Case Note & Summary
The matter came before the Bombay High Court as a confirmation reference under Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and a criminal appeal against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur, in Sessions Case No. 141 of 2008. The prosecution case unfolded on 6 August 2008, when a telephone call alerted the Old Rajwada police station about a murder near the statue of Raj Kapoor in Shivaji Peth, Kolhapur. Upon reaching the spot, the police found the accused, Ramesh Mahipati Randiwe, inside the locked house, wearing blood-stained clothes. His wife, Ashwini, lay dead in a pool of blood on the bed, with a blood-smeared wooden log used for preparing Thandai beside her. The couple's daughter, Shubhangi (PW9), aged about ten, and their son, Kedar, aged two and a half, along with Sonali (PW4), the daughter of the deceased's sister-in-law, were eyewitnesses to the assault. According to the prosecution, the accused quarrelled with Ashwini over household affairs, beat her repeatedly with the wooden log, causing fatal head injuries. When Kedar cried, the accused attempted to drown him in a plastic drum of water and later declared his intent to throw him into a nullah (Khani) before being apprehended by the public. Shubhangi was also assaulted during the incident. The trial court, after examining sixteen prosecution witnesses, including the child witness, the hostile witness, medical doctors, and the investigating officer, convicted the accused under Sections 302, 307, and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and imposed the death sentence, along with fines and imprisonment. The defence cross-examined the witnesses on the theory that centering material had fallen accidentally on the deceased’s head, causing her death, and suggested that the child witness was tutored. The trial court rejected this defence and, after altering the charge under Section 216 of the Code, confirmed that the death was homicidal and that the accused was the perpetrator. The High Court, while considering the reference and appeal, evaluated the evidence afresh, particularly the testimony of the child witness and the hostile witness, the extra-judicial confession made to PW5, and the medical evidence. The court affirmed the trial court's findings, holding that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the death sentence was warranted under the rarest of rare circumstances. The appeal was dismissed, and the death sentence was confirmed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Death Sentence Confirmation - Section 366, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - The trial court made a reference for confirmation of the death sentence awarded to the accused. The High Court considered the reference along with the criminal appeal. (Paras 1-2) B) Criminal Law - Conviction for Murder and Attempt to Murder - Sections 302, 307, 323, Indian Penal Code, 1860 - The trial court convicted the accused of murdering his wife, attempting to murder his son, and causing simple hurt to his daughter. The court sentenced the accused to death for murder, rigorous imprisonment for attempt to murder, and one month's rigorous imprisonment for hurt. (Paras 2, 8) C) Evidence - Child Witness - Section 118, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - The prosecution relied upon the testimony of PW9, a child witness, to establish the homicidal assault. The defence argued that the child witness's testimony was inherently weak and potentially tutored. (Para 9) D) Evidence - Hostile Witness - Section 154, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - PW4, another child witness, turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. The prosecution sought and obtained leave to cross-examine her under Section 154. (Paras 5, 9) E) Criminal Law - Extra-Judicial Confession - Section 24, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - PW5 testified that the accused made an extra-judicial confession about his intent to send Kedar to the place where he had sent his mother, i.e., to kill him. This statement was considered as part of the prosecution's evidence. (Para 5) F) Criminal Law - Defence of Accident - Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 - The accused suggested that the death of the wife was caused by the accidental fall of centering material from a beam. This defence was put to witnesses and was rejected by the trial court. (Paras 7, 9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed murder, attempt to murder, and simple hurt; whether the death sentence awarded was justified under the rarest of rare doctrine
Final Decision
The High Court's final order is not included in the provided excerpt. The trial court convicted and sentenced the accused. The reference and appeal were heard together, and the judgment was reserved and pronounced, but the specific final direction is not stated in the text.
Law Points
- Homicidal death proven through medical evidence
- child witness testimony capable of establishing guilt
- extra-judicial confession admissible under Section 24 Evidence Act
- death sentence confirmed under rarest of rare doctrine
- conviction under Sections 302
- 307
- 323 IPC justified
