# STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. GORAKSHA AMBAJI ADSUL

- **Citation:** [2011] 9 S.C.R. 41
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2011-07-07
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 999 of 2007
- **Bench:** Dr. B.S. Chauhan, Swatanter Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/state-of-maharashtra-v-goraksha-ambaji-adsul-27727
- **Pages:** 29

## Headnote

Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302 and 201 - Conviction under
- Continuous quarrels amongst family members over division
of property - Accused no. 1, his wife (accused no.3) and c
brother (accused no. 2) on one side and accused no. 1' s
father, step mother and step sister on the other side - Accused
'
no. 1 administered sedative/poisonous substance mixed in
sweets to all family members and when they fell asleep, he
strangulated father, step mother and step sister to death -
D
Thereafter, he packed the dead bodies in two trunks and
loaded in different trains, which· were later recovered from
different railway stations - Conviction of accused no. 1 u/ss.
302 and 201 by trial court, on the basis of circumstantial
evidence and award of death sentence - However, acquittal E
of accused nos. 2 and 3 - High Court upheld the order of
conviction but modified the sentence of death to life
. imprisonment - On appeal, held: Prosecution has been able
to prove a complete chain of events which point towards the
·•
guilt of the accused - Right from the evidence of the entire
F
family having the last dinner together and administering of
sweets with sedatives/poisonous substances to the recovery
of bodies of the deceased at different railway stations, the
chain of events stands proved beyond reasonable doubt -
Statement of the accused uls. 313 Cr.P.C. supports the G
'I
prosecution case - Thus, there is no er;or in the concurrent
findings recorded by the courts below convicting accused no.
1 u/ss. 302 and 201 - As regards the order of sentence, the
manner in which the crime has been committed is deplorable
but the attendant circumstances and the fact that he even H
41
A
B
c
D
E
42
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 9 S.C.R.
administered the sweets containing sedatives/poisonous
substance to his own wife (accused no. 3) shows accused's
frustration, and probably greed, for the property had attained
volcanic dimensions - Constant nagging was a mitigating
circumstance in the commission of the crime - Thus, the case
does not fall in the category of 'rarest of rare cases' - Order
of sentence as modified by the High Court is upheld.
Evidence - Circumstantial evidence - Conviction on
basis of - When - Held: When the prosecution is able to
establish the chain of events to satisfy the ingredients of
commission of an offence, accused would be liable to suffer
the consequences of his proven guilt.
Sentence/Sentencing - Principles governing sentencing
policy - Held: Awarding punishment is an onerous function
in the dispensation of criminal justice - Court is expected to
keep in mind the facts and circumstances of a case,
principles governing award of sentence, the legislative intent
of special or general statute raised in the case and impact of
awarding punishment - Court need to examine these
nuances with discernment and in depth -
Criminal
jurisprudence.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
s. 354(3) - Conditions to be satisfied prior to imposition
F
of death penalty - Held: Death penalty should be imposed
in rarest of rare cases and that too for special reasons to be
recorded - Courts to take into consideration the mitigating
circumstances and their resultant effects - The conditions of
providing special reasons for awarding death penalty is not
G
to be construed linguistically but it is to satisfy the basic
feature of a reasoning supporting and making award of death
penalty unquestionable - Circumstances and the manner of
committing the crime should be such that it pricks the judicial
conscience of the court to the extent that the only inevitable
H
conclusion should be awarding the death penalty.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. GORAKSHA AMBAJI
43
ADSUL
-'·
A
s. 354(3) -
Legislative intent behind enactment -
Explained.
'A' was the real father of accused nos. 1 and 2 while
..
accused no .. 3 is the wife of accused no. 1. 'J' is the stepmother of accused nos. 1 and 2 while R and PW.13-'S' are B
..j.
their step-sister and step-brother respectively. There were
quarrels amongst family

## Text

_Characters 0–39,826 of 55,434. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39826 for what follows._

[2011] 9 S.C.R. 41
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
A
V.
GORAKSHA AMBAJI ADSUL
(Criminal Appeal No. 999 of 2007)
JULY 07, 2011
B
...
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302 and 201 - Conviction under
- Continuous quarrels amongst family members over division
of property - Accused no. 1, his wife (accused no.3) and c
brother (accused no. 2) on one side and accused no. 1' s
father, step mother and step sister on the other side - Accused
'
no. 1 administered sedative/poisonous substance mixed in
sweets to all family members and when they fell asleep, he
strangulated father, step mother and step sister to death -
D
Thereafter, he packed the dead bodies in two trunks and
loaded in different trains, which· were later recovered from
different railway stations - Conviction of accused no. 1 u/ss.
302 and 201 by trial court, on the basis of circumstantial
evidence and award of death sentence - However, acquittal E
of accused nos. 2 and 3 - High Court upheld the order of
conviction but modified the sentence of death to life
. imprisonment - On appeal, held: Prosecution has been able
to prove a complete chain of events which point towards the
·•
guilt of the accused - Right from the evidence of the entire
F
family having the last dinner together and administering of
sweets with sedatives/poisonous substances to the recovery
of bodies of the deceased at different railway stations, the
chain of events stands proved beyond reasonable doubt -
Statement of the accused uls. 313 Cr.P.C. supports the G
'I
prosecution case - Thus, there is no er;or in the concurrent
findings recorded by the courts below convicting accused no.
1 u/ss. 302 and 201 - As regards the order of sentence, the
manner in which the crime has been committed is deplorable
but the attendant circumstances and the fact that he even H
41
A
B
c
D
E
42
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 9 S.C.R.
administered the sweets containing sedatives/poisonous
substance to his own wife (accused no. 3) shows accused's
frustration, and probably greed, for the property had attained
volcanic dimensions - Constant nagging was a mitigating
circumstance in the commission of the crime - Thus, the case
does not fall in the category of 'rarest of rare cases' - Order
of sentence as modified by the High Court is upheld.
Evidence - Circumstantial evidence - Conviction on
basis of - When - Held: When the prosecution is able to
establish the chain of events to satisfy the ingredients of
commission of an offence, accused would be liable to suffer
the consequences of his proven guilt.
Sentence/Sentencing - Principles governing sentencing
policy - Held: Awarding punishment is an onerous function
in the dispensation of criminal justice - Court is expected to
keep in mind the facts and circumstances of a case,
principles governing award of sentence, the legislative intent
of special or general statute raised in the case and impact of
awarding punishment - Court need to examine these
nuances with discernment and in depth -
Criminal
jurisprudence.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
s. 354(3) - Conditions to be satisfied prior to imposition
F
of death penalty - Held: Death penalty should be imposed
in rarest of rare cases and that too for special reasons to be
recorded - Courts to take into consideration the mitigating
circumstances and their resultant effects - The conditions of
providing special reasons for awarding death penalty is not
G
to be construed linguistically but it is to satisfy the basic
feature of a reasoning supporting and making award of death
penalty unquestionable - Circumstances and the manner of
committing the crime should be such that it pricks the judicial
conscience of the court to the extent that the only inevitable
H
conclusion should be awarding the death penalty.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. GORAKSHA AMBAJI
43
ADSUL
-'·
A
s. 354(3) -
Legislative intent behind enactment -
Explained.
'A' was the real father of accused nos. 1 and 2 while
..
accused no .. 3 is the wife of accused no. 1. 'J' is the stepmother of accused nos. 1 and 2 while R and PW.13-'S' are B
..j.
their step-sister and step-brother respectively. There were
quarrels amongst family members over the partition of the
property with accused no. 1 to 3 on one side and 'A', his
wife 'J' and his daughter 'R' on the other side. On the
night of the incident, accused no. 1 offered sweets c
containing sedatives/poisonous substance to all - 'A', 'J',
'SN', 'R' and accused no. 3 and when the family was
asleep, he killed 'A', 'J' and 'R' by strangulation.
Thereafter, he packed the dead bodies in two boxes and
loaded them in two different trains. The same were D
recovered later from two different railway stations. FIR
was registered. lnvestigati°""was carried out. Accused
Nos. 1 to 3 were arrested. The trial court on the basis of,
the circumstantial evidence-dispute over agricultural land/
partition; last seen theory; administration of sedative E
through sweets; disposal of dead bodies by accused no.
1; identification of accused no. 1 as person loading trunk
in the train; homicidal death of 'A', 'J' and 'R'; and false
theory/explanation propounded by accused for absence
of the victim, convicted accused no. 1 for commission of
offence under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and awarded
F
sentence of death. However, accused no. 2 and 3 were
acquitted. The High Court converted the death penalty
into life imprisonment while sustained the order of
conviction. Therefore, accused no. 1 and the State filed
the instant appeals.
G
1
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 It is a case of circumstantial evidence and
there is no eye-witness or other direct evidence in regard
H
to the murder of the three deceased persons. PW- 13 and
44
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 9 S.C.R.
A the accused no. 3-'S' required medical assistance on the
next day as they suffered from vomiting and dysentery
presumably because of food poisoning caused by the
sedative-infused pedas, which were offered to them by
accused no.1. On enquiry by the brother of the deceased
B 'A', the accused had informed him that 'A', 'J' and 'R' had
gone to place 'AN' for medical treatment and
subsequently claimed that he had received a telephone
call from his father stating that the family was proceeding
to the holy place 'P'. This lead to the arrest of the
c accused. Also, accused no. 1 hired a Maruti Van owned
by PW14 for the purpose of carrying the two trunks
containing the three dead bodies from the village to the
Railway Station. PW-7, a friend of the accused also
deposed that the trunk was kept in front of his house
0
before it was loaded in the Maruti Van. PW12 is a friend
of PW.14 and both of them were together when accused
no. 1 contacted PW.14 for hiring of Maruti Van on 24th
October, 2002. They were again together when two
trunks were lifted in the early 1awn hours on 25th
October, 2002. Thus, these two persons were material
E witnesses for establishing the fact that these trunks/iron
boxes were actually carried from the said place to the
Railway Station by the accused. PW17, brother of 'J'
identified the dead bodies. His statement is of
significance in regard to the identification of the dead
F bodies as well as the conduct of the accused
subsequent to the recovery of the dead bodies. He is the
person who was provided with incorrect information by
the accused no.1 regarding whereabouts of the
deceased. PW13-'S' is another material witness as he
G was also administered the pedas laced with sedatives
and the same was served in his presence to the
deceased by the accused no.1. Besides this evidence,
the statement of PW10-doctor also helped in completing
the chain of events leading to the commission of the
H crime and its subsequent result. According to PW.10 he
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. GORAKSHA AMBAJI
45
ADSUL
had treated PW13 and accused no.3 on 24th October,
A
2002 when they were brought to him with the complaint
of diarrhea. When they went to the doctor, the accused
no.1 had accompanied them. [Para 9] [53-H; 54-A-H; 55A-F]
1.2 PW 23, Judicial Magistrate recorded the
B
statements of PW12, PW14, PW17 and sister of the
deceased 'J' under Section 164 Cr.P.C. PW 12, PW 14 and
PW 17 are the main witnesses on whose statement the
entire case of the prosecution rests in addition to the
statement of the Investigating Officers and other formal
C
witnesses. [Paras 10 and 11] [55-G-H; 56-A-B]
1.3 In the facts and circumstances of the case, the
High Court expressed
the
opinion that two
circumstances, i.e. the last seen together and the o
homicidal death stands proved by themselves and do
not require further evidence to prove that fact. The view
expressed by the High Court that keeping in view the
photographs of the dead body and the doctor's
statement, it was proved to be a homicidal death, is
E
concurred with. The argument that the doctor had not
expressed his opinion with regard to the cause of death
particularly in relation to 'R' and 'J', is not impressive at
all inasmuch as the death of the two persons was proved.
From the injury report on the body of the deceased, the
F
photographs and the circumstances attendant thereto, it
is more than clear that this was a case of homicidal
death. The bodies of the deceased were duly identified.
It was practically an admitted case that the deceased as .
well as the accused were living in a joint family and had
G
their last meals together, during which the accused had
offered pedas to the family including the deceased. This
is fully substantiated by the statement of PW13 and
PW10. PW13, 'S' is a family member. He had also
suffered the consequences of consuming the pedas and
was treated by PW10-doctor. The factum of carrying of H
46
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 9 S.C.R.
A · two boxes and loading them on the respective trains was
fully established by the prosecution. In some portion of
the judgment, the High Court correctly appreciated the
evidence. It disregarded the statement of PW7 while fully
relying upon and holding that there were witnesses who
B were truthful and can be safely relied upon. [Para 13] [56H; 57-A-F]
1.4 The conclusion of the High Court does not suffer
from any legal infirmity. It is in conformity with the settled
C principles of law and is based on proper appreciation of
evidence. The finding of guilt by both the courts is
concurrent However, they differ only on the question of
quantum of sentence. On the appreciation of evidence,
the prosecution has been able to prove a complete chain
of events which points only towards the guilt of the
D accused. Even in a case of circumstantial evidence, if the
prosecution is able to establish the chain of events to
satisfy the ingredients of commission of an offence, the
accused would be liable to suffor the consequences of
his proven guilt. In the instant case, right from the
E evidence of the entire family having the last dinner
together and administering of pedas with sedatives or
poisonous substances to the recovery of bodies of the
deceased at different railway stations the chain of ev,S!nts
stands proved beyond reasonable doubt. In fact, ·the
F statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
further supports the case of the prosecution and
demolishes the stand of the defence of complete denial.
Thus, there is no error in the concurrent findings
recorded by the courts holding the accused guilty of an
G offence under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. [Para 14] [60-EH; 61-A-B]
2.1 Awarding punishment is certainly an onerous
function in the dispensation of criminal justice. The court
H is expected to keep in mind the facts and circumstances
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. GORAKSHA AMBAJI
4 7
ADS UL
of a case, the principles of law governing award of A
sentence, the legislative intent of special or general
statute raised in the case and the impact of awarding
punishment. These are the nuances which need to be
examined by the court with discernment and in depth.
The legislative intent behind enacting Section 354(3) B
Cr.P.C. clearly demonstrates the concern of the
legislature for taking away a human life and imposing
. death penalty upon the accused. Concern for the dignity
of the human life postulates resistance to taking a life
through law's instrumentalities and that ought not to be C
done, save in the rarest of rare cases, unless the
alternative option is unquestionably foreclosed. In
exercise of its discretion, the Court would also take into
consideration the mitigating circumstances and their
resultant effects. Language of Section 354(3) 0
demonstrates the legislative concern and the conditions
which need to be satisfied prior to imposition of death
penalty. The words 'in the case of sentence of death the
special reasons for such sentence' unambiguously
demonstrates the command of the legislature that such
reasons have to be recorded for imposing the E
punishment of death sentence. This is how the concept
of rarest of rare cases has emerged in law. Viewed from
that angle, both the legislative provisions and judicial
pronouncements are at ad idem in law. The death penalty
should be imposed in rarest of rare cases and that too F
for special reasons to be recorded. To put it simply, a
death sentence is not a rule but an exception. Even the
exception must satisfy the pre-requisites contemplated
under Section 354(3) Cr.P.C. [Para 16] [61-E-H; 62-A-D]
G
2.2 Awarding of death sentence amounts to taking
away the life of an individual, which is the most valuable
right available, whether viewed from the constitutional
point of view or from the human rights point of view. The
condition of providing special reasons for awarding H
48
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[201119 S.C.R.
A death penalty is not to be construed linguistically but it
is to satisfy the basic features of a reasoning supporting
and making award of death penalty unquestionable. The
circumstances and the manner of committing the crime
should be such that it pricks the judicial conscience of
s the Court to the extent that the only and inevitable
conclusion should be awarding of death penalty. [Para
21] [68-8-D]
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684;
C Machhi Singh vs. State of Punjab (1983) 3 SCC 470: 1983
(3) SCR 413 - relied on.
D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416:
1996 (10)Suppl. SCR 284; Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan
Bariyar vs. State ofMaharashtra (2009) 6 SCC 498: 2009 (9)
D SCR 90; Vashram Narshibhai Rajpara v. State of Gujarat AIR
2002 SC 2211: 2002(3)SCR 422 - referred to.
2.3 In the instant case, the accused belonged to the
armed forces, his father had married for the second time
E and had children from the second wife. There were
continuous quarrels with regard to the division of
property and during these quarrels the accused is stated
to have even hit his father. It was a pressure which had
increased with the passage of time and probably this
frustration attained the limit of commission of such a
F heinous crime by the accused. The manner in which the
crime has been committed is deplorable but the attendant
circumstances and the fact that he even administered the
sweets (pedas) containing sedatives/poisonous
substance to his own wife, the accused no.3, shows that
G his frustration, and probably greed, for the property had
attained volcanic dimensions. The intensity of bitterness
between the members of the family had exacerbated the
thoughts of revenge and retaliation in him. The constant
nagging would have to be taken as a mitigating
H circumstance in the commission of this crime. Thus, in
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. GORAKSHA AMBAJI
49
~
ADSUL
view of the factual matrix and the legal analysis, the
A
instant case does not fall in the category of 'rarest of rare
cases'. [Para 22] [68-E-H; 69-A]
Case Law Reference
(1980) 2 sec 684
Relied on
Paras 16, 18
B
1983 (3) SCR 413
Relied on
Para 17
1996 (10) Suppl. SCR 284 Referred to
Para 19 ·
2009 (9) SCR 90
Referred to
Para 19
c
·'
2002 ( 3) SCR 422
Referred to
Para 19
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 999 of 2007.
From the Judgment & Order dated 30.09.2005 of the
D
High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Aurangabad in
Confirmation Case No. 1 of 2005 and Criminal Appeal No.
157 of 2005.
WITH
E
Crl. A. No. 1623 of 2007.
Asha Gopalan Nair, Suvira Lal (Amicus Curiae) for the
appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
F
SWATANTER KUMAR, J. 1. The learned trial court, while
weighing the mitigating and aggravating circumstances and
keeping in mind the principle of proportionality of sentence or
J
what it termed as "just-desert" for th~ brutal and diabolical
G
killing of three innocent family members, formed an opinion
that the Court could not resist from concluding that the only
sentence that could be awarded to the accused was death
penalty. Thus, it directed that the accused Goraksha Ambaji
...
Adsul be hanged by the neck till he is dead in terms of Section
H
. 50
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 9 S.C.R.
A 354(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short
'Cr.P.C.'), subject to confirmation by the High Court in
accordance with law. Aggrieved by this extreme punishment
and the order of conviction, the accused challenged the
judgment of the learned trial court dated 14th February, 2005
B by filing an appeal before the High Court which vide its detailed
judgment dated 30th September, 2005, declined to confirm
the· death sentence referred under Section 366 of the Cr.P.C.
and held the said accused guilty of offence under Sections
302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), and
c sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment. In other words,
the High Court converted the death penalty into life
imprisonment while sustaining the order of conviction.
2. The State of Maharashtra has preferred the present
appeal bearing Crl.A. No. 999/2007, before this Court claiming
D that the said conversion by the High Court is not appropriate
in the facts and circumstances of the case. The State further
avers that the High Court in its judgment has fallen in error of
law as well as failed in appreciation of evidence.
It is
contended that this Court should restore the judgment of the
E trial court on the quantum of sentence by awarding death
penalty. The accused has filed a separate appeal being Crl.A.
No. 1623 of 2007 challenging the very same judgment of the
High Court on the ground that the appellant could not have
been held guilty for an offence under Sections 302 and 201 of
F the IPC and the appellant was entitled to judgment of acquittal.
3. Thus, it will be appropriate for us to dispose of both the
above appeals by a common judgment. For that purpose, we
may briefly notice the facts giving rise to the present appeals.
G
4. Accused no.1 Goraksha Ambaji Adsul is the son of the
deceased, Ambaji Ahilaji Adsul. Accused no.3 Sow. Sunita
Goraksha Adsul is the wife and Accused no.2 Mininath Ambaji
Adsul is the brother of the Accused no.1 Goraksha. Accused
no.1 was serving in the Indian Army and used to visit his village
H Hivare-Korda where the family had some agricultural land and
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. GORAKSHA AMBAJI
51
ADSUL [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
other properties. The deceased, Ambaji Ahilaji Adsul was
A
also married to the second deceased, Janabai and she was
his second wife. In other words, Janabai was the stepmother
of the Accused no.1 and 2 and Reshma (deceased) was
their stepsister. All these persons used to jointly reside in
their house in the said village. It has come in evidence that
B
there used to be quarrels between the Accused no.1, his
brother and wife on the one side and the deceased Ambaji
Ahilahi Adsul, his wife Janabai and daughter Reshma on the
other. The accused used to demand partition of the land and
other property and allotment of share to the accused and his
C
brother. This persisted for a considerable time and is said to
be the motive for commission of the offence.
5. One Premchand Rangarao Jatav, Deputy Station
Superintendent, Railway Station, Bhopal (PW9), received a
memo sent by Sh. R.K. Arora, Train Ticket Examiner (TTE),
D
informing him that a black coloured trunk was found in Bogie
J No.S-6 of Train No. 2779 (Goa-Nizamuddin Express) running
;:::::_ via Ahmednagar when it reached Bhopal Railway Station on
c:; 25th October, 2002 at about 7.00 p.m. The black trunk was
~ seized under panchnama and when the same was opened in
E
the presence of Dr. Harsh Sharma it was found that it contained
a dead body which was later identified to be that of Ambaji
Ahilaji Adsul. Mr. Someshwari Jogeshwari Prasad Mishra,
ASI, G.R.P. Bhopal (PW11) completed the formalities of
inquest and post-mortem. After the body was received in the
F
hospital it was inspected by one Dr. Mrs. Rajni Armit Arora,
the then Associate Professor at the Department of Forensic
Medicine, Gandhi Medical College, Bhopal, (PW19). It was
noticed that a lace was found to have been tied to the portion
covering neck and throat of the deceased.
Dr. Arora
G
performed the autopsy on 26th October, 2002. She noticed
ligature mark of brownish colour and ligature material of khaki
colour shoe lace, two in number, tied around the neck encircling
it and described the injuries as ante-mortem injuries.
According to the said doctor, the cause of death was
H
52
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011) 9 S.C.R.
A strangulation and homicidal in nature and was caused two to
three days prior to the post-mortem examination. As nobody
had claimed the body, the blood stained clothes of the
deceased were seized and the body was cremated at
Bhadbhada Vishram Ghat, Bhopal. An FIR (exhibit-82) was
B registered with regard to the said crime.
6. On 25th October, 2002 itself, another train, i.e. Train
No. 7602-UP (Nanded Pune Express) reached Ahmednagar
Railway Station at its scheduled time in the morning at about
6.15 a.m. and departed at 6.30 a.m. Enroute, during the stop
C at Akolner Railway Station for crossing of the train coming
from opposite direction, Mr. Sanjay Bhujadi, TIE, found one
white tin trunk in Bogie No. S-4 placed between the two toilets
of the Bogie No. S-4. After arriving Kasthi Railway Station,
Mr. Sanjay Bhujadi made a report to the Station Master, Kashti,
D informing him of the said trunk. This memo was delivered to
GRP, Daund Railway Station (Ex.122). The trunk was removed
from the bogie and a panchnama was prepared. Thereafter,
it was opened and two dead bodies were found in that trunk.
These were later identified as those of Janabai and Reshma.
E Inquest formalities were completed and an FIR (exhibit 125)
was lodged on 25th October, 2002 as Crime No. 43/2002 for
offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC.
7. The railway police investigating officer, Mr. B.B. Joshi,
F (PW8) conducted investigation and registered a case vide
Crime No. 237/2002 on 17th November, 2002 against the
three accused namely, Goraksha Ambaji Adsul, Sow. Sunita
Goraksha Adsul and Mininath Ambaji Adsul.
On further
investigation, it was found that the accused persons had
G administered sedative/poisonous substance mixed in pedas
and thereafter strangulated all the three victims with shoe laces.
Thereafter, they placed the bodies of the these victims in two
different trunks . One trunk was kept near the electricity board
D.P. at nearby Village Malkop and the other at the house of
one Mr. Sakharam Thakaji Nabge, a friend of the accused
H
1
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. GORAKSHA AMBAJI
53
ADSUL [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
(PW?), before both were transported to the Ahmednagar
A
Railway Station by the accused Goraksha in a hired maruti
van. Thereafter, as afore-noticed, these trunks were placed in
different trains.
8. Accused nos. 2 and 3 were arrested on 14th November,
B
2002 and Accused no.1 on 30th November, 2002. Their
statements were recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C.
by Mr. Sayyad, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, on 6th February,
2003 and 7th February, 2003 respectively. Investigation was
completed and the accused were sent to the court of Judicial
Magistrate on 11th February, 2003 for committal to the Court C
of Sessions so that they could be tried in accordance with law.
All the three accused had taken the defence of total denial
and pleaded false implication. Accused no. 1 had specifically
taken up the plea that between 22nd October, 2002and25th
October, 2002, he was present at his duty place i.e. the Army
D
Office at Patiala. The prosecution has examined as many as
25 witnesses to bring home guilt of the accused persons and
after recording the statement of the accused under Section
313 of the Cr.P.C., the trial court after discussing the entire
evidence on record had found Accused no.1 Goraksha Ambaji
E
Adsul guilty of an offence under Section 302 as well as Section
201 of the IPC and awarded the sentence of death to him.
However, Accused Nos. 2 and 3 were acquitted as according
to the trial court, the prosecution had failed to prove its case
beyond reasonable doubt against these accused. The State
F
did not prefer any appeal against the acquittal of the said two
accused and thus, their acquittal has already attained finality.
Resultantly, in the present appeal, we are only concerned with
Accused no.1 Goraksha Ambaji Adsul, who has filed an
independent appeal against the judgment of conviction and
G
sentence.
9. As would appear from the above narrated factual matrix,
it is a case of circumstantial evidence and there is no eyewitness or other direct evidence in regard to the murder of the
H
54
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 9 S.C.R.
A three deceased persons. As is clear from the above, Ambaji
Ahilaji Adsul was the real father of Accused nos.1 and 2 while
Accused no.3 is the wife of Accused no.1. Deceased Janabai
was the second wife of Ambaji and therefore the step-mother
of Accused nos.1 and 2. Deceased Resh ma and PW13 Su nil
B are the children born to Janabai from Ambaji, thus, they are
~
the step-sister and step-brother of the Accused nos.1 and 2.
It is the case of the prosecution that there used to be quarrels
and the accused Goraksha used to demand partition of the
land and other properties.
In fact, he is stated to have
c assaulted his father during those quarrels. The accused
Goraksha had returned home for Diwali. He had brought
sweets (pedas) with him, which he offered to all, i.e. Ambaji,
Janabai, Sunita, Reshma and Sunil on the night of 23rd
October, 2002. These pedas contained sedative/poisonous
D substance and after supper when the family was asleep,
Goraksha killed his father, stepmother and stepsister by
strangulation and packed the deC:td bodies in two metallic
boxes. One of the boxes was loaded in the train 2779 UP,
Goa-Nizammudin Express while the other was loaded in train
7602-UP, Nanded-Pune Express and the same were recovered
E at Bhopal and Daund Railway Stations respectively, as noticed
above.
Sunil and the accused Sunita required medical
assistance on the next day as they suffered from vomiting and
dysentery presumably because of food poisoning caused by
the sedative-infused pedas, which were offered to them by
F Accused no.1 Goraksha. Another suspicious circumstance
which led to the arrest of the accused was that on enquiry by
the brother of the deceased Ambaji, the accused had informed
him that Ambaji, Janabai and Reshma had gone to
Ahmednagar for medical treatment and subsequently claimed
G that he had received a telephone call from his father stating
that the family was proceeding to the holy place of Pandharpur.
Still another circumstance which connected accused no.1 with
the commission of the crime was that he had hired a maruti
van owned by PW14 Bapusaheb Shinde for the purpose of
H carrying the two trunks containing the three dead bodies from
_.,..--·
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. GORAKSHA AMBAJI
55
ADSUL [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
Village Malkop to the Railway Station, Ahmednagar. PW-7 A
Sakharam Nabge, a friend of the accused had also deposed
that the trunk was kept in front of his house before it was
loaded in the Maruti Van. PW12, Saban Vishnu Thorat is a 1
friend of Bapusaheb Shinde and both of them were together
when Goraksha contacted Bapusaheb for hiring of Maruti Van
B
on 24th October, 2002. They were again together when two
trunks were lifted in the early dawn hours on 25th October,
2002. Thus, these two persons were material witnesses for
establishing the fact that these trunks/iron boxes were actually
carried from the place afore-indicated to the Railway Station c
by the accused. PW17, Pandurang Daobhat is the brother of
the deceased Janabai and had identified the dead bodies.
His statement is of significance in regard to the identification
of the dead bodies as well as the conduct of the accused
subsequent to the recovery of the dead bodies. He is the 0
person who was provided with incorrect information by the
accused Goraksha regarding whereabouts of the deceased.
PW13 Sunil is another material witness as he was also
administered the pedas laced with sedatives and the same
was served in his presence to the deceased by the Accused
no.1 Goraksha. Besides this evidence, the statement of Dr.
E
Sanjay Pande, PW10 also helps in completing the chain of
events leading to the commission of the crime and its
subsequent result. According to this witness, he had treated
Sunil (PW13) and Sunita (Accused no.3) on 24th October,
2002 when they were brought to him with the complaint of F
diarrhea. When they went to the doctor, Goraksha, the Accused
no.1 had accompanied them.
10. PW23, Ezaz Ahmed, Judicial Magistrate, First Class
at Sahabad had recorded the statements of PW12, PW14, G
PW17 and Meerabai Daobhat, sister of the deceased Janabai
under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. We may also notice that
some of the panch witnesses who had signed the panchnamas
turned hostile and PW7 Sakharam, a personal friend of the
H
56
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2011] 9 S.C.R.
A
accused Goraksha also did not fully support the case of the
prosecution.
11. The above are the main witnesses on whose statement
the entire case of the prosecution rests, of course, in addition
8
to the statement of the Investigating Officers and other formal
witnesses. Accused nos. 2 and 3 were acquitted by the trial
court and the High Court noticed that it was not concerned
with the merit or otherwise of their acquittal by the trial court
as the State had not preferred any appeal against the judgment
of acquittal.
c
D
12. At this stage, we· may usefully refer to the
circumstances which were relied upon by the prosecution
before the courts and they were as follows:-
(i)
Motive - dispute over agricultural land/partition.
(Evidence of PW-13 Sunil and PW-17 Pandurang)
(ii)
Last seen together - (togetherness by virtue of joint
family).
E
(iii)
Administration of sedative through sweets.
(Evidence of PW-13 Sunil and PW-10 Dr. Pande).
(iv)
The disposal of dead bodies by Accused no.1
(Evidence of PW-12 Baban, PW-14 Bapusaheb).
F
(v)
Identification of Accused no.1 as person loading
one trunk in Goa-Nizammuddin Express train (PW15 Aradhana).
G
(vi)
Homicidal death.
(vii) False theory/explanation propounded by accused
for absence of the victim. (Evidence of PW-13
Sunil and PW-17 Pandurang).
13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the High
H Court expressed the opinion that two circumstances, i.e. the
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. GORAKSHA AMBAJI
57
ADSUL [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
last seen together and the homicidal death stands proved by A
themselves and do not require further evidence to prove that
fact. We fully agree with the view expressed by the High Court
that, keeping in view the photographs of the dead body and
the doctor's statement, it was proved to be a homicidal death.
The learned counsel appearing for the Accused no.1 (appellant) B
argued with some vehemence that the doctor had not
expressed his opinion with regard to the cause of death
particularly in relation to Reshma and Janabai, as is evident
from Exhibits 113 and 114.
But this argument does not
impress us at all inasmuch as the death of the two persons c
have been proved. From the injury report on the body of the
deceased, the photographs and the circumstances attendant
thereto, it is more than clear that this was a case of homicidal
death. The bodies of the deceased were duly identified. It
was practically an admitted case that the deceased as well as 0
the accused were living in a joint family and had their last
meals together, during which the accused had offered pedas
to the family including the deceased. This is fully substantiated
by the statement of PW13 and PW10. PW13, Sunil is a
family member. He had also suffered the consequences of E
consuming the pedas and was treated by PW10, Dr. Pande.
The factum of carrying of two boxes and loading them on the
respective trains has also been fully established by the
prosecution as we have above-discussed. At this stage, we
may refer to some extracts- of the High Court judgment where
in our view the High Court has correctly appreciated the
F
evidence. It disregarded the statement of PW7 while fully
relying upon and holding that there were witnesses who were
truthful and can be safely relied upon, the Court held as under:
G
'To sum-up the assessment of evidence of these seven
vital witnesses, we may say that, PW-7 Sakharam Nabge
has made himself sufficiently useless for the prosecution.
Evidence of PW-12 Baban· Thorat is acceptable to
establish that Accused No.1 had contracted with PW-14 H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
58
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 9 S.C.R.
Bapusaheb and accordingly two trunks were transported
from Malkop D.P. to Ahmednagar Railway Station at the
instance of Accused No.1 (sic), for which accused no.1
paid hire charges of Rs.200/-. Evidence of PW-14
Bapusaheb, although shaky, can be relied upon on the
same point, to the extent it is in harmony with the evidence
of PW-12. We find PW-10 Dr. Pande, in the absence of
case-papers to refresh his memory, to be not reliable.
PW-15 Aradhana also cannot be relied upon for the
purpose of identification of Accused No.1, although she
can be believed to the extent that the trunk was loaded in
Goa-Nizamuddin Express, at Ahmednagar Railway
Station.
PW-17 Pandurang can be relied upon for
identification of the victims and subsequent conduct of
Accused No.1, so also to some extent, possible motive i.e.
quarrels on the point of partition. PW-13 Sunil, although
a child witness, can certainly be believed regarding
togetherness on the fateful night, more so because that is
an admitted position. His evidence regarding quarrels on
the point of partition can also be accepted, because of
support from Pandurang and probability. The story of
administration of Pedhas containing some sedative/
poisonous substance and subsequent admission to Mate
Hospital, has become a story not acceptable without risk,
more so when such story is not supported by any case
papers.
xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
We have subjected the evidence to close scrutiny and only
thereafter arrived at our conclusion as to whether
witnesses are to be believed and if yes, to what extent.
By relying upon Anthony D. Souza - Vs. - State of Kera/a,
A.l.R. 2003 S.C. 258 and Darshansingh -Vs.- State of
Punjab, 1995 S.C.C. (Crl.) 702, learned A.P.P. has
propounded that, in case accused makes a statement
under section 313 of Cr.P.C. completely denying the
.
'
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. GORAKSHA AMBAJI
59
ADSUL [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
prosecution case and established facts and offers false A
answers or explanation, that can b0 counted as providing
missing link from complete chain of the prosecution
evidence and circumstances, in a case based on
circumstantial evidence. Relying on these cases, an
argument that false explanation can be utilized as one of B
the links in the chain of circumstantial evidence was
advanced, in order to persuade this Court that story
narrated by accused Goraksha to PW-17 Pandurang
about the victims having gone to Pandharpur should be
taken into consideration as false explanation, although not c
to the Court, to the relatives and others. In fact, as already
pointed out earlier, accused have persisted in sticking to
this explanation even during the curse (sic) of their
statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973, without
demonstrating to the Court that either of the two trains, i.e. 0
Goa-Nizamuddin Express and Nanded-Pune Express
travel via Padharpur (sic). We may state it here itself, that ·
explanation offered by the accused about his having
received a message from Balasaheb Sinare of Village
Padali, who received telephone of the deceased Ambaji,
E
of the three victims having gone to Pandharpur cannot be
said to have been probabilised in the absence of evidence
of said Balasaheb Sinare. The two trains not having been
demonstrate as passing through Pandharpur gives
another set back to the said defence.
24. In the light of acquittal of Accused Nos. 2 and 3 by
F
the trial court, learned Advocate for the appellant has
placed reliance upon the observations of the Supreme
Court in the matter of Suraj Mal - Vs- State (Delhi
Administration), A.LR. 1979 S.C. 1408, and more G
particularly, observation to the following effect in para 2: ~
"where witnesses make tow (sic) inconsistent
statements in their evidence, either at one stage or
at two stages, the testimony of such witnesses H
60
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011) 9 S.C.R.
A
becomes unreliable and unworthy of credence, and
in absence of special circumstances, no conviction
can be based on the evidence of such witness."
This was a case under Prevention of Corruption Act.
B
Three police officers were tried for allegedly having
accepted bribe. PW No.s 6, 8 and 9, Shiv Naryan, Prem
,.,
Al
Nath and Sham Sunder resiled from their statements which
they made in their chief examination and all of them stated
that Ram Naryan (one of the three accused) refused to
c
accept the bribe. Ram Naryan was, therefore, acquitted
by the trial Court. Another accused Devender Singh was
acquitted by the High Court on the ground that the sanction
was not valid.
We are unable to appreciate the applicability of the ratio
D
to the matter at hands. As can be seen from the impugned
judgment, in the present matter, Accused No.s 2 and 3 are
acquitted by the trial Court because there is no evidence
referring to them .... ."
E
14. The above conclusion of the High Court does not
suffer from any legal infirmity. It is in conformity with the settled
principles of law and is based on proper appreciation of
evidence.
In fact, finding of guilt by both the Courts is
concurrent. However, they differ only on the question of
F quantum of sentence. On the appreciation of evidence, we
are also of the considered view that the prosecution has been
able to prove a complete chain of events which points only
towards the guilt of the accused.
Even in a case of
circumstantial evidence, if the prosecution is able to establish
G
the chain of events to satisfy the ingredients of commission of
an offence, the accused would be liable to suffer the
"
consequences of his proven guilt. In the present case, right
from the evidence of the entire family having the last dinner
together and administering of pedas with sedatives or
poisonous substances to the recovery of bodies of the
H deceased at different railway stations the chain of events stands
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. GORAKSHA AMBAJI
61
ADSUL [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
proved beyond reasonable doubt. In fact; the statement of the A
accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. further supports the
case of the prosecution and demolishes the stand of the
defence of complete denial. Thus, we are unable to find any
error in the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts holding
the accused guilty of an offence under Sections 302 and 201
B
of the IPC.
15. Next, we are concerned with whether this Court should
exercise its judicial discretion to enhance his punishment from
life imprisonment to death sentence, as contemplated on behalf C
of the State in its appeal.
16.