Case Note & Summary
The case arises from the judgment dated 26/31 August 2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No. 64 of 2013, convicting the respondent-accused for offences under sections 302, 307, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to death along with other terms. The reference for confirmation of death sentence and the accompanying criminal appeal were heard together by the High Court. The prosecution case, initiated on 4 October 2012, was that the accused, who worked as a Facility Executive, himself lodged a complaint with Wanwadi Police Station reporting theft at his flat in Champaratna Society. He claimed that his mother Shobha, wife Archana, and daughter Kimaya had been killed and his neighbour Madhusudan Kulkarni injured during a robbery, and that gold chain weighing 8 tolas, mangalsutra, cash Rs.7,000/-, and other jewellery were stolen. However, during spot panchanama, no marks of forceful entry were found, and the allegedly stolen items except the gold chain were recovered from behind a photo frame inside the flat. The investigation revealed a love affair between the accused and PW2 Gauri Londhe, and the police suspected that the accused himself committed the murders and attempted to kill the neighbour who might have witnessed the incident. He was arrested and, based on evidence including medical reports, recovery of hammer at his instance under section 27 of the Evidence Act, and testimony of PW12 Madhusudan Kulkarni, the trial court convicted him. In appeal, the defence challenged the conviction arguing that the statement of PW12 was recorded belatedly, the recovered jewellery was not identified by witnesses, the hammer was not identified in court, the dog squad had tracked a scent outside the flat suggesting another person’s involvement, charge was framed under section 34 IPC but no other accused was tried, and unidentified articles at the scene pointed to another culprit. The prosecution countered that the accused set the investigation in motion with a false complaint, the spot panchanama disproved the robbery, and the recovery and CCTV footage implicated him. The High Court, before pronouncing its final decision, examined the evidence including postmortem reports which confirmed homicidal deaths of the three deceased due to smothering and head injuries, the injuries corresponding to weapons seized, and the fact that the defence did not dispute the love affair or the filing of the complaint. The court’s analysis of evidence was ongoing at the point the excerpt ends. The final decision, ratio, and confirmation or commutation of the death sentence are not available in the provided text.
Issue of Consideration
Sustainability of conviction and death sentence for offences under sections 302, 307, 201 IPC based on circumstantial and direct evidence; reliability of testimony of sole eyewitness PW12 recorded belatedly; validity of recovery of jewellery not identified by witnesses; effect of dog squad evidence pointing to another perpetrator; framing of charge under section 34 IPC when only one accused tried; proof of motive beyond reasonable doubt.
Case Details
2019 LawText (BOM) (07) 102
Confirmation Case No. 2 of 2016 (Arising from Sessions Case No. 64 of 2013)
B.P. Dharmadhikari, Smt. Swapna S. Joshi
Arfan Sait, Payoshi Roy, Yug Mohit Chaudhary
State of Maharashtra (Through Wanwadi Police Station)
Vishwajeet Kerba Masalkar
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal confirmation case and appeal against conviction and death sentence
Remedy Sought
State seeks confirmation of death sentence; accused appeals against conviction and sentence
Filing Reason
Trial court convicted accused for triple murder of mother, wife, and daughter and injuring neighbour after staging robbery; death sentence referred for confirmation and appeal filed
Previous Decisions
Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No. 64 of 2013 convicted accused under sections 302, 307, 201 IPC and sentenced to death on 26/31 August 2016
Issues
Whether the testimony of star witness PW12 is reliable considering it was recorded belatedly despite the witness being conscious
Whether recovery of jewellery is legally admissible when the items were not identified by any witness, particularly PW5
Whether the dog squad evidence indicating that the scent led away from the flat casts doubt on the accused's involvement
Whether framing of charge under section 34 IPC without another accused being tried vitiates the trial
Whether the prosecution has proved motive beyond reasonable doubt
Submissions/Arguments
Defence: Statement of PW12, the sole eye-witness, was recorded at a belated stage although he was conscious and oriented; conviction based solely on recovery of jewellery which was not identified by PW5 or other witnesses; sister of accused not examined who could have clarified ownership of jewellery; hammer used in offence not identified by PW12 in court; dog squad after smelling articles went out of the flat for 50 meters and then 800-900 meters to railway crossing, suggesting involvement of another person; trial court framed charge under section 34 IPC but only accused tried; finding of unidentified articles like odhani, grey purse and channi points to another culprit; finding of blood on hammer kept in a bag thrown in water is improbable; discrepancy in description of colour of T-shirt seized; no motive proved as accused only wanted divorce from wife; defence admitted love affair and filing of FIR but asserted that robbery was the main intention and murder occurred during robbery.
Prosecution: Accused set investigation in motion with false complaint of robbery; spot panchanama showed except gold chain other articles found behind photo frame indicating false complaint; recovery of hammer at instance of accused under section 27 Evidence Act; CCTV footage supports prosecution case; accused attempted to commit murder of neighbour PW12 who had financially helped accused's mother and sister.
Judgment Excerpts
ACP Mohite while recording the spot panchanama, observed that there were no marks of forceful entry on both the doors as well as safety doors of the flat.
behind photo frame hanged on the wall, one small mangalsutra, 3 small gold rings, 2 gold almond shape pendents and cash amount of Rs.7,000/ was found in one red colour money purse
the accused has set the investigation into motion. He himself has reported to the Police that robbery had taken place in his house and during the course of the said robbery, murder was committed of his wife, mother and child.
except gold chain weighing about 8 tolas other articles were found behind the photo frame kept in a red colour purse which clearly indicates that the accused had lodged a false complaint in respect of the robbery
Medical Officer PW6 – Dr. Ajay Taware opined that if mouth and nose are pressed by hands, death due to smothering can be possible.
Procedural History
On 04-10-2012, at about 7:45 pm, ACP Bajirao Mohite received message of theft at Champaratna Society; accused informed police of robbery and murder of his mother, wife, daughter and injury to neighbour; FIR registered as C.R. No.196/2012 under sections 302, 397 IPC; spot panchanama conducted, dead bodies sent for postmortem, inquest panchanamas prepared; investigation revealed no theft or forceful entry, love affair of accused with PW2 suspected; accused arrested; charge sheet filed; case committed to Sessions Court as Sessions Case No.64 of 2013; trial held; Additional Sessions Judge, Pune convicted accused on 26/31 August 2016 under sections 302, 307, 201 IPC, sentencing to death and other terms; death sentence reference made to High Court as Confirmation Case No.2 of 2016; High Court heard submissions on 07-06-2019 and pronounced judgment on 23-07-2019.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 302, 307, 201, 34
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872: 27
