Case Note & Summary
The matter arose out of the disappearance and death of Dhanshree Ramteke, a student, on 14/8/2012. She left home for tuition at 6.30 p.m. on her moped and did not return. Her mother Alka Ramteke and maternal uncle Rajesh Dahat searched for her and lodged a missing report at Gittikhadan Police Station on the morning of 15/9/2012 (a typo for 15/8/2012). Police discovered a half-burnt body of a woman on a truck tyre in Gorewada forest. The body was identified as Dhanshree. An FIR was registered under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code against unknown persons. Investigation revealed that accused no.1 (Dharamveer Chouhan) was in a relationship with the deceased and suspected infidelity. Both accused were arrested. On their memoranda under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, blood-stained clothes, the deceased’s Dio moped, a nylon rope, and other articles were recovered. The trial court convicted both accused; accused no.1 was sentenced to death for murder, and accused no.2 to life imprisonment. Both were also sentenced for causing disappearance of evidence. The confirmation case for the death sentence and the appeals filed by the accused were heard together. The defence argued that the circumstantial evidence did not form a complete chain, the CDRs were unreliable, recoveries were doubtful, and motive was not proved. The State maintained that the circumstances were interwoven and proved guilt beyond doubt, and that the brutality justified the death penalty. The court, while analysing the evidence, noted the 22 circumstances listed by the trial court and particularly examined the last-seen evidence, recoveries, and CDRs. The judgment excerpt ends during the evaluation of recovery evidence, without reaching a final conclusion.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law – Circumstantial Evidence – Last Seen Together – Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 3 – Court assessed whether the evidence of PW 4 (last seen) and Call Detail Records (CDRs) showing both accused no.1 and the deceased within the range of a single mobile tower on the day of the incident could complete the chain of circumstances. Court noted that mere presence in the same tower area for less than a minute, without proof of the tower’s range, may be insufficient. (Paras 11-12)
B) Criminal Law – Recovery Evidence – Memorandum Under Section 27 of Evidence Act – Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 27 – Prosecution relied on recoveries of blood-stained clothes, the deceased’s moped, a nylon rope, and other articles at the instance of the accused. Court examined the timing and sequence of the memoranda and seizures, noting that the memoranda were recorded at 13.15 and 13.35 hours on 18/8/2012, and recoveries extended over several hours. Court considered whether these recoveries were voluntary and credible. (Paras 13-14)
C) Criminal Law – Motive – Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302, 201 – Evidence of love affair and suspicion of infidelity was adduced through witnesses PW 8, PW 22, and PW 24. Prosecution argued that accused no.1 killed the deceased because he suspected she had another relationship. Court noted that motive, though not essential, may strengthen the circumstantial chain. (Paras 8, 11)
D) Criminal Law – Hostile Witness – Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 154 – PW 4 Sarita, who allegedly saw the accused and the deceased together, turned hostile. Court acknowledged that the testimony of a hostile witness can still be relied upon in part if corroborated by other evidence. (Paras 10-11)
E) Criminal Law – Death Penalty – Rarest of Rare Doctrine – Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 – State contended that the brutal murder and the attempt to destroy evidence by burning the body brought the case within the rarest of rare category. Court heard precedents cited by State, including Bhagwan Das v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Sunder v. State, before examining whether the punishment was proportionate. (Paras 8-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of circumstantial evidence; Whether the conviction of accused no.2 was based on conjectures and surmises; Whether the death sentence awarded to accused no.1 was appropriate under the rarest of rare doctrine
Final Decision
Decision not clearly stated
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain excluding any other hypothesis of innocence
- last seen together evidence must be proximate and unequivocal
- recovery under Section 27 of Evidence Act admissible only if it leads to discovery of relevant facts
- death penalty reserved for rarest of rare cases
- motive not indispensable in cases based on circumstantial evidence if other evidence is conclusive
- hostile witness’s testimony can be considered in part
- call detail records require proof of tower range to establish presence
Case Details
2026 LawText (BOM) (05) 119
Criminal Confirmation Case No.2 of 2013 along with Criminal Appeal Nos. 332 of 2013 and 346 of 2013
B.R. Gavai, A.S. Chandurkar
S.S. Doifode, Additional Public Prosecutor for State; R.K. Tiwari for Dharamveer Chouhan; K.A. Jaltare for Pankaj @ Sonu Rautkar
State of Maharashtra (in Confirmation Case No.2/2013); Pankaj @ Sonu @ Cheri s/o Sadashiv Rautkar (in Criminal Appeal No.332/2013); Dharamveer s/o Shriram Chouhan (in Criminal Appeal No.346/2013)
Dharamveer s/o Shriram Chouhan (in Confirmation Case); State of Maharashtra (in Criminal Appeals No.332/2013 and No.346/2013)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal confirmation case and appeals against conviction for murder and destruction of evidence
Remedy Sought
In Confirmation Case No.2/2013, the State seeks confirmation of the death sentence awarded to Dharamveer Chouhan; in Criminal Appeal No.332/2013, Pankaj @ Sonu Rautkar seeks acquittal; in Criminal Appeal No.346/2013, Dharamveer Chouhan seeks acquittal
Filing Reason
The accused were convicted by the trial court for the murder of Dhanshree Ramteke and for causing disappearance of evidence; accused no.1 was sentenced to death, triggering the confirmation case, and both accused filed appeals challenging conviction and sentence
Previous Decisions
The Sessions Court convicted both accused under Sections 302 and 201 IPC; accused no.1 Dharamveer Chouhan was sentenced to death and fine of Rs.2,000 (default simple imprisonment for 6 months); accused no.2 Pankaj @ Sonu Rautkar was sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1,000 (default simple imprisonment for 3 months) for murder, and both were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and fine of Rs.1,000 each (default simple imprisonment for 3 months) for the offence under Section 201 IPC
Issues
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the murder of Dhanshree Ramteke and disposed of her body, based on circumstantial evidence
Whether the conviction of accused no.2 was sustainable in law or was based on conjectures and surmises
Whether the death penalty awarded to accused no.1 was appropriate and fell within the rarest of rare category
Submissions/Arguments
For accused no.1: The prosecution failed to prove the incriminating circumstances and the complete chain of circumstances; the recovery of blood-stained clothes, the moped, and the rope was doubtful; the CDRs only showed that the accused and deceased were in the same tower area for less than a minute without proving the tower's range, making the evidence inconclusive; motive was not proved; conviction and sentence were unsustainable; reliance placed on Akhilesh Hajam v. State of Bihar and State of Maharashtra v. Raju Bhaskar Potphode.
For accused no.2: There was no evidence against him at all; the conviction was based solely on conjectures and surmises and was therefore unsustainable.
For the State: The prosecution proved all incriminating circumstances beyond reasonable doubt, and they were interwoven to establish guilt; recoveries were made on the accused's memoranda and the Chemical Analyser's report confirmed blood stains; CDRs showed accused no.1 called the deceased to accused no.2's house and the murder occurred there; the truck tyre used for burning was stolen from PW 11's shop; evidence of motive through witnesses showed the accused no.1 suspected infidelity; the murder was brutal and the body was burnt, making it a rarest of rare case warranting death penalty; reliance placed on several Supreme Court decisions including Bhagwan Dass v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Sunder v. State.
Ratio Decidendi
Ratio not explicitly mentioned
Judgment Excerpts
The CDRs show that on 14/8/2012 the accused no.1 and deceased Dhanshree were within the range of mobile tower No.38821.
It is further submitted that periphery of that tower not being brought on record, the said circumstance is also of no use to the prosecution.
No doubt, the panch witnesses have supported the prosecution case. It is pertinent to note that the memorandum of accused no.1 is said to have been recorded at 13.15 hours on 18/8/2012 and thereafter recovery of articles commenced from 14.05 hours till 16.30 hours.
Insofar as accused no.2 is concerned, memorandum is said to have been recorded at 13.35 hours on the same day and the proceedings for seizure commenced from 17.00 hours till 18.30 hours.
Procedural History
On 14/8/2012, deceased Dhanshree Ramteke left for tuition at 6.30 p.m. and did not return. A missing report was lodged by her maternal uncle Rajesh Dahat at Gittikhadan Police Station on the morning of 15/9/2012 (sic). Police discovered a half-burnt body on a truck tyre in Gorewada area and identified it as Dhanshree. An FIR was registered under Sections 302 and 201 IPC against unknown persons. During investigation, both accused were arrested and incriminating articles were recovered on their memoranda under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. A charge-sheet was filed in the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur, and the case was committed to the Sessions Court. The trial concluded with the conviction of both accused under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. Accused no.1 was sentenced to death, and accused no.2 to life imprisonment. The matter came before the High Court for confirmation of the death sentence and disposal of the two criminal appeals filed by the convicts.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 302, 201
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872: 27
