# RONNY@RONALD JAMES ALWARIS ETC v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

- **Citation:** [1998] 2 S.C.R. 162
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1998-03-05
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 1064of1997
- **Bench:** M.K. Mukherjee, S.S.M. Quadri
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/ronny-ronald-james-alwaris-etc-v-state-of-maharashtra-16174
- **Pages:** 35

## Headnote

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
Criminal Trial-Test Identification Parade (TIP)-Witness not
C participating in T!P-ldentifYing accused for the first time in CourtIdentification challenged-Held, if a witness has known an accused earlier
then absence of corroborative evidence by way of test identification parade
would not be material-Under the facts and circumstances, testimony of such
witnesses reliable-Indian Evidence Act-Section 9.
D
E
Sections 100(4) and (5)-Search and Recovery of Articles-Witness to
search not from the locality-Witness was driver of investigating teamEvid~nce of witness challenged-Held, if there is intrinsic merit in the evidence,
it cannot be rejected solely on the ground that witness is not from the locality
of search or has been brought by the police.
Indian Evidence Act-Section //4(a)- Robbery and murder-Articles
belonging to deceased persons rer;overed from the possession of accused
persons-Recovery without delay-Possession of articles unexplainedEjfect-Held, presumption would be attracted against the accused persons
F that they had committed the offence.
Indian Penal Code-Section 376-!njury on the private parts of
deceased mentioned in post-mortem report-Opinion about sexual assault
not mentioned in the report-Doctor making statement about sexual assault
in court-Testimony challenged-Strong circumstantial evidence suggesting
G sexual assault-Held, testimony of doctor based on injuries noted in postmortem certificate cannot be brushed aside.
Section 354(3)-Death Sentence-Special Reasons-Held, whether the
case is rarest of the rare has to be determined on the facts of each caseH Factors constituting rarest of rare case stated-Case based on circumstantial
162
.
~··
RONNY @RONALD JAMES ALW ARIS v. STATE OF MHARASHTRA
163
evidence-Not possible to ascertain role of which accused is more culpable A
in degree-Under the facts and circumstances, capital punishment commuted
into life imprisonment.
Appellants, A-1, A-2 and A-3, were charged for the commission on the
night of 20th July, 1992 of offence of murder under Section 302 read with
B
Section 34, IPC of three members, M, Rand 0, of a family; offence of rape
<(
of R under Section 376 IPC, besides some other offences. It was alleged that
~
the appellants were allowed inside the house of the deceased persons for
staying on 20th July, 1992 night as one of the appellants was close relative
of the deceased persons. PWs-29 alld 34, friends of R, were present in the
house wbn tht appellants came and they were introdm:ed by R to the c
appellaets Appellants left the bo~ In the morning of the next day in the
Maruti Car of the deceased persons which.was witnessed by PWs-22, 24 and
26. Since the night of 20th July, the deceased persons did not come out of
the house and were not seen on 21st and 22nd July by persons who ought
to have seen them. The deceased persons did not go to the Hospital where D
~·
mother of R was undergoing treatment and where they were going daily. All
the doors of the house were locked and the lights were also on during these
two days. When the relatives of the deceased persons came to enquire about
them and found the house locked, they requested the watchman to look into
the house; he found their dead bodies in the bathroom. On breaking open the
E
door, the house was found rensacked and the bedsheet contained stains of
blood and seman. Post-mortem was conducted on 23rd July, 1972 at 10 :30
A.M. and the report indicated that death may have taken place between 24
and 72 hours earlier. The report also indicated injuries on the private parts
of R. The appellants were arrested by the police and from their possession
,,t
and also at their instance, articles belonging to the deceased persons were F
recovered which included amongst others the Maruti car key and the key of
the main door of the house of the deceased persons. The Maruti car found
:::i
abandoned contained the finger prints of A-2 according to the finger print
expert
Trial Court found the app

## Text

_Characters 0–39,977 of 95,728. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39977 for what follows._

A
RONNY@RONALD JAMES ALWARIS ETC.
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
MARCH 5, 1998
B
[M.K. MUKHERJEE AND S.S.M. QUADRI, JJ,]
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
Criminal Trial-Test Identification Parade (TIP)-Witness not
C participating in T!P-ldentifYing accused for the first time in CourtIdentification challenged-Held, if a witness has known an accused earlier
then absence of corroborative evidence by way of test identification parade
would not be material-Under the facts and circumstances, testimony of such
witnesses reliable-Indian Evidence Act-Section 9.
D
E
Sections 100(4) and (5)-Search and Recovery of Articles-Witness to
search not from the locality-Witness was driver of investigating teamEvid~nce of witness challenged-Held, if there is intrinsic merit in the evidence,
it cannot be rejected solely on the ground that witness is not from the locality
of search or has been brought by the police.
Indian Evidence Act-Section //4(a)- Robbery and murder-Articles
belonging to deceased persons rer;overed from the possession of accused
persons-Recovery without delay-Possession of articles unexplainedEjfect-Held, presumption would be attracted against the accused persons
F that they had committed the offence.
Indian Penal Code-Section 376-!njury on the private parts of
deceased mentioned in post-mortem report-Opinion about sexual assault
not mentioned in the report-Doctor making statement about sexual assault
in court-Testimony challenged-Strong circumstantial evidence suggesting
G sexual assault-Held, testimony of doctor based on injuries noted in postmortem certificate cannot be brushed aside.
Section 354(3)-Death Sentence-Special Reasons-Held, whether the
case is rarest of the rare has to be determined on the facts of each caseH Factors constituting rarest of rare case stated-Case based on circumstantial
162
.
~··
RONNY @RONALD JAMES ALW ARIS v. STATE OF MHARASHTRA
163
evidence-Not possible to ascertain role of which accused is more culpable A
in degree-Under the facts and circumstances, capital punishment commuted
into life imprisonment.
Appellants, A-1, A-2 and A-3, were charged for the commission on the
night of 20th July, 1992 of offence of murder under Section 302 read with
B
Section 34, IPC of three members, M, Rand 0, of a family; offence of rape
<(
of R under Section 376 IPC, besides some other offences. It was alleged that
~
the appellants were allowed inside the house of the deceased persons for
staying on 20th July, 1992 night as one of the appellants was close relative
of the deceased persons. PWs-29 alld 34, friends of R, were present in the
house wbn tht appellants came and they were introdm:ed by R to the c
appellaets Appellants left the bo~ In the morning of the next day in the
Maruti Car of the deceased persons which.was witnessed by PWs-22, 24 and
26. Since the night of 20th July, the deceased persons did not come out of
the house and were not seen on 21st and 22nd July by persons who ought
to have seen them. The deceased persons did not go to the Hospital where D
~·
mother of R was undergoing treatment and where they were going daily. All
the doors of the house were locked and the lights were also on during these
two days. When the relatives of the deceased persons came to enquire about
them and found the house locked, they requested the watchman to look into
the house; he found their dead bodies in the bathroom. On breaking open the
E
door, the house was found rensacked and the bedsheet contained stains of
blood and seman. Post-mortem was conducted on 23rd July, 1972 at 10 :30
A.M. and the report indicated that death may have taken place between 24
and 72 hours earlier. The report also indicated injuries on the private parts
of R. The appellants were arrested by the police and from their possession
,,t
and also at their instance, articles belonging to the deceased persons were F
recovered which included amongst others the Maruti car key and the key of
the main door of the house of the deceased persons. The Maruti car found
:::i
abandoned contained the finger prints of A-2 according to the finger print
expert
Trial Court found the appellants guilty on the basis of circumstantial G
;...
evidence since their were no eye-witnesses to the occurrence and convicted
them tmder Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, Section 376(2)(g) WC,
besides under some other sections and sentenced them to death and referred
the case for confirmation, to the High Court. The High Court heard the
reference with regard to confirmation of the sentence of death awarded to H
l64
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1998] 2 S.C.R.
A the appellants alongwith the appeals filled by them and confirmed the judgment
of the trial court except in respect of charge under Section 201 IPC. Against
the judgment of the High Court, the appellants have filed the present appeal.
The appellants contended that their identification by some witnesses
B for the first time in court without participating in the test identification
parade (TIP) was worthless and should not have. been considered; that the
r
search and recovery of articles was in alleged violation of the provisions of
)-
Section 100(4) and Section 166(3) and (4) Cr. P. C. as PW-6 who witnessed
~
the search at the house of Appellant, A-3, was not from the locality and was
brought by the investigating officer and the copies of the letter/notice
C mandatorily required to be sent to the other police station in whose jurisdiction
the search and seizures were made were not produced; that the death of the
victims could have taken place after the appellants had lift the house as the
post-mortem report indicated that the deaths had occurred between 24 and
72 house earlier and the injuries were recent; that the evidence detected in
D connection with different crimes could not have been used against the
appellants; that the charge against the appellants under Section 376 IPC had
not been made out as the evidence of the doctor who prepared the postmortem report could not be given any weight since he did not express any
opinion about the sexual assault in the report and spoke about the sexual
E assault only in his statement given in court; and that the facts and
circumstances of the case did not justify awarding of death sentence to the
appellants.
The respondent contended that the criteria of prior identification of an
accused by a witness in test iidentification parade would not apply to a witness
F who had known the accused earlier and identification by such witnesses for
the first time at the time of trial could be considered.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
G
HELD : 1.1. The evidence of identification is a relevant piece of evidence
under Section 9 of the Evidence Act where the evidence consists of
identification of the accused person at his trial. The statement of the witness
made in the court, afortiori identification by him of an accused is substantive
evidence but from its very nature it is inherently of a weak character. The
evidence of identification in the TIP is not a substantive evidence but is only
H corroborative evidence. It falls in the realm of investigation. The substantive
RONNY@ RONALD JAMES AL WARIS v. STATE OF MHARASHTRA
165
evidence is the statement of the witness made in the court. The purpose of A
test identification parade is to test the observation, grasp, memory, capacity
to recapitulate what he has seen earlier, strength for trustworthiness of the
evidence of the identification of an accused and to ascertain if it can be used
as reliable corroborative evidence of the witness identifying the accused at
his trial in court. If a witness identifies the accused in court for the first
time after a long time, the probative value of such uncorroborated evidence B
{
becomes minimal, so much so that it becomes unsafe to rely on such piece
-(
of evidence. But if a witness has known an accused earlier in such 9
circumstance which lends assurance to identification by him in court and if
there is no inherent improbability or inconsistency, there is no reason why
his statement in court about the identification of accused should not be relied c
upon as any other acceptable but uncorroborated testimony.
(180-F-H; 181-A-C)
Rameshwar Singh v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, AIR (1972) SC 102
= [1972] 1 SCR 627, referred to
Budhsen & Anr. v. Staie of Uttar Pradesh, AIR (1970) SC 1321= D
11970] 2 SCC 128; Kannan & Ors. v. State of Kera/a, AIR (1979) SC 1127
=11979] 3 SCC 319 and Mohd Abdul Hafeez v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR
(1983) SC 367 = 11983] 1 SCC 143, distinguished.
1.2. The presence of the appellants in the house of the deceased
E
persons on the night of occurrence has been established by the evidence of
PW-29 and PW-34. They were talking to the deceased, R, at the time when
the appellants came to the bungalow, Appellant A-1 wished the deceased R
who introduced A-1. Thereafter, A-1 introduced appellants, A-2 and A-3 to
Rand PW-29 and PW-34. They talked together for about 7-8 minutes. Under
the facts and circumstance, the absence of corroborative evidence by way of F
-~
test identification parade would not be material. (183-F-G]
'
2.1. Section 100(5) Cr. P. C. provides that the search has to be made
in the presence of witnesses in accordance with Section 100(4) Cr. P. C. and
a list of things seized in the course of such search and of the places in which
the things are found, is required to be prepared by the things are found, is G
required to be prepared by the said officer and signed by such witnesses. If
-$..
there is intrinsic merit in the evidence of the witnesses of search the same
cannot be rejected solely on the ground that witness is not from the locality
of search or that he was brought by the police with it. The evidence, however,
can be rejected if it suffers from any serious infirmities or if there is any
inherent inconsistency in the testimony. (185-A-F]
H
166
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1998) 2 S.C.R.
A
State of Maharashtra v. P.K. Pathak, AIR (1980) SC 1224 = (19811) 2
sec 259, relied on.
2.2. PW-6 was o~ of the drivers of the cars in which the investigating
team came to Bombay from Pune. For the sake of convenience, he was taken
as a witness for search. There is no material in the cross-examination to
B discredit his testimony. Thus, the testimony of PW-6 cannot be disbelieved.
[185-G]
)-
3. The investigating officer stated that he had sent the letter required
~
under Section 166( 4) Cr. P. C. to the concerned police station in whose
jurisdiction the search and seizure were made, therefore, the presumption
C under Illustration (e) of Section 114 of the Evidence Act would arise and the
I
official acts would be deemed to have been preformed regularly. There is thus
no non-compliance of Section 166(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(186-EJ
4. The articles belonging to the deceased persons were recovered from
D tbe possession for the appellants soon after the robbery and the murder of
the deceased persons. The possession has remained unexplained by the
appellants, so the presumption under Illustration (a) of Section 114 of the
Evidence Act would be attracted. It needs no discus!Cnn to conclude that the
murder and the robbery of the articles were found to be part of the same
E transaction. The irresistible conclusion, would, therefore, be that the
appellants and no one else had committed the three murders and the robbery.
fl86-GJ
Biju v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [1978] l SCC 588 and Guiab Chand
v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR (1995) SC 1598 = [1995] 3 SCC 574, relied
F on.
Union Territory of Goa v. Beavanture D'Souza. AIR (1993) SC 1199
= [1993) Suppl. 3 SCC 305, distinguished.
5. The autopsy was conducted on the dead bodies on 23rd July at abeut
G 10:30 A.M. and thereafter. The post-mortem reports clearly indicate that the
death might have occurred between 24 and 72 hours and that would
corroborate the prosecution case that the murders were committed in the
intervening night of 20th and 21st July and the presence of appellants
between 8:30 P.M. on 20th July and 8.00 or 8.30 A.M. on 21st July has been
established. In view of this position, the age of injurises 'as recent' would
H mean inflicted at or about the time of death. (189-E]
~
RONNY@ RONALD JAMES ALWARIS v. ST ATE OF MHARASHTRA
167
6. The Germane question is not as to in connection with that offence A
,
during the investigation the evidence had come to light, but whether the
evidence so collected is relevant and admissible to establish the charge in
the present case and it is not the submission that the evidence so let in was
irrelevant or inadmissible. (189-F]
7. The doctor who conducted autopsy on R stated in his evidence in B
_,
Court that the injury on her private parts was as a result of violent sexual
i
assault. It is true that in post-mortem certificate on opinion is expressed
about sexual attack but what the doctor has stated in court was on the basis
of the notes of the post-mortem and the injuries already noted in post-mortem
certificate. So this cannot be said to be an after-thought. There is a strong c
additional circumstance which conclusively points to the sexual assault by
the appellants, i.e. presence of stains of semen on bed sheet in the master
bed room of the house where M and R were sleeping. The reports of the
chemical analysts show that the blood group of M, R and their son, three
deceased persons was 'B', so the possibility of M having sexual intercourse
with R on the night of occurrence can be safely ruled out. The bed sheet D
~
contained stains ofsemen which are of the blood group of'A', 'AB' and '0'.
The reports of the analysts further show that blood group of A-1 is' A', blood
group of A-2 is 'AB' and blood group of A-3 is '0'. Thus, it is clear that
stains of semen found on the bed sheet, opined to be of the blood group of
'A', 'AB' and '0' can only be of A-1, A-2 and A-3 respectively. On the ground
that in the post-mortem certificate, the doctor did not express any opinion E
about the sexual assault, his testimony and opinion cannot be brushed aside
which is based on injuries already noted in the post-mortem certificate. The
charge under Section 376 IPC against the appellants is proved by the
circumstantial and medical evidence. (192-D-H]
8. This is not a case where a singly fact forms a link in the chain of F
,
circumstances. It is a case where there are plethora of circumstance which
are plenty and overlapping and are so twined to from a stout cord which rope
in the appellants in such a way that the escape from the conclusion of their
guilt becomes difficult, may, impossible. However, there is no material to
confirm the sentence for offences under Sections 467 and 471. IPC. Therefore,
the conviction of the accused-appellants recorded by the courts below in G
-f
respect of all other charges is confirmed. (190-C]
9. The choice of death sentence has to be made only in the rarest of
the rare case that where culpability of the accused has assumed depravity
or where the accused is found is to be an ardent criminal and menace to the
society and; where the crime is committed in an organised manner and is H
..:
168
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1998) 2 S.C.R.
A gruesome, cold blooded, heinous and atrocious; where innocent and unarmed
persons are attacked and murdered without any provocation, the case would
present special reason for purposes of Sub-section(3) of Section 354 of the
Criminal Procedure Code. Whether the case is one of the rarest of the rare
case is a question which has to be determined on the facts of each case. The
number of victims would not per se bring the case as falling in the rarest
B of rare cases. 1195-A-B]
r
)--
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR (1980) SC 898 = [1980] 2 SCC
1--
684, followed.
Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, 1198313 SCC 470; Allauddin Mian
C v. State of Bihar, AIR (1989) SC 1456 = 11989] 3 SCC 5; Shamshul Kanwar
v. State of U.P., AIR (1995) SC 1748 = [l99514 SCC 430 and Sheikh Ishaque
v. State of Bihar, [l 9951 3 SCC 392, relied on.
D
IO. Considering the cumulative effect of all the factors, it cannot be
said that the offences were committed under the influence of extreme mental
or emotional disturbance for the whole thing was done in a pre-planned way;
having regard the nature of offences and circumstances in which they were
committed, it is not possible to predict that the appellant would not commit
criminal act of violence or would not be a threat to the society. A-1 is 35
years old, A-2 is 35 years old and A-3 is 25 years old. The appellants cannot
E be said to be too young or too old. The possibility of reform and rehabilitation,
however, cannot be ruled out. From the facts and circumstances, it is not
possible to predict as to who among the three played which part. It may be
that role of one has been more culpable in degree than that of others and
vice versa. Where in a case like this it is not possible to say as to whose
case falls within the 'rareat of the rare' case, it would serve the ends of
F justice if the capital punishment is commuted into life imprisonment.
[195-H; 196-A-B]
11. The sentence awarded by courts below under Section 302 read
with Section 34 is modified from death to life imprisonment. The sentence
for the offences for which the appellants are convicted, except under Section
G 376(2)(g) IPC, shall run concurrently; they shall serve sentence under
Section 376(2)(g) IPC consecutively, after serving sentence for other offences.
''
'
[196-C]
f;
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.
1064of1997.
H
From the Judgment and Order dated 9.12.14, 15.2.96 of the Bombay High
RONNY@ RONALD JAMES ALWARIS 1·. STA TE OF MHARASHTRA [QUADRI, J.] 169
Court in C.C. No. 1195 with Crl. A. No. 225 of 1995 .
A
..,.
U.R. Lalit A.M. Khanwilkar, A.P. Mayee and Vijay Kumar for the Appellant
in Crl. A. No. 1064/97.
Ms. Shilpa Malvankar, S.C. Paul and Anand Jain for J.D. Jain for the
Appellant in Crl. A. No. 1065/97.
B
I.G. Shah, M.S. Nargolakar and D.M. Nargolkar for the Respondent.
-(
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
QUADRI, J. The appellants [Nitin Anil Swargey (A -!), Ronny @
Ronald James Alwaris (A-2) and Santu@ Santosh Balkrishna Desai (A-3), in c
these three appeals, have been found guilty of offences under Section 302
read with Section 34 !PC and are condemned to death; they are also awarded
different punishments under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code on
their trial by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case
No. 574of1992 vide Judgment dated April 28/29, 1995. In regard to sentence
of death awarded to the three appellants, the learned Additional Sessions D
t
Judge referred the case, Confirmation Case No. 1 of 1995, to the High Court
of Bombay, which was heard along with three appeals filed by the above said
three appellants. They were disposed of by the High Court by a common
judgment dated March 27, 1996, confinning the conviction of and sentences
awarded to the appellants. Against the said judgment, by special leave, these
appeals are filed.
E
The case set up by the prosecution is as follows:
A new colony, Varsha Park Society, is situate at Baner Road near Pune.
Among newly constructed houses are two bungalows, 'Rooman Bungalow'
,
of Mr. Mohan Oho!, the President of, and 'Rohini Bungalow' of Mr. Vyankat F
•,
Krishnan, the Secretary of the Society, which are separated by a Kutcha road.
In Rooman bungalow a well p,laced family of Oho ls was residing. The family
comprised of four members, namely, Mr. Mohan Oho!, a Mechanical Engineer,
who was working as Executive Officer in Kirloskar Pneumatic Company at
Hadapsar, Pune; Mrs. Ruhi Ohol, Ph. D., a research scholar, who having
worked as Head of the Department of Master Degree in Business Management G
7·
(M.B.A.), had started working with the Tata Management Institute as visiting
Professor and was organising seminars for M.B.A. students; a seventeen
years old son Mr. Rohan Oho!, a student studying in the last year of the
Computer Engineering Course and a sixteen years old daughter, Ms. Reina
Mohan Ohol, who was doing course of diploma of Hotel Management and
Catering Technology. To undergo practical training programme of two months, H
170
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1998] 2 S.C.R.
A on July 8, 1992, she left Pune for Bombay where she was staying in MLA
Hostel. Out of the relations of Mr. Mohan Oho I, his brother, Mr. Vijay Oho!
·f'
who was working as Assistant Commissioner Revenue, his sisters, Mrs.
Mandakini Gaekwad and Mrs. Rajni, his nephews Viren S/o Mr. Vijay Oho!,
Nitin Anil Swargey (A-I) S/o Mrs. Rajni and niece Rhoda D/o Mrs. Mandakini
and Mrs. Viola Muzaffar (mother of Mrs. Ruhi Oho!) who was a cancer patient
B and was undergoing treatment in Ruby Hospital, need be mentioned.
Nitin Anil Swargey (A-I) and his two friends, Ronny and Santu, A-2
and A-3 respectively, are residents of Bombay; A-I and A-3 reside at Borivili,
Bombay, whereas A-2 resides at Vasai, Distt. Thane, Bombay. They went to
C Pune on July 18, 1992. There they contacted Tutsi Bhagwan Shetty (PW-46),
a partner ofNatraj Hotel for a room. For obtaining the room, A-I signed, what
is known as "A Form" ( Article 98). They were given Room No. 16 in that
hotel. It appears A-1 left the hotel but A-2 and A-3 stayed there till the
morning of 20th July. Ramesh Madhavakar (PW-47), a room boy, took them
to that room and looked after them during their stay. After A-1 joined them
D on 20th July, they left. They paid the charges of the hotel under receipt
(Article 97). They asked PW-46 about tourist vehicle to go to Panchgani. He
suggested them to approach Deccan Luxury Service, near Deccan Gymkhana,
Pune. They went there and contacted Dadasaheb Bhagaji Dhumal (PW-69),
Manager of the said Deccan Luxury Service. As no vehicle was available with
Deccan Luxury Service, he arranged Maruti Van No. MH-15A-263 of Sri Bahar,
E a sub-contractor, whose driver was paid Rupees two hundred. The name of
the hirer was noted as "Sunil Desai" of 1312, Shivaji Nagar, Pune on the chit
(Article 89) (Exhibit 258) for booking the vehicle, which was signed by A-1.
They then went to the hotel, took the luggage and left the hotel at about 1.30
P.M. From the statement of Mr. Sanjay Mantri (PW-45) it has come on record
F that from his medical shop, A-1 purchased adhesive tape. At about 6.30 P.M.,
they came to Bharti Vidyapeeth Rickshaw Stand at Dhankawadi, Pune and
hired rickshaw bearing Registration No. MPF-1044. The rickshaw driver
(PW-42) who was also the owner of the said rickshaw, took them to Deccan
Gymkhana near Lalit Mahal Hotel on Fergusson College Road. From there,
they went to Baner Road ahead of Green Park Hotel. To the left side of that
G hotel is a kutcha road leading to Varsha Park Society, which had become
slushy due to rain. So the rickshaw driver refused to go further on the road
but A-1 who was said to be wearing goggles took out a revolver and directed
him to proceed. Accordingly, he advanced further. The rickshaw was stopped
near the Rooman bungalow wherein the lights inside and outside were 'on'.
H In the verandah of the bungalow, three persons were talking "Rohan and his
-.6
RONNY@ RONALD JAMES ALWARIS '" STATE OF MHARASHTRA [QUADRI, J.] 171
.;
two class mates, K.S. Pradhan (PW-29) and Rajesh Sundaram (PW-34). PWs . A
1
29 and 34, stated that they were students of Computer Engineering in Pune
Institute of Computer Engineering Technology at Dhankavadi; that Rohan
was their friend from the first year of the course; that they were close to one
another and were frequently visiting the house of Rohan, on the request of
Rohan, they brought a book and a note book (Articles 30 and 31) to his house B
on 20th July between 8.15 and 8.30 P.M. When they were talking with each
other in the verandah of the bungalow, having come down from the room of
-(
Rohan, which was on the first floor, they noticed that three persons came to
the bungalow in a rickshaw and approached them; one of them wished Rohan
saying "Hello Rohan". Rohan introduced that person as Nitin Swargey
(A-1) who in turn introduced A-2 and A-3 as Ronny and Santosh to them. c
A- I expressed to Rohan that they wanted to stay overnight at his bungalow
as their vehicle has broken down on their way to Panchgani. All of the111
stood talking there for about eight minutes and then Rohan told them to sit
inside the house. A-1, A-2 and A-3 left their muddy shoes in the Verandah
and entered in the house. Thereafter, PWs. 29 and 34 left and on their way, D
about 50-100 feet away from the bungalow, noticed that the parents of Rohan
were coming in their Maruti car from the opposite direction.
Smt. Asha Tarachand Kolge (PW-35) is the maid servant, who was
attending to the work of cleaning utensils and washing clothes at the residence
of Mr. Oho!. Her son and daughter also used to attend to the work at the
E
bungalow. She was attending to the work at 5.00 P.M. or 5.30 P.M. for about
one or two hours. On 20th July, she went to the residence of Mr. Oho I at 5.00
or 5.30 P.M. and pressed the door .bell, Mr. Rohan opened the door. He was
alone at that time. After attending to the work, she left. When she was
leaving, she found that Mr. Oho! had come. He told her to come early on the
-', ,_
next day as she would have to go the hospital to get his ailing mother-in-law F
discharged.
On the night of 20th July, 1992, Popat Kolge (PW-21), watchman of the
society noticed Mrs. Ruhi Ohol in the house when he and the other watchman
were collecting torch and other things from the rear side of the bungalow.
Next day, i.e., on 21st July, in the morning when he went to the bungalow to G
put back the torch, he found the footwears, containing mud, lying over in the
~
verandah and lights of the bungalow ·on'. He kept the torch as usual and
.
went home. At about 8.00 in the morning on 21st July, Balasaheb Hiraman
Kalambkar (PW-22), the milkman, who went to deliver the milk, noticed that
three persons were leaving the Rooman bungalow in the car. He went and
kept the milk bags in the rack and the newspaper given to him by the H
172
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(199&] 2 S.C.R.
A newspaper man (PW-23) at the bungalow and gave the usual call "Dooh". Mr.
Mhatre (PW-23) is the newspaper man. He was delivering 'Maharashtra Herald'
and 'Sunday Times' newspaper at the residence of Mr. Mohan Ohol. He
stated that on 21st July, he met PW-22 in the morning and handed over him
the newspaper for delivering it at Oho ls' bungalow as he was going there to
supply milk. Mr. Vyankat Pandit (PW-24). who was a resident of that colony
B noticed, after he returned to his house leaving the children in the school, that
the Maruti car of the Oho ls' family had stuck in the mud and that two
persons, who came out of the car, were pushing the car on 21st July at about
8.00 A.M. Thereafter, they boarded the car and went away. At about the same
time, Mr. Vyankat Krishnan (PW-26), owner of Rohini bungalow, referred to
C above, while he was taking his wife to Junior College in Loyalla, Pashan Road,
Pune, found Maruti car of Mr. Mohan Ohol outside the gate but later it
followed his car. After coming on the main Baner Road, he stopped his car
near Hotel Green Park and gave signal to stop Mr. Ohol's car. When the car
stopped, he peeped through the door glass and saw two persons on the front
seats and one person on the ear seat. He gave the descriptions of the driver
D and person sitting next to him, but not of the person sitting on the hind seat,
which coincide with the identity of A-1 and A-2. Finding that Mr. Mohal Oho!
was not in the car, he told them to go.
The Maruti car was later found abandoned by A-1, A-2 and A-3 at
Shirur. Thereafter, they started dealing with the properties of Oho ls. At about
E 11.15 A.M., on the same day, from Shirur they boarded the bus; this fact is
spoken to by the bus driver, Kundalik Bhanudas Garad (PW-55). At about
12.30 P.M .. A-1 went to the Bank of Maharashtra, Hadapsar Branch, Pune,
presented a cheque (Exhibit 146) for Rs. 12,000 purportedly signed by Mr.
Mohan Oho I and drawn in favour of one Mr. M.K. Cha van, to the Bank clerk,
Nand Kishore Tukaram Shinde (PW-31) who asked A-1 to sign at the back
F of the cheque and he signed as M.K. Cha van. P. W. 31 gave Token No. l 09
(Article 142) and endorsed '109' on the cheque. The cheque was given to Mr.
Damodar Apte, the Assistant Branch Manager (PW-30), for verification. He
found that the signature of Mr. Mohan Oho! was not tallying and so A-1 was
asked by him either to get Mr. Mohan Ohal's instruction or another cheque
G from him. He also asked A-1 to return the token and take back the cheque,
but A-1 disappeared from the Bank, Consequently, the uncashed cheque
remained with the Bank and the token remained with A-1. On the same day,
A-1 went to Ravindra Babhutrnal Oswal (PW-19) to pledge ear-tops (Article
83) but as he did not help, A-1 got the services of Prakash Kamble (PW-28),
Ratan Kamble (PW-37) and Vishnu Ramchandra Randive (PW-36) for pledging
H the ear-tops.
RONNY @RONALD JAMES ALWARIS v. STA TE OF MHARASHTRA [QUADRI, J.] J 73
Not finding Rohan in the college on 21st July, PW-29, tried to contact A
him on phone after returning from college but got no response. On 21st July,
1992, PW-35 went for her daily chore at about 4.00 P.M., rang the bell but
nobody opened the door. She went to the back side of the bungalow and
knocked the door. She did no get any response. She found the milk sachets
in the verandah. She thought that the condition of the mother of Mrs. Ohol
might be serious and the family might have gone to the hospital. So, she took B
the milk sachets and went home. At about sunset, she sent her daughter and
son with the milk bags to the bungalow to deliver the same, but they returned
with the milk bags stating that nobody was attending to the door bell and
also informed that the maruti car was not in the porch. PW-26 did not see Mr.
Mohan Ohol and his maruti car in the evening of 21st July, generally, he used C
to see Mr. Ohol in the evening between 7.00 and 7.30 P.M. On 22nd July, in
the morning, when PW-22 went to Rooman bungalow, he saw the newspaper
attached to the gate. He entered the gate and went near the rack and found
the newspaper of the earlier day still there but he did not find the milk bags
put by him on 21st July. He kept the newspaper of 22nd July, which he had
picked up from the gate and shouted "Doodh, Doodh." As the maruti car was D
not there, he thought the family had gone out. He pressed the door bell but
did not get any response. He then left the place with milk bags. On the way,
he enquired from the wife of watchman of bungalow of Sardarji and learnt that
the relative of Oho ls' family was sick and that they might have gone there
and that somebody might have taken away the milk bags. On 22nd July, PW23 kept newspaper at the gate in the morning as usual. On the evening of E
22nd July, after PW-26 returned from his work, he did no see Mr. Ohol
between 7 .00 and 7.30 P .M. as usual and he also noticed that the car of Mr.
Ohol was not in the bungalow. In the evening, the nephew and niece of Mr.
Ohol, Viren and Rodha, came to the bungalow to enquire as their parents were
informed that neither Mrs. Ohol nor any member of her family had gone to
the Ruby Hospital to see her ailing mother and they were not getting any F
response on phone. They noticed that the lights on the ground floor of
Roorrian bungalow were burning. On 22nd July, when PW-21 went io the
bungalow at 9.00 P.M., he pushed the door bell button but the bell did not
ring. The entrance door of the bungalow was closed, the lights were ·on' on
the ground and the first floor but the maruti car was not there, Then he went
to the bungalow of PW-26. When he returned, he found PW-3, two others G
and PW-26 there, They asked PW-21 to go on the terrace and find out ifthere
was anything abnormal. He reported that he did not find anything there but
thereafter he pointed out that ants were going in and coming out of the bath
room on the ground floor. He then removed glass and saw that human bodies
were lying in the tub in the bath room. All the doors were closed. By that time, H
174
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1998) 2 S.C.R.
A Vijay Ohol (PW-3) had also come. He and PW-21 went to the police in ajeep.
Sahebrao Pangare, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police (PW-63) and PW-82
accompanied them to the scene of offence. They broke open the door of the
kitchen. They found that the house was ransacked. The disfigured dead
bodies of Mr. Mohan Oho I, Mrs. Ruhi Oho I and their son, Rohan Oho I were
lying in the tub in the bath room. The dead bodies were removed from the
B tub and panchnamas were prepared .. Mr. Salim Mohammed Sheikh (PW-I) is
the panch witness of inquest panchnamas conducted by PW-78. Exhibit 11
is the inquest panchnamas of the dead body of Rohan Oho!, which was
identified by PW-26. In the said panchnama, the condition of the body was
described. Exhibit 13 is the inquest panchnama of the dead body of Mrs. Ruhi
Oho!, which was identified by PW-3. The condition the dead body was
C described therein. Exhibit 13 is the inquest panchnama in respect of the dead
body of Mr. Mohan Oho!. It contains the particulars of the dead body of Mr.
Mohan Oho!. The dead bodies were sent to the hospital for post-mortem
examination. Dr. Lakshman Govindan Ferwani (PW-73) conducted autopsy on
the dead bodies of the deceased, Rohan Oho! and Mohan Oho! and issued
D post-mortem certificate, Exh. 268 and Exh. 270 respectively, and Dr, Lakshmikant
Bade (PW-74) conducted autopsy on the dead body of Mrs. Ruhi Ohol and
issued the post-mortem certificate (Exh. 278). PW-73 opined that the cause of
death of Mr Rohan Oho! and of Mr. Mohan Oho] was due to suffocation and
the compression of the neck. Similar was the opinion of PW-74 as to the cause
of death of Mrs. Ruhi Oho!. Among the injuries found on the dead body of
E Mrs. Ruhi Oho!, there were injuries on her private parts which were opined
to be due to violent sexual attack by more than one person on her. PW-82
conducted Panchnama (Exh. 28) of the scene of occurrence and the following
among other articles we.re found: spool of celo plast, Newspaper, . "The
Sakal". of 18th July, 1992, but it did not have the first and the last page; Books
of PW-29, Gold Flake cigarette stubs; bed sheet containing stains of blood
F and semen in the bath room, it was also noted that the maruti car (MAF-5436)
of Mohan Oho! was not at the bungalow. The investigating officer (PW-83)
was entrusted with this case. I-le took over the case from PW-82 and continued
investigation. He sent the message about the theft of the car and kept PSI
Tukaram Dwarkanath Gaud (PW-48) on watch duty. PW-78 was entrusted
with further investigation.
G
PW-22, PW-23 and PW-35 noticed in the morning of 23rd July. 1992 that
the police had taken charge of the · Rooman bungalow' and sealed it.
On 23rd July, 1992 A-I gave Seiko digital wrist watch (Article 114) to
Ramesh Shamlal Thakur (PW-58) for repair. A-2 kept VCR (Article 64) with
H Bharat Dhondiram Salekar (PW-59). With the help of PW-59, A-2 went to
;-
RONNY@ RONALD JAMES ALWARIS 1•. STATE OF MHARASHTRA [QUADRI, J.) J 75
Mehendra Choksi (PW-60), a jeweller, and sold two gold bangles (Article 66) A
for Rs. 4 760. A-2 had kept scientific calculator (Article 138), Agfa camera
(Article 136), Flash gun (Article 137), Flash gun tube (Article 139) and Plastic
Bag (Article 140) with Ramesh Thakur (PW-58). He also sold some gold
ornaments, chain, ring, ear-tops etc. (Articles 67 to 72) to PW-60 with the help
of PW-59. A-3 pledged ladies wrist watch (Article 95) with Bhagwan Dhondu
Bane (PW-56) for Rs. 250 on July 24, 1992. He gave some trousers to Bharat B
Solanki (PW-61) for alteration for the purpose of reducing the length and on
the next day, he gave Table clock (Article 96) of Phillips to Manoj Shantaram
Mundhe (PW-57).
On 23rd July, Ms. Reina Oho!, the only surviving member of the Ohols'
family, returned to Pune from Bombay. On 24th July the funeral and the burial C
of the deceased persons, Mr. Mohan Oho I, Mrs. Rubi Ohol and Mr. Rohan
Oho!, took place. On the same day, the maruti car of Mr. Mohan Ohol was
escorted from Shirur petrol pump. PSI Bhandari (PW-78) brought the car at
Chaturshringi Police Station and on the morning of 25th July, he handed over
all the articles and the concerned papers which were found in the said car. D
On the night of July 27th, Investigating Officer (PW-83) and his party
went to Bombay in three vehicles. After getting the clues of the accused
persons, they first went to Borivili. A-3 was not there in the house but his
brother's wife, Smt. Archana Desai, was there. In the search made by them,
certain articles were found. Exhibit 30 is the search panchnama. PW-6 is one E
of the panch witnesses. Among the articles found were: silver tea set, silver
tray, two pairs of socks. two sets of keys, the keys included maruti car key,
the key of Kinetic Honda and the key of the main door ofRooman bungalow,
one stainless steel knife, one hot-shot camera and one two-in-one of National
company. In the said tape recorder, one cassette was there with a sticker
containing the name, address and phone number of Mr. Rohan Ohol. The F
seizure memo of these articles is Exhibit 30. The panchas and PW-83 signed
the said seizure memo. A-I and A-2 were arrested on 28th July, 1992. On
personal search of A-1, one cigarette packet of Gold Flake containing four
cigarettes, one key and Rs.19 were found with him. The arrest panchnama is
Exhibit 31. Those articles were not seized. Thereafter, Exh. 32, arrest panchnama G
of A-2 was drawn. No incriminating articles were found from his person. A2 made his voluntary statement (Exhibit 36) pursuant to which a black brief
case of VIP company with the stickers "M" "O" was recovered. On opening
the said .brief case, visiting card of Mr. Mohan Oho!, Pneumatic Kirloskar
Company, was found. The other articles recovered were one small tape recorder,
one transistor, one eliminator, one wrist watch of Allwyn Company, one H
176
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1998] 2 S.C.R.
A country made revolver, one pair of shoes wrapped in the first and the last
page of the newspaper of Pune 'The Sakal' dated I 8th July, I 992 and one
button knife having brass handle. In the said revolver, there were four
cartridges. The articles recovered under panchnama (Ext. 37) are marked as
Articles 55 to 63. Pursuant to the further statement (Exhibit 38) made by A2 VCR of National Panasonic Company was recovered from the house of one
B Bharat Salekar (PW-59) and ornaments (Articles 64 to 73) were recovered from
Choksi Jewellery shop, V.P. Road, Borivili. The ornaments that were sold by
A-2 on 24th and 25th July are three golden rings, two bangles having black
beads, one neckless (disco chain), one pair of ear tops and one small ear
chain. The gold ornaments and the receipt books were seized under recovery
C Panchnama Exhibit 39.
On 30th July. I 992, PW.·26, the owner and resident of Rohini bungalow
ahd the Secretary of the society identified A-1 and A-2 in the TIP as well as
in the court at the trial. PWs. 30 and 3 I , the Assistant Branch Manager and
the Bank Clerk respectively of the Maharashtra Bank, Hadapsar Branch
D identified A-I in TIP on 30th July, 1992 as well as at the trial in court. On 5th
August, I 992, A-3 was identified in TIP by PWs. 46 and 47, the partner and
room boy respectively of Natraj Hotel and by PW-55, the driver of the bus.
On 26th August, I 992, A-1 and A-2 were identified in TIP by PW-46, PW47 and PW-69. All of them identified the three appellants at their trial also in
E the court. Apart from the above witnesses, A-I to A-3 were identified by PW29, PW-34, PW-42 and PW-45, though they did not participate in TIP. PW-
! 1, PW-19, PW-28, PW-36 and PW-37, who helped A-I in pledging two gold
ear tops with PW-19 identified A-I in court. So also PW-58 identified A-I
in court. A-2 was identified in court by PW-59 whom he is said to have given
VCR.