution.