The State of Maharashtra and Others Vs Yuvraj and Others - Citation 1174399 - Court Judgment

Judgment:

S.S. Shinde, J.

1. In Sessions Case No.100 of 2012 the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon has awarded death sentence to the accused no.1 therein, the proceedings in the said case, have been therefore forwarded to this Court for confirmation under section 366 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The accused no.1-Yuvraj Kashinath Sabale and accused no.2- Pankaj Maruti Sandanshiv have also preferred an appeal, which was admitted by this Court and same is registered as Criminal Appeal No. 29 of 2014. So also accused no.3âMaheshkumar Rameshchandra Varma has also preferred an appeal, which was admitted by this Court and same is registered as Criminal Appeal No.21 of 2014. As all the matters are arising out of onejudgment, the arguments in these matters are simultaneously heard and we find it expedient to decide all these cases by common judgment. However, since the very conviction has been challenged by the convicts, the only proper course would be to first decide the Criminal Appeals so filed by the accused, for the reason that, only if the order of conviction is maintained by this Court, the further question will arise whether or not the death sentence awarded by the trial Court is sustainable and is to be confirmed or otherwise.

2. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel appearing for the accused in Criminal Appeal No. 29 of 2014 and Criminal Appeal No. 21 of 2014.

3. The factual matrix of the prosecution case in brief as stated before the Trial Court is as under :-

(i) Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari (hereinafter referred to as âdeceasedâ) was working as a Medical Officer in Civil Hospital, Jalgaon. Her husband Dr. Arvind Chaudhari (P.W.3), after retirement from Government service has joined Godavari Hospital, Jalgaon.They were residing together at Muktainagar, Jalgaon.

(ii) On 12.03.2012, Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari (The deceased) was on D.M.O. duty from 8 a.m. of 12.03.2012 till 8 a.m. of 13.03.2012. Dr. Arvind Chaudhari (P.W.3) dropped his wife at Civil Hospital, Jalgaon, in his car at about 8.30 a.m. and she worked in Civil Hospital till 1.00 p.m and came to her house for lunch. After having lunch with her husband, Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari told her husband that, she had to attend one function at 5 p.m in hotel Royal Palace, and she would go to function directly from hospital. Dr.Vijaya Chaudhari, on that day was wearing necklace, four gold bangles, two in each hand besides the routine ornaments. Dr. Arvind Chaudhari (P.W.3) dropped his wife at Civil Hospital in his car at about 2 p.m. and went away to attend his own work. He returned back to his house at about 7 p.m. He did not find his wife in the house and, therefore, he tried to contact her on mobile No.9822756324 at about 8 p.m., but mobile was switched off. As duty hours of deceased were to finish at 8.30 a.m. on 13.03.2012, Dr. Arvind Chaudhari (P.W.3) thought that his wife might be busy in hospital work. Therefore, he took meal and went to bed.

(iii) On 13.03.2012, Dr. Arvind Chaudhari (P.W.3) was waiting for his wife in his house till 9 a.m, but as she did not return to the house, he went to Civil Hospital, Jalgaon and made enquiry with R.M.O. Dr. Nitin Bharambe, who after making enquiry with hospital staff informed that Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari had conducted one postmortem at about 3 p.m. on 12.03.2012 and since then her whereabouts were not known. Pawan Jadhav (P.W. 9), who was working as sweeper in Civil Hospital and also assisting medical officers on postmorterm duty gave information that, Dr. Vijay Chaudhari had performed post-mortem of one female dead body at about 3 p.m. Dr. Arvind Chaudhari (P.W.3) thereafter proceeded to hotel Royal Palace in search of his wife as his wife was to attend one function there on 12.03.2014. He came to know that, his wife had not attended function at Royal Palace Hotel.

(iv) It is further case of prosecution that, Dr. Arvind Chaudhari (P.W.3) was taking search of his wife by making phone calls to his friends and relatives but he could not trace her. He promptly went to police station and filed missing report, which was recorded as Missing Report No. 20/2012 at about 10.05 a.m.

(v) It is further case of the prosecution that, accused No.1 Yuvraj was frequently visiting Civil Hospital. He was having two ambulances. He used to bring unidentified and unclaimed dead bodiesto Civil Hospital for post-mortem, and after completion of postmortemby medical officer in Civil Hospital, he was carrying dead bodies to crematory for disposal, and Municipal Corporation, Jalgaon was paying him Rs.300/- for disposal of one dead body. Accused No.2 Pankaj is brother-in-law of accused No.1 Yuvraj. Approver-Gulab (P.W.1) was also having one ambulance bearing No.MH-19-J-2387.

(vi) Dayaram Parshuram Sonawane (P.W.6) was appointed by Municipal Corporation, Jalgaon as sweeper in crematory at Neri Naka, and his job was to record names of deceased, who were cremated in crematory, in Municipal Register and supply the firewood to relatives of deceased for cremation. His son Kailas Sonawane (P.W.7) used to assist him in this work. His duty hours were round the clock and, therefore, both Dayaram (P.W.6) and Kailas (P.W.7) alongwith their family members were residing in the premises of crematory at Neri Naka (Vaikunthadham). As accused No.1 Yuvraj was frequently bringing dead bodies of unidentified persons after postmortem to crematory. He was well acquainted and known to Dayaram(P.W.6) and Kailas (P.W.7).

(vii) It is further the case of the prosecution that, on 14.03.2012 Dayaram Parshuram Sonawane (P.W.6) submitted application before Health Officer, Municipal Corporation, Jalgaon stating therein that, accused No.1 along with two more persons had come to crematory at about 4.30 p.m. on 12.03.2012 along with one dead body, at that time Manoj Bhaskarrao Patil (P.W.4), who was present there had made inquiry with accused no.1 about dead body, and accused No.1 disclosed him that dead body was of his grand mother. It is further case of the prosecution that, accused No.1 has cremated that dead body without giving details though he endorsed his signature on death register. He assured Dayaram Sonawane (P.W.6) that, he will give necessary information within 5 minutes, however, he went away without giving said information. In spite of attempts made by Dayaram Sonwane (P.W.6) to contact him, the accused No.1 did not provide information till 14.03.2012. He also did not take away the ash of dead body and same was lying on platform No.11.

(viii) A.S.I. Devidas Ahire (P.W.21) who was investigating missing complaint received tip off that, accused No.1, 2 and Gulab Bhagwani, the approver had cremated one dead body in crematory at Neri Naka. He immediately went to crematory and made enquiry with Dayaram Sonawane (P.W.6), and inspected death register maintained at crematory. He noticed that there was entry of death of one Sakharam Sabale at page No.027483, and some alteration was made in the column of gender of deceased. He made enquiry with Dayaram Sonawane. Dayaram told him that, accused No.1 had given information that, dead body was of his grand father. Police made enquiry with Mangalabai (P.W.2), the close relative of accused no.1 who gave information that accused No.1 had no relative by name Sakharam Sabale. This information provided important clue to Investigating Officer pointing needle of suspicion towards accused. Investigation then started in that direction. Therefore, Police staffwas deployed to trace the accused No.1. Accused no.1 and 2 were traced at village Paturda district Budhana in the house of father in law of accused No.1. They were brought to Jalgaon and arrested in Crime No. 53/2012 on 16.03.2012.

(ix) On the basis of interrogation of accused, A.S.I. Devidas Ahire (P.W.21) lodged complaint vide Exh.142. On the basis of that complaint, PSI Vishwas Shitre (P.W.20) attached to Zilla Peth Police Station registered crime against accused vide C.R. No. 53/2012 for offences punishable under Section 302, 307, 397, 120-B, 201 r.w. 34 of IPC. The investigation was handed over to P.I. Gaware (P.W.23). In personnel search of accused no.1 one receipt bearing No. 027483 in respect of cremation of Sakharam Sabale and one mobile handset bearing No.9372573532 recovered, which was seized in presence of panchas vide seizure panchanama Exhibitâ154.

(x) It is further case of the prosecution that, while in police custody. The accused No.1 Yuvraj offered to show spot where the dead body of Dr.Vijaya Chaudhari was cremated. His memorandum statement was recorded in presence of panchas vide Exh.99 and in pursuance of his statement, Investigating Officer along with accused No.1, other police staff and panchas proceeded to crematory at Neri Naka. The accused no.1 led policy party to platform No.11 of crematory at Neri Naka and disclosed the same as place where he disposed off the dead body of deceased. The said spot was inspected by policy in presence of panchas. Some human bones, ash, three clips of ladies purse, ladies wrist watch and coins, silver Jodave, anklet in buried condition were found on that plat form. These articles were seized vide recovery panchanama Exh.100. Further the Accused No.1 offered to show the spot where Dr.Vijaya Chaudhari was killed. His disclosure statement was recorded in presence of panchas vide panchanama Exh.100. In pursuance of the disclosure statement, he led police party and panchas to post-mortem room located in Civil Hospital, Jalgaon. The accused No.1 showed spot. The place shownby accused was inspected in presence of panch witnesses. Some blood stains were seen on the wall. So also one hair was found stuck up in the blood on the wall along with two more hairs. Two pieces of brickhaving blood stains were also seen in the postmortem room. Thosearticles were seized and sealed in presence of panchas vide recoverypanchanama Ex.102. Investigating Officer P.I. Gaware went to Neri Naka crematory and three registers which were seized in presence of panchas vide panchanama Ex.165.

4. In the course of further investigation, Investigating Officer P.I. Gaware (P.W.23) visited house of deceased on the same day and collected two hairs of deceased Vijaya Chaudhari which were stuck in the comb, and same were seized under panchanama Ex.56 in presence of panchas.

5. On 16.03.2012, police staff produced accused Gulab Bhagwani (who later on became approver). Clothes of accused no.1 and 2 were seized under panchanama (Ex. 155). On the same day i.e. on 16/03/2012, Investigating Officer P.I. Gaware (P.W.23) issued two letters to Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Jalgaon for medical examination of three accused (Ex.167 and 168). Medical Officer Dr. Suraj Wani (P.W.17) examined the accused and noticed injuries on the wrist of accused no.1. He accordingly issued medical certificate Ex.129. P.I. Gaware produced Pawan Jadhav (P.W.9) and Ashok Pawar (P.W.6) before Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jalgaon for recording their statement under section 164 of Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate recorded their statements.

6. On 19.03.2012, police produced accused No.3 Mahesh before Investigating Officer, who arrested him vide arrest panchanama Ex. 171. While in police custody, accused No.3âMahesh gave voluntary statement to produce the gold ornaments of deceased. He led police party and panchas to his house. From his house, he produced three gold bangles, four gold beads, one gold Pendant and gold Ear-rings (Karnafule) total 32.250 gms. Recovery panchanama was accordingly drawn by Investigating Officer in presence of panchas vide Ex.104. During further course of investigation, the Investigating Officer issued letter to Medical College, Dhule for examination of bones and ash seized from plot form No.11 vide letter dtd. 22.03.2012, which is at Ex. 172. He recorded statements of some of the witnesses. The seized articles were sent to C.A. Nashik in sealed condition along with forwarding letter Ex.126.

7. It was transpired during investigation that paternal uncle of accused No.1 namely Bhikari Ganesh Sabale died 20 years ago and his maternal grand father namely Shravan Tayade, died in the year 1986. Investigating Officer collected their death certificates, which are at Exh. 175 and 180 respectively.

8. On 17/05/2012, Investigating officer issued letter (Ex. 136) to Tahsildar, Jalgaon to arrange identification parade of seized jewellery. The Identification parade was organized by Tahsildar Deore (P.W.18) in which husband and son of deceased identified gold articles as that of deceased Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari. On 25/05/2012, letters were issued to Nodal Officer of Idea and Vodaphone company to furnish call detail reports in respect of cell phone of accused No.1 Yuvraj (Ex. 182). Nodal Officer Ravi Pardeshi (P.W.11) supplied necessary information vide Ex. 108 on 31/05/2012.

9. On 07/06/2012, nephew of accused Premlata (accused No.5) namely Nikhil Varma (P.W.13) produced one gold bangle weighing 9 gms. before Investigating Officer, which was seized in presence of panchas vide panchanama Ex.124.

10. After completion of investigation, Investigating Officer filed charge-sheet against accused Nos.1, 2, approver Gulab and accused No.4 Mahesh. Charge-sheet against accused No.5 was submitted later on.

11. As offence under Section 302, 397 and 201 of I.P.C. are exclusively triable by Court of Session, learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, committed the case to the Court of Sessions under section 209 of Cr.P.C.

12. It is further case of the prosecution that, during trial, one of the accused namely Gulab (P.W.1) sent a letter from Jail on 21/06/2012 (Ex.52) mentioning therein that, he was repenting of his sinful act and desirous to disclose entire incident. He requested Investigating Officer to produce him in the Court. He was accordingly produced before the Court on 05/07/2012. The Court has granted pardon to accused Gulab Bhagwani on condition of his making a full and true disclosure of whole of circumstances within his knowledge relating to offence and every other person concerned, whether as Principal or abettor in commission thereof.

13. Charge is framed against accused Yuvraj and Pankaj for offence under section 120-B, 302 r/w 120B, 397 r/w 120B, 201 r.w. 120B of I.P.C. and under section 411 r/w. Section 34 of IPC against accused Mahesh Varma and his wife Premlata Warma. All accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

14. The Additional Sessions Judge at Jalgaon on conclusion of trial held accused No.1 guilty of committing offence under Section 302 r/w 120B of I.P. Code and sentenced him to suffer death penalty. He is further held guilty of committing offence punishable under Section 120B of I.P. Code and sentenced to suffer death penalty. Accused Yuvraj is further held guilty of offence punishable under Section 201 r/w section 120B of I.P. Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years. Accused Yuvraj is also held guilty of offence punishable under Section 397 r/w section 120B of I.P. Code and he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years. Accused no.2âPankaj Maroti Sandanshiv is held guilty of offence punishable under section 302 r/w section 120-B of I.P. Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life. He is further held guilty of offence punishable under section 120-B of I.P. Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life. He is also held guilty of offence punishable under Section 201 r/w section 120-B of I.P. Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years. He is also held guilty of the offence punishable under section 397 r/w 120-B of I.P. Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years. The sentence of accused no.2 is directed to run concurrently. Accused no.3â Maheshkumar Rameshchandra Varma is held guilty of offence punishable under section 411 of I.P. Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years.

15. The trial Court referred the case to this Court for confirmation of death sentence of accused Yuvraj under Section 366 of Criminal Procedure Code.

16. It appears that, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has mainly relied upon the testimony of Approver Gulab (P.W.1) to convict the appellants-accused. The Additional Sessions Judge found the evidence of Approver-Gulab as fully reliable, trustworthy and acceptable. The Additional Sessions Judge held that, the evidence of Approver-Gulab is corroborated by independent witnesses. So also based the conviction on circumstantial evidence. It is observed by the Additional Sessions Judge that, each and every incriminating circumstances has been established by reliable and clinching evidence by the prosecution. The Additional Sessions Judge held that, even if the evidence of Approver-Gulab is kept aside and prosecution case is considered on the basis of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has proved its case independently on the basis of circumstantial evidence.

17. Since this is an appeal against conviction, we would like to reappreciate the entire evidence placed on record, so as to reach to the proper conclusion as to whether the reasons and findings recorded by trial Court are based upon proper appreciation of evidence on record and whether it calls for any interference in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. We have given careful consideration to the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. With their assistance we have perused the entire material placed on record.

18. It appears that, in order to prove guilt against accusedappellants, the prosecution has relied on the following circumstances:-

(i) Accused No.1 was frequently visiting Civil Hospital, Jalgaon and he was familiar with the atmosphere of Civil Hospital, and he was helping Medical Officer while doing postmortem and he was carrying dead bodies of unidentified and unclaimed person to Civil Hospital, and thereafter to cemetery.

(ii) on 12/03/2012 he was present in Civil Hospital, Jalgaon and he was helping Dr.Vijaya Chaudhari in conducting postmortem.

(iii) He has made phone call to deceased Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari and soon after, she had come.

(iv) There was practically no reason for accused No.1 to call Dr.Vijaya Chaudhari, as no unidentified deadbody was brought for postmortem.

(v) Dr.Vijaya Chaudhari was last seen with Accused No.1, 2 and approver Gulab (P.W.No.1).

(vi) After deceased Dr.Vijaya Chaudhari, was last seen with Accused No.1 and 2, within short span of time Accused No.1, 2 and approver were seen at crematory with one female dead body.

(vii) Dr.Vijaya Chaudhari was missing after the momentshe was last seen with the Accused.

(viii) Procrastination on the part of Accused No.1 to supply necessary information to municipal employee in respect of dead body he cremated with the help of other Accused and approver.

(ix) Accused No.1 gave wrong and false information twice to the Municipal Employee about the name of deceased and name that he had given is proved to be imaginary.

(x) There was human blood stains on the shirt of Accused No.1, when he was arrested.

(xi) Signatures of the Accused in Municipal Register while giving information in crematory and on the receipt Exhibit No.75 are proved by cogent evidence.

(xii) Knowledge of Accused about the two spots where deceased was murdered and where she was cremated.

(xiii) Accused No.1 sold gold ornaments to Accused Mahesh on the same day i.e. on 12/03/2012 after the incident and the same have been recovered from the house of Accused Maheseh proved beyond all reasonable doubt that Accused No.1, 2 and approver Gulab (P.W.No.1) have committed brutal murder of Dr.Vijaya Chaudhari in pursuance of conspiracy.

19. As per the prosecution case, the murder of Dr. VijayaChaudhari had taken place on 12th March, 2012 in between 3.45 p.m. to 4.15 p.m. in P.M. house situated in Civil Hospital at Jalgaon. It appears that, PW-3-Arvind Chaudhari husband of the victim lodged a Missing Report on 13th March, 2012. The said Missing Report is at Exhibit 53. Lateron, P.W.-3 Arvind Chaudhari lodged report on 13th March, 2012 with Zilla Peth Police Station, Jalgaon, on the basis of which Police registered offence and conducted further investigation.

20. Approver-Gulab (P.W.1) was original accused no.3, who was arrested on 16th March, 2012 and he was lodged in District Prison, Jalgaon. As per the prosecution case, on 21st June, 2012, the Approver wrote a letter to the Superintendent, Jalgaon District Prison stating therein that, he is an accused in an offence registered for commission of murder of Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari. He has full repentance about commission of offence, and he is ready to tell entiretruth, if produced before the Court. The said letter written by the Approver-Gulab is at Exhibitâ152. It appears that, he was produced before the Court. It further appears that, the concerned Investigating Officer filed application before the Sessions Court, Jalgaon accompanied with the copy of the letter (Exhibitâ152) written by Gulab. The trial Court considered the application of the prosecution and directed production of Gulab before the court on 5th July, 2012. Since the case was committed to the Sessions Court, the learned Additional Sessions Judge granted conditional pardon to accused Gulab after following procedure prescribed under Section 307 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

21. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/accused that, though the alleged offence had taken place on 12th March, 2012, the alleged letter written by approver â Gulab is on 21st June, 2012, is a result of pressure exerted on him by police machinery. It is submitted that, Gulab himself stated before the Court that, he is Sindhi and he studied upto 1st standard and also admitted that, he cannot read and write in Marathi, and therefore, inference can be drawn that, Exhibit-152 is not written by approver- Gulab. It is submitted that, if the original letter is perused, there is overwriting, in as much as, the date 21st is corrected as 29th. It is submitted that, no reasons have been brought on record by the prosecution that, why Gulab did not disclose his intention to become approver before the Court, though he was produced before the Court on 21st June, 2012 and 4th July, 2012 before learned Sessions Judge and couple of time before Magistrate. It is submitted that, the time gap from the alleged commission of offence and when approver was produced before the Court, so as to consider his prayer for becoming approver, requires serious consideration as it raises serious doubts in the mind that, whether Gulab was really intended to become approver or same is a result of force/pressure exerted by the Police Officers upon him to compel to make such application for becoming approver. It is submitted that, the contents of the letter at Exhibitâ152 if perused carefully, would make it clear that, the same are not written by Gulab. It is further submitted that, though Gulab was granted pardon on the conditions enumerated under section 306 and in particular, under section 306(4)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code but in breach of those conditions, he was released on bail pending trial by the Additional Sessions Judge. It is submitted that, as soon as evidence of approver-Gulab was over, he was released on bail. Subsequently his vehicle was also released pending trial. Therefore, according to the learned counsel appearing for the original accused the concession given and favour shown to Gulab during the pendency of trial more than sufficient to draw inference that, it was not voluntary act of Gulab to become approver and if at all he agreed to become approver, it was as a result of allurement and promise made to him. It is submitted that, the evidence of the approver is required to be considered carefully since he is benefited by becoming approver. It is submitted that, the provisions of section 133 of the Evidence Act are required to be read with provisions of section 114-B of the said Act. It is submitted that, the evidence of approver needs corroboration. The Supreme Court has taken consistent view in catena of judgments that, the approver's evidence needs corroboration as a rule of caution. It is submitted that, the evidence of approver is untrustworthy. So also for actual incident as alleged by the prosecution inside the P.M.house/mortuary, there is no corroboration to the testimony of approver-Gulab. The learned counsel in support of his contention that, the approver's evidence is required to be considered cautiously and also needs corroboration placed reliance on the Judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of (1) Baldev Singh Vs. State of Punjab (1979 AIR (SC) 1280), (2) Bhiva Doulu Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra (1963 AIR (SC) 599), (3) Mukhtiar Kaur Vs. State of Punjab (1980 AIR (SC)1871), (4) Balwant Kaur Vs. Union Territory Chandigarh (1988 AIR (SC) 139), (5) Rampal Pithwas Rahidas Vs. State of Maharashtra (1994(Supp.2) SCC 73), (6) Niranjansingh Vs. State of Punjab (1996 AIR (SC) 3254), (7) Shera Singh Vs. State of Punjab (1996 (10) SCC 330) and (8) Chandan Vs. State of Rajasthan(1988 AIR (SC) 599).

22. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant, invited our attention to the evidence as adduced by prosecution in support of its case. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor by referring the reasons and findings recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge in convicting the appellants contended that, the Additional Sessions Judge has rightly granted him pardon. It is submitted that, while considering the prayer for becoming approver under section 307 of Criminal Procedure Code, the Additional Sessions Judge is not bound to follow the procedure prescribed under section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code except sub-section (1) of the said section. In support of this contention, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor placed reliance on the decision of Apex Court in the case of A. Devendran V/s State of T.N.9. He further argued that, the evidence of approver needs no corroboration if it is otherwise found to be trustworthy. However, in the present case, there is ample corroboration to the testimony of approver and the same is rightly accepted by the Additional Sessions Judge. The counsel appearing for the complainant adopted the arguments advanced by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor placed reliance on judgments in the case of (1) Anuj Kumar 9. (1997) ((2013) 12 SCC 99)S.C.C. 720 Gupta @ Sethi Gupta V/s. State of Bihar (2013) 12 SCC 383), (2) Venkatesha V/s. State of Karnataka, (3) Sudevanand V/s. State through CBI (2012 AIR (SCW) 953), (4) Bangaru Laxman V/s. State [Through CBI] and another (2012) 1 SCC 500), (5) Prithipal Singh etc. V/s. State of Punjab and anr. (2012 AIR [SCW] 594), (6) Mrinal Das and Ors. V/s. State of Tripura (2011 (9) SCC 479), (7) K.Hashim V/s. State of T.N. (2005) 1 SCC 237), (8) State of T.N. V/s. Suresh and another (1998 Cri.L.J. 1416), (9) A.Deivendran V/s. State of T.N. (AIR 1998 SC 2821), (10) Ranjeet Singh and another V/s. State of Rajasthan (1988) 1 SCC 633), (11) G.S.Bakshi V/s. State [Delhi Administration] (AIR 1979 SC 569), (12) Madan Mohan Lal V/s. State of Punjab (AIR 1970 SC 1006), (13) Lal Bahadur and Ors. V/s. State [NCT of Delhi] (2013 (4) SCC 557), (14) State of Punjab V/s. Ramdev Singh (2004 (1) SCC 421), (15) Mani Kumar Thapa V/s. State of Sikkim (2002) 7 SCC 157), (16) Ram Gulam Chaudhary and others V/s. State of Bihar (2001) 8 SCC 311), (17) Vijay Kumar Arora V/s. State [Government of NCT of Delhi] (2010) 2 SCC 353), (18) Anthony D'souza and others V/s. State of Karnataka (2003) 1 SCC 259), (19) Joseph s/o. Kooveli Poulo V/s. State of Kerala (AIR 2000 SC 1608), (20) Chandrasekhar Sureshchandra Bhatt and others V/s.State of Mah. (2000) 10 SCC 582), (21) Earabhadrappa alias Krishnappa V/s. State of Karnataka (1983) 2 SCC 330), (22) Bachan Singh V/s. Union of India (1980 (2) SCC 684)and (23) Machhi Singh V/s. State of Punjab (AIR 1983 SC 957 (1).

23. In view of submission advanced as to overall evidence and trustworthiness of testimony of approver Gulab it is necessary to scrutinize his testimony in minute detail. As already observed, as per the prosecution case, the incident had taken place on 12th March, 2012. As per the version of approver on 12th March, 2012 itself, he left Jalgaon and went to Mumbai with one patient in his Ambulance. According to him on 12.03.2012 on and about 5 p.m. he received call for carrying one patient to Mumbai and accordingly, he picked up the patient from Ramanand Nagar, and drove his ambulance towards Mumbai who got admitted in Cama Hospital, Mumbai. The relatives of that patient requested him to stay at Mumbai for 2-3 days. On the next day, he went to Ratnagiri. He return back to Jalgaon in the evening of 16.03.2012. The moment he reached Jalgaon, he was arrested by Police. According to his version, though he had repentance of act committed by him from the date of commission of offence, he did not disclose his intention to tell true and correct facts and circumstances before the Court, till 05.07.2012. Upon careful consideration of Exhibit â 152 i.e. letter dated 21st June, 2012, there is visible overwriting appears to be made in said letter. So far date is concerned, it appears that, the original date 21st in (Marathi), is changed and by overwriting it is made as 29th (in English). It further appears that, the said letter is shown to be received by the Superintendent, Jalgaon District Prison in his office on 29th June, 2012. As per prosecution case, on the basis of the said letter, the application was filed on behalf of prosecution by the Investigating Officer under Section 307 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The contents of the said application being relevant and same are reproduced hereunder :-

â1] That the Police Inspector of local Crime Branch has filed the chargesheet against Accused Yuvraj Kashinath Sable and four others for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 307, 397, 420, 201 r/w. 34 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

2] It is revealed during the course of investigation that Accused Nos.1 to 3hatched criminal conspiracy before 12th March, 2012 at Jalgaon for committing the murder of Dr.Vijaya Arvind Chaudhari, who was working as a Medical Officer at Civil Hospital, Jalgaon, in order to robher gold ornaments and in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy,accused No.1 to 3 committed murder of Dr.Vijaya Chaudhari on 12/03/2012 in between 15.45 to 16.45 hours in the mortuary room ofthe Civil Hospital Jalgaon and robbed her gold ornaments and also disposed off her dead body by setting on fire in the graveyard by making false entries in the record of Jalgaon graveyard.

3] It is submitted that this case entirely rests on the circumstantialevidence as there is no direct evidence to the offence of criminal conspiracy and murder of Dr.Vijaya Chaudhari.

4] That on 4th July 2012, the Superintendent of Jalgaon District Prison sent the application of the Accused No.2 to the I.O. The Accused No.2 Gulab Bhagwani has written the application from Jalgaon Prison stating that he is repenting over the crime and he is ready to disclose the true and correct facts in respect of the commission of offence committed by him. In order to unearth the offence of criminal conspiracy and offence of murder, it is necessary to turn Accused No.2 Gulab Bhagwani as an approver, if he is ready and willing to disclose true and correct facts within his knowledge in relation to the commission of offence committed by him and others. The I.O. is herewith submitting the original application of the Accused No.2 along with the covering letter of the Jail Superintendent of Jalgaon Prison.

5] It is therefore, expedient to call the Accused No.2 Gulab Bhagwani before this Hon'ble Court and after making necessary enquiries with him and after perusing investigation papers, if the said Accused is ready to become an approver on the condition, that he would disclose full and true all facts within his knowledge relative to the offence committed by him and others then pardon may be tendered to him in the interest of justice.

6] Under these circumstances, the investigating officer submits that the evidence of said accused Gulab Pammandas Bhagwani as an approver is necessary in the ends of justice as it would help the prosecution to unfold the entire chain of circumstances right from hatching of thecriminal conspiracy to its execution and the role played by the coaccused in achieving the object of criminal conspiracy.â

24. After considering the abovereferred application, the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon was pleased to issue production warrant of the accused Gulab and directed the Investigating officer to produce him on 5th July, 2012. Accordingly he was produced before the Court on 05/07/2012.

25. Upon perusal of Exhibitâ53, it appears that, the statement of accused was recorded on 5th July, 2012 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon. His statement is recorded in Hindi. The contents of the said statement reads thus:-

âHINDIâ

26. It is true that, approver-Gulab in his evidence before the Court stated that, he cannot read and write Marathi. However, upon conjoint reading of the application filed by the Investigating Officer under Section 307 of Cr.P.C., order passed by the Court on said application and contents of Exhibit 53 i.e. statement of Gulab dated 5^th July, 2012 before the Court, in our view there is no legal infirmity or lacuna in it. The Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon has rightly considered the said application under Section 307 of Cr.P.C. While considering the said application, the mandate of provisions of Section306(1) Cr.P.C. appears to have been followed. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the original accusedthat, the procedure under section 306 sub-section (4)(a) Cr.P.C. has not been followed while considering the prayer for pardon, deserves no consideration.

27. It is true that, there is overwriting on letter dated 21^st June, 2012. It is also correct that, in examination-in-chief approver â Gulab stated that, he cannot read and write Marathi. It is not in dispute that, though as per the prosecution, Gulab started repenting since the date of incident, but he did not disclose the same till 21st June, 2012 either before the Investigating Officer or before the Court. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the accused requires due consideration as to whether, Gulab agreed to become approver due to allurement given by the State or otherwise.

28. Upon careful perusal of the contents or para 4 of the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon on 5th July, 2012 below Exhibit-07 i.e. an application filed by the State under section 307 of Cr.P.C., one of the condition imposed while granting pardon was that, approver Gulab shall be detained in prison until conclusion of the trial. However, it is a matter of record that, he was released on temporary bail after recording of his evidence before the Court and same was continued till conclusion of trial by passing orders time to time. The prosecution has rather given its no objection to continue the temporary bail granted. It is also matter of record that, his vehicle i.e. ambulance was also released before conclusion of trial. Therefore, it may be open for the learned counsel for the accused to argue that, due to allurement, original accused no.2 â Gulab agreed to become approver.

29. In our opinion, the procedure followed by the Sessions Court, Jalgaon while considering the application filed by the Investigating Officer under Section 307 of Cr.P.C. and passing the order thereon, is in conformity with the provisions of section 307 ofthe Cr.P.C. The Supreme Court in the case of A. Devendran V/sState of T.N.(1997) 11 SCC 720) in para 6 held thus:-

âIn view of the rival submissions, the first question that arises for consideration is whether the approvers evidence can at all be relied upon to bring home the charge against the accused persons? It is no doubt true that the very object of granting pardon to an accused is to unfold the truth in grave offence so that other accused persons involved in the offence could be brought home with the aid of the evidence of the approver. But all the same the legislative mandate as well as the safeguards enshrined in the provisions of the Code for the accused cannot be given a go-by merely because of gravity of the offence. With this background in mind it would be necessary to examine the provisions of the Code for testing the correctness of the rival submissions. Coming now to the question as to whether the Chief Judicial Magistrate could have at all granted pardon to the accused even after the committal of the proceedings to the Court of Session, the same would depend upon the interpretation of Sections 306 and 307 of the Code. A combinedreading of the aforesaid two provisions would indicate that under Section 306 power has been conferred upon the Chief Judicial Magistrate or a Metropolitan Magistrate as well as the Magistrate of the First Class to tender pardon to a person on condition of his making a full and true disclosure of whole of the circumstances within his knowledge relating to the offence. The only distinction between the two sets of Magistrates for exercise of their power lies at the stage when the power can be exercised. While a Magistrate of the First Class can exercise the power while enquiring into or trying the offence in question, the Chief Judicial Magistrate or a Metropolitan Magistrate can exercise the power at any stage of investigation or enquiry into or trial of the offence which they themselves may not be trying. But under Section 307 the power has been conferred upon the court to which the commitment is made to grant pardon. In other words once a proceeding is committed to a Court of Session then only the said Court can exercise power to tender pardon to an accused. Section 307 of the Code corresponds to Section 338 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1878. If the two provisions are examined in juxtaposition it would be clear that while under Section 338 of the old Code after commitment is made the Court to which the commitment was made could himself tender pardon to an accused or could order the committing Magistrate or the District Magistrate to tender pardon, but under Section 307 of the Code of 1973 the Court to whom commitment is made, no longer retains the power to order the committing Magistrate or the District Magistrate to tender pardon. In other words under Section 307 of the present Code after commitment of a case the only Court which can tender pardon is the Court to which the commitment has been made. It would be appropriate at this stage to extract Section 338 of the old Code and the corresponding provisions of Section 307 of the new Code:

â338. Power to direct tender of pardon.â At any time after commitment, but before judgment is passed, the Court to which the commitment is made may, with the view of obtaining on the trial the evidence of any person supposed to have been directly or indirectly concerned in, or privy to, any such offence, tender or order the Committing Magistrate or the District Magistrate to tender a pardon on the same condition to such person.â

â307. Power to direct tender of pardon.âAt any time after commitment of a case but before judgment is passed, the Court to which the commitment is made may, with a view to obtaining at the trial the evidence of any person supposed to have been directly or indirectly concerned in, or privy to, any such offence, tender a pardon on the same condition to such person.â

In view of the aforesaid change in the provisions it is difficult for us to accept the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the State that even under Section 307 after commitment of a case a Chief Judicial Magistrate retains the power to grant pardon. It may not be out of place to notice the recommendations of the Law Commission in its 41st Report in paragraph 24.23:

â24.23. Under Section 338, the Court of Session may at any time after commitment of the case, but before passing judgment, either tender pardon itself, or may âorder the committing Magistrate or the District Magistrate to tender pardon. Though this power is rarely resorted to by a Court of Session, it will be useful to retain the section. But in view of the abolition of the commitment proceedings the Court of Session need not be authorised to direct âthe committing Magistrate or any other Magistrate to tender pardon. The section may be revised to read as follows:

â338. At any time after commitment of a case but before judgment is passed, the Court of Session may, with the view to obtaining at the trial the evidence of any person supposed to have been directly or indirectly concerned in or privy to, any such offence, tender a pardon on the same condition to such person. â

The aforesaid section has now taken the place of Section 307 in the new Code. This indicates that in the changed circumstances the legislature thought it necessary to delete the expression âor order the committing Magistrate or the District Magistrate to tender a pardonâ from Section 307 of the present Code which was there in Section 338 of the previous Code. On a plain reading of the provisions contained in Sections 306 and 307 of the Code and on examining the changes that have been brought about by the legislature from the corresponding provisions of the old Code, the conclusion is irresistible that under the new Procedure Code of 1973 once a case is committed to the Court of Session then it is only that Court to which the proceedings have been committed can tender pardon to a person and the Chief Judicial Magistrate cannot be said to have concurrent jurisdiction for tendering pardonâ

30. In another authoritative pronouncement on this point in the case of Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary V/s State of Maharashtra (2000) 8 SCC 457), while considering the scope of Sections 306 and 307, the Supreme Court in paras 25 to 27 held thus :-

â25. In order to appreciate the submissions of the learned counsel a reference to Sections 306 and 307 CrPC is necessary. Section 306 provides:

â306. Tender of pardon to accomplice.â

(1) With a view to obtaining the evidence of any person supposed to have been directly or indirectly concerned in or privy to an offence to which this section applies, the Chief Judicial Magistrate or a Metropolitan Magistrate at any stage of the investigation or inquiry into, or the trial of, the offence, and the Magistrate of the First Class inquiring into or trying the offence, at any stage of the inquiry or trial, may tender a pardon to such person on condition of his making a full and true disclosure of the whole of the circumstances within his knowledge relative to the offence and to every other person concerned, whether as principal or abettor, in the commission thereof.

(2) This section applies toâ

(a) any offence triable exclusively by the Court of Session or by the Court of a Special Judge appointed under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952;

(b) any offence punishable with imprisonment which may extend to seven years or with a more severe sentence.

(3) Every Magistrate who tenders a pardon under sub-section

(1) shall recordâ

(a) his reasons for so doing;

(b) whether the tender was or was not accepted by the person to whom it was made, and shall, on application made by the accused, furnish him with a copy of such record free of cost.

(4) Every person accepting a tender of pardon made under sub-section (1) â

(a) shall be examined as a witness in the Court of the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence and in the subsequent trial, if any;

(b) shall, unless he is already on bail, be detained in custody until the termination of the trial.

(5) Where a person has accepted a tender of pardon made under sub-section (1) and has been examined under sub-section (4), the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence shall, without making any further inquiry in the case,â

(a) commit it for trialâ

(i) to the Court of Session if the offence is triable exclusively by that court or if the Magistrate taking cognizance is the Chief Judicial Magistrate;

(ii) to a Court of Special Judge appointed under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952, if the offence is triable exclusively by that court;

(b) in any other case, make over the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate who shall try the case himself.â

Section 307 provides:

â307. Power to direct tender of pardon.âAt any time after commitment of a case but before judgment is passed, the court to which the commitment is made may, with a view to obtaining at the trial the evidence of any person supposed to have been directly or indirectly concerned in, or privy to, any such offence, tender a pardon on the same condition to such person.â

A perusal of both the sections clearly indicates that Section 306 is applicable in a case where the order of commitment has not been passed and Section 307 would be applicable after commitment of the case but before the judgment is pronounced. The provisions of sub-section (4)(a) of Section 306 would be attracted only at a stage when the case is not committed to the Court of Session. After the commitment, the pardon is to be granted by the trial court subject to the conditions specified in sub-section (1) of Section 306, i.e., approver making a full and true disclosure of the whole of the circumstances within his knowledge relative to the offence and to every other person concerned, whether as principal or abettor, in the commission thereof. It may be noticed that under the old Code, only the District Magistrate had the power to tender pardon, at any stage of the investigation, inquiry or trial even though he himself might not be holding such inquiry or trial. Pardon could be granted by the District Magistrate even during the pendency of the trial in the Sessions Court. By the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952, old Sections 337 to 339 were substituted by Sections 306 to 308 of the Code of Criminal Procedure conferring the power to tender pardon only to Judicial Magistrates and the trial court. Section 307âin its present formâdoes not contemplate the recording of the statement of the approver twice as argued. Accepting the submissions made on behalf of the appellant would amount to legislate something in Section 307 which the legislature appears to have intentionally omitted.

26. In Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar this Court while dealing with the case where the approver was granted pardon by the committal court observed that every person accepting the tender of pardon made under sub-section (1) of Section 306 has to be examined as a witness in the Court of the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence and in the subsequent trial, if any. The examination of the accomplice in such a situation was held to be mandatory which could not be dispensed with. Referring to a Full Bench judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Kalu Khoda v. State this Court observed that: (SCC p.103, para 33)

âIf the said defect of not examining the approver at the committal stage by the committing Magistrate is rectified later, no prejudice can be said to be caused to an accused person and therefore the trial cannot be said to be vitiated on that account.â

27. There is no legal obligation on the trial court or a right in favour of the accused to insist for compliance with the requirement of Section 306(4) CrPC. Section 307 provides a complete procedure for recording the statement of an accomplice subject only to compliance with the conditions specified in sub-section (1) of Section 306. The law mandates the satisfaction of the court granting pardon, that the accused would make a full and true disclosure of the circumstances within his knowledge relative to the offence and to every other person concerned, whether as principal or abettor, in the commission thereof. It is not necessary to comply with the requirement of Section 306(4) when the pardon is tendered by the trial court. The trial court, in this case has taken all precautions in complying with the provisions of Section 306(1) before tendering pardon to the accused Raju, who later appeared as PW 2. We do not find any violation of law or illegality in the procedure for tendering the pardon and recording the statement of PW 2.â

31. Therefore, in the light of provisions of section 307 and the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of A. Devendra and Narayan (supra), in our opinion, there is no breach of provisions of law or illegality in adopting the procedure in tendering pardon and recording the statement of accused No.2 â Gulab, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon.

32. The next question posed for our consideration is as to whether release of approver Gulab on interim bail before conclusionof the trial in breach of condition i.e. he shall be detained in prison until conclusion of the trial, granting pardon would vitiate trial. The Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Chandra Bahri V/s State of Bihar (1995 Supp (1) SCC 80) while considering the scope of section 306(4)(a) Cr.P.C. held that, non-compliance of the procedure/conditions in said section would not vitiate the trial. In the facts of that case also the approver was released on bail after grant of pardon and similar contentions were raised. In para 34 of the said judgment, the Court has observed as under :-

â34. As regards the contention that the trial was vitiated by reason of the approver Ram Sagar being released on bail contrary to the provisions contained in clause (b) of subsection (4) of Section 306 of the Code. It may be pointed out that Ram Sagar after he was granted pardon by the learned Magistrate by his order dated 9-1-1985, was not granted bail either by the committing Magistrate or by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner to whose court the case was committed for trial. The approver Ram Sagar was, however, granted bail by an order passed by the High Court of Patna, Ranchi Bench in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 4735 of 1986 in pursuance of which he was released on bail on 21-1- 1987 while he was already examined as a witness by the committing Magistrate on 30-1-1986 and 31-1-1986 and his statement in sessions trial was also recorded from 6-9-1986 to 19-11-1986. It is no doubt true that clause (b) of Section 306(4) directs that the approver shall not be set at liberty till the termination of the trial against the accused persons and the detention of the approver in custody must end with the trial. The dominant object of requiring an approver to be detained in custody until the termination of the trial is not intended to punish the approver for having come forward to give evidence in support of the prosecution but to protect him from the possible indignation, rage and resentment of his associates in a crime whom he has chosen to expose as well as with a view to prevent him from the temptation of saving his one time friends and companions after he is granted pardon and released from custody. It is for these reasons that clause (b) of Section 306(4) casts a duty on the court to keep the approver under detention till the termination of the trial and thus the provisions are based on statutory principles of public policy and public interest, violation of which could not be tolerated. But one thing is clear that the release of an approver on bail may be illegal which can be set aside by a superior court, but such a release would not have any affect on the validity of the pardon once validly granted to an approver. In these circumstances even though the approver was not granted any bail by the committal Magistrate or by the trial Judge yet his release by the High Court would not in any way affect the validity of the pardon granted to the approver Ram Sagar.â

Therefore, in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Bahri, it cannot be said that, the trial is vitiated on account of granting bail to approver - Gulab, and releasing his vehicle before conclusion of trial.

33. So far contention raised by learned defence counsel as to release of vehicle i.e. Ambulance to approver Gulab during pendency of trial, to allure him to become approver, we are not inclined to accept this contention. The order of grant of interim custody is the order in routine passed by Courts of law. The order which was passed inf avour of approver Gulab being one of such order, no much weightage can be given to submission made in this regard.

34. Now the next question falls for our consideration iswhether the approver's evidence deserves acceptance without corroboration or same is necessary as a rule of prudence. The relevant provisions in that respect is section 133 of the Evidence Act of 1872, which reads thus :-

133. Accomplice â An accomplice shall be a competent witness against an accused person; and a conviction is not illegal merely because it proceeds upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice.â

Upon plain reading of provisions of section 133, it is true that, an accomplice is a competent witness against an accused person; and a conviction based upon his evidence cannot said to be illegal merely because it proceeds upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. However, by catena of decisions of the Supreme Court and various High Courts, it is settled principle that, the evidence of the approver requires to be considered carefully and alsoit needs corroboration. The Supreme Court in the case of Bhiva Doulu Patil V/s State of Maharashtra (1963 AIR (SC) 599), while considering Section 133 vis-a-vis S.114, illustration (b) of the Indian Evidence Act in para 7 held thus :-

â7. The combined effect of Ss.133 and 114, illustration (b) may be stated as follows:

According to the former, which is a rule of law, an accomplice is competent to give evidence and according to the latter which is a rule of practice it is almost always unsafe to convict upon his testimony alone. Therefore though the conviction of an accused on the testimony of an accomplice cannot be said to be illegal yet the Courts will, as a matter of practice, not accept the evidence of such a witness without corroboration in material particulars. The law may be stated in the words of Lord Reading C.J. In R. v. Baskerville 1916-2 KB 658 as follows:

âThere is no doubt that the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice is admissible in law (R. v. James Atwood, (1787) 1 Leach 464). But it has been long a rule of practice at common law for the judge to warn the jury of the danger of convicting a prisoner on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice, and in thediscretion of the Judge, to advise them not to convict upon such evidence, but the judge should point out to the jury that it is within their legal province to convict upon such unconfirmed evidence (R. v. Stubbs, (1855) Dears C C 555; in re, Meunier, 1894-2 Q. B. 415)â.

35. In another judgment in the case of Ram Narain V/s State of Rajasthan (1973) 3 SCC 805), the Supreme Court held thus:-

â19. We now turn to the charge of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B, I.P.C. as a separate and distinct offence independent of the offence under Section 467, I.P.C. No doubt in almost every case of conspiracy it is generally a matter of inference, direct independent evidence being seldom, if ever, forthcoming. But inferences are normally deduced from acts of parties in pursuance of apparent criminal purpose in common between them. Of such criminal acts the evidence in the case under appeal has not been accepted by us. The evidence of the approver (P.W. 1) who would of course be competent to prove the substantive charge of conspiracy, which has not been believed by us with respect to forgery is not easy to accept to the charge of conspiracy. His version with regard to it is far from convincing. Though he claims to have prepared 200 pattas and order sheets, evidence regarding only four was led and that too not trustworthy. Far the first time he disclosed the story to the police after arrest in expectation of help from them. On his evidence we corroborated as it is, the charge of conspiracy as framed cannot be sustained. We have, therefore, no option but to allow this appeal, quash the appellants conviction and acquit him.â

36. The view taken by the Supreme Court in the case of Bhiva Doulu Patil and Ram Narain (supra) has been reiterated and followed in the cases of (i) K. Hashim V/s State of T.N. (2005 SCC (Cri.) 292), (ii) M/s A.P. Steel Re-Rolling Mill Ltd., V/s State of Kerala and ors (AIR 2007 SC 797), (iii) Mrinal Das and others V/s State of Tripura (2011) 9 SCC 479), (iv) Suresh Chandra Bahri V/s State of Bihar (1995 Supp (1) SCC 80), (v) State of Maharashtra V/s Abu Salem Abdul Kayyum Ansari and others (2010) 10 SCC 179), (vi) Sitaram Sao alias Mungeri V/s State of Jharkhand. (2007) 12 SCC 630)

37. In the light of provisions of Sections 133 and 114B of the Indian Evidence Act and above referred judgments of the Supreme Court, the evidence of approver is not different than the evidence of any other witnesses except his evidence is to be looked with great suspicion. Consequently, in the event the suspicion which is attached to the evidence of accomplice is not removed, his evidence could not be acted upon unless corroborated in material particulars.

38. In the present case, the Additional Sessions Judge accepted the evidence of approver-Gulab as trustworthy, and relied upon the circumstantial evidence in corroboration of approver's evidence. Since the conviction is mainly based on testimony of approver and circumstantial evidence. It is necessary to reappreciate the entire evidence including the evidence of approver-Gulab. After pardon was granted to him, he became the witness for prosecution and examined as PW-1 vide Exhibit 49. In his evidence before the Court, he stated that, he studied upto 1st standard. He is working as driver since 10 years. He has also stated registration number of the Omni ambulance owned by him as well as the usual parking place of his ambulance. He stated that, he know the accused Yuvraj Kashinath Sable. He identified the said accused, who was present before the Court. He further stated that, accused no.1 i.e. Yuvraj owns two ambulances. He has stated numbers of said ambulances and Maruti Omni. He further stated that, the accused no.1 used to assist all the formalities after P.M. He also used to carry the unidentified dead bodies after P.M. to the graveyard for burial and Jalgaon Municipal Corporation used to pay Rs. 300/- for carrying one dead body to accused no.1. He further stated that, he know accused no.2 Pankaj. He identified the said accused in the Court. He stated that, the accused no.2 drive the vehicle of accused no.1 and he is also brother-in-law of the accused no.1. He further deposed that, he know Dayaram Sonawane (PW-6) and Kailas Sonawane (P.W.7). Both are Municipal employees and attend the crematorium and used to take entry in the Municipal register about the funeral or burial of the dead bodies. He stated that, Kailas is the son of Dayaram.

39. He further stated that, victim was doctor by profession and she used to conduct P.M. in Civil Hospital, Jalgaon and she is not alive. He stated his mobile handset bearing No. 9890220086 and mobile handset belonged to accused no.1 Yuvraj is 9372573532. He further stated that, on 12th March, 2012, he received a call from mobile of accused no.1 Yuvraj in between 4.00 to 4.30 p.m. Yuvraj asked him to come to Jalgaon Civil Hospital for carrying one dead body. He told Yuvraj that, he is having his two vehicles still why he want his ambulance. Yuvraj told him that, one of his vehicles was out of order, and therefore, same was sent to garage and one is out of station. He further stated that, he went to Civil Hospital Jalgaon along with his ambulance. When he reached near tea stall infront of Civil Hospital, he saw Pawan (PW-9), Ashok (PW-5) and Sachin there. Pawan gave him signal to stop there. He stopped his vehicle there. Then he told him that, he was to carry one dead body as he was asked by accused no.1 â Yuvraj. He took his vehicle in reverse direction. He took his vehicle infront of P.M. room. He parked his vehicle there and got down from the vehicle. Accused no.1 â Yuvraj came near him and told that, âAaj Apneko Ek Game Karna Haiâ. Yuvraj told him that, Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari was wearing jewelery weighing about 10 to 12 Tola and they have to snatch the jewelery. Accused Yuvraj further told him that, he is highly indebted and he has to discharge the loan. He asked Yuvraj how Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari would give her jewelery to him. Yuvraj told him that, we will kill Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari in P.M. room. Yuvraj told him that, after killing Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari, her dead body would be wrapped in the cloth and the covered dead body would be put in his ambulance as glasses of ambulance were covered by dark black film. Accused no.1 told him that, due to dark black film nothing inside the ambulance would be visible from outside. After disclosing the plan by the accused no.1 to this witness, he agreed to help accused no.1.

40. According to P.W.1-Gulab after some time, Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari came to P.M. room. P.M. House consists of four rooms. It is called as P.M. house or P.M. room. Dr.Vijaya Chaudhari was wearing blue coloured Saree. She was having white Purse. She was wearing gold Necklace and gold Bangles. He further deposed that, Dr.Vijaya Chaudhari entered into P.M. house. Accused No.1 Yuvraj followed Dr.Vijaya Chaudhari and he himself and accused No.2 Pankaj followed Yuvraj. Pankaj closed the door of p.m. house from inside. At that time, beside him accused Nos.1 and 2 and Dr.Vijaya Chaudhari were only present in p.m. house. Dr.Vijaya Chaudhari asked Accused No.1 Yuvraj as to where the dead body was. Accused No.1 Yuvraj replied that, the dead body was lying in the adjoining room. She entered in the next room. They were at a distance of 5 to 6 ft. from her. There was no dead body in the room. One brick was lying near the door. Accused No.1 picked up that brick and gave a blow of the brick on the head of Dr.Vijaya Chaudhari from behind. Blood was coming out from the injury of Dr.Vijaya Chaudhari. Dr.Vijaya Chaudhari asked Yuvraj as to what he was doing. At the same time, Accused No.1 Yuvraj caught hold of the neck of Dr.Vijaya Chaudhari and he hit the head of Dr.Vijaya Chaudhari on the wall 2 to 3 times. Dr.Vijaya Chaudhari then fell down. Accused No.1 Yuvraj sat on the chest of Dr.Vijaya Chaudhari. He was pressing the throat of Dr.Vijaya Chaudhari. While doing so, he called Accused No.2 Pankaj. He asked Accused No.2 to hold the hands of Dr.Vijaya Chaudhari. Accused No.2 Pankaj then caught both the hands of Dr.Vijaya Chaudhari. Quickly thereafter he called this witness. He asked this witness to catch hold of the legs of Dr.Vijaya Chaudhari. He caught both the legs of Dr.Vijaya Chaudhari. At that time, Accused No.1 Yuvraj was pressing the throat of Dr.Vijaya Chaudhari. Dr.Vijaya Chaudhari then died. He further deposed that, accused No.1 Yuvraj removed the Necklace and two Bangles from the person of Dr.Vijaya Chaudhari and he put them in his pocket. He took one cloth from p.m. room and he wrapped the dead body of Dr.Vijaya Chaudhari with the help of this witness and Accused No.2 Pankaj. Then they put the dead body of Dr.Vijaya Chaudhari in his Ambulance. He was sitting on driver seat of ambulance. At that time, Accused No.1 Yuvraj asked Accused No.2 Pankaj to proceed further till he closes the door of p.m. room. Then he drove his vehicle up to the gate of Civil Hospital. Pankaj was sitting in the vehicle near him. He stopped his Ambulance near the gate and at that point of time Accused No.1 came there. They saw Pawan, Ashok and Sachin near the tea stall, situated in front of the Civil Hospital. Accused No.1 also boarded in the Ambulance and they proceeded towards the graveyard, situated near Neri Naka. Accused no.1 asked them to go to the graveyard at Neri Naka. It took 15 minutes to reach at the graveyard at Neri Naka.

41. He further deposed that, when they reached the graveyard, the Municipal employees Dayaram Sonawane and Kailas Sonawane came to them along with the register. Kailas Sonawane asked Yuvraj whether the dead body was of male or female. Accused No.1 told him that it was the dead body of female. Then Kailas asked the name of the deceased to accused No.1 Yuvraj. Accused No.1 hesitated. He told Kailas that, he was not recollecting the name of the deceased and the necessary papers about the deceased would be reached there very soon. He also told him that, the deceased was his grandmother. Kailas was filling up the form on the information given by Accused No.1 Yuvraj. At that point of time, one other dead body was brought to the graveyard. 10 to 15 persons had brought that dead body. Then Kailas Sonawane and Dayaram Sonawane went there to enquire about the other dead body. At that time, Accused No.1 Yuvraj put his signature on the register in presence of this witness. He identified his signature. He identified the said register as the same and also the original Entry No.02783 bears signature of Accused No.1 Yuvraj, which was made in his presence. He identified the signature of Accused No.1 at Exhibit No.50.

42. He further deposed that, the dead body of Dr.VijayaChaudhari was completely wrapped by the cloth from the head to toe. The position of the dead body in packed condition was same till the dead body was reached at the graveyard. They put the dead body at the Platform No.11 of the graveyard. Accused No.1 then asked this witness and accused No.2 Pankaj to bring some more pieces of fuel wood. Then this witness and accused No.2 Pankaj gave the pieces of wood to accused No.1 Yuvraj, who was arranging the pyre. There was kerosene Can lying there. Accused No.1 poured kerosene on the pyre. There was one other pyre burning. Accused No.1 took one burning wood from that pyre and set the pyre of Dr.Vijaya Chaudhari on fire. Then all of them washed their hands and legs. At that time, Accused No.1 saw some blood stains on the Platform No.11. Then he took the water bottle and washed these blood stains. Thereafter, they came out of the graveyard and sat in Omni Ambulance of this witness. He drove the Ambulance to Pande Chowk. Accused Nos.1 and 2 got down at Pande Chowk. Accused No.1 Yuvraj gave him Rs.5,000/-. At the same time, he was receiving some calls for carrying one patient to Mumbai. Then he picked up the patient from Ramanand Nagar and he drove his Ambulance towards Mumbai and admitted the patient in Cama Hospital, Mumbai. The relatives of patient asked him to stay at Mumbai for 2 to 3 days. On the next day, he went to Ratnagiri along with one patient. He brought the patient at Ratnagiri and returned back to Jalgaon in the evening of 16/03/2012. The moment he reached to Jalgaon he was caught by Police.

43. It further appears that, on 20th November, 2012 his examination-in-chief was continued and some leading questions were put to this witness by Public Prosecutor. The questions and answers, as appearing in his evidence before the Court, are as under :-

Question: What was the reason for Accused No.1 Yuvraj asking Pankaj to catch the hands of Dr.Vijaya Chaudhari and myself to catch the legs of Dr.Vijaya Chaudhari when he was sitting on the breast of Dr.Vijaya Chaudhari?

âAnswer: The reason is that Dr.Vijaya Chaudhari was struggling and in order to overpower her he asked us as above.

Question: How many gold Bangles Dr.Vijaya Chaudhari was wearing in that time?

Answer: She had four gold Bangles in her hands. There were two Bangles in each hand.

Question: How many Bangles Yuvraj took out from the hands of Dr.Vijaya Chaudhari?

Answer: Four Bangles.â

44. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued that, the objection was raised during recording of evidence of PW-1 approver-Gulab about asking him leading questions by the Public prosecutor. Inspite of such objection, the Sessions Court permitted the Public Prosecutor to put leading questions in the chief examination, which caused prejudice to the interest of the accused. It appears that, such leading questions were asked by the Public Prosecutor so as to correct the earlier statement of approverâGulab during recording of the evidence that, accused no.1âYuvraj removed the necklace and two bangles from the person of deceased and he put them in his pocket. In fact, it appears from the questions at serial Nos.2 and 3 by the Public Prosecutor to approver Gulab that, the prosecutor wanted to bring on record through the statement of approver-Gulab that, at the relevant time, Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari was wearing four gold bangles in her hands. Public Prosecutor did ask the approver Gulab that, how many bangles Yuvraj took out from the hands of Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari to which PW-1 replied âfour Banglesâ. Said question was asked so as to correct earlier version of Gulab that, Yuvraj removed two bangles from the person of the deceased. In this context is useful to refer the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Varkey Joseph V/s State of Kerala (1993 Supp (3) S.C.C.745) in paras 10 and 11 held as under :-

â10. The most startling aspect we came across from the record is that the criminal trial was unfair to the appellant and the procedure adopted in the trial is obviously illegal and unconstitutional. The Sessions Court in fairness recorded the evidence in the form of questions put by the prosecutor and defence counsel and answers given by each witness. As seen the material part of the prosecution case to connect the appellant with the crime is from the aforestated witnesses. The Sessions Court permitted even without objection by the defence to put leading questions in the chief examination itself suggesting all the answers which the prosecutor intended to get from the witnesses to connect the appellant with the crime. For instance, see the evidence of PW 1, âThen I saw Jose (appellant) coming from the north and going towards southâ. Did you notice his dress then? Yes. He had worn a white Dhoti â¦ Did you notice his Dhoti? Yes. I had seen two or three drops of blood on his Dhoti. Suddenly I had a doubtâ. Similarly PW 4 also at that time âDid anyone from Ramanattu House come for tea? Yes. Jose came. When did Jose came to have tea? I do not remember â¦ Did Jose come on the previous day. Yes came about 6 p.m. in the evening. Did he say anything? He brought a bag and said let it be here I shall take this bag after some time â¦ What was the dress of the accused when he came to the shop? He was wearing white Dhoti and tied a cloth on his hand. Have you noticed anything particular on the Dhoti? Noâ. Similar leading questions were put to other witnesses also to elicit on material part of the prosecution case in the chief examination itself without treating any of the witnesses hostile. Section 141 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 defined leading question to mean âany question suggesting the answer which the person putting it wishes or expects to receive, is called a leading questionâ. Section 142 provides leading questions must not, if objected to by the adverse party, be asked in an examination-in-chief, or in a re-examination, except with the permission of the court. The court shall permit leading questions as to matters which are introductory or undisputed, or which have, in its opinion, been already sufficiently proved. Section 143 envisages that leading questions may be asked in cross-examination. Section 145 gives power to cross-examine a witness as to previous statements made by him in writing or reduced into writing, and relevant to matters in question, without such writing being shown to him, or being proved; but if it is intended to contradict him by the writing, his attention must, before the writing can be proved, be called to those parts of it which are to be used for the purpose of contradicting him.

11. Leading question is one which indicates to the witnesses the real or supposed fact which the prosecutor (plaintiff) expects and desires to have confirmed by the answer. Leading question may be used to prepare him to give the answers to the questions about to be put to him for the purpose of identification or to lead him to the main evidence or fact in dispute. The attention of the witness cannot be directed in chief examination to the subject of the enquiry/trial. The court may permit leading question to draw the attention of the witness which cannot otherwise be called to the matter under enquiry, trial or investigation. The discretion of the court must only be controlled towards that end but a question which suggests to the witness the answer the prosecutor expects must not be allowed unless the witness, with the permission of the court, is declared hostile and crossexamination is directed thereafter in that behalf. Therefore, as soon as the witness has been conducted to the material portion of his examination, it is generally the duty of the prosecutor to ask the witness to state the facts or to give his own account of the matter making him speak as to what he had seen. The prosecutor will not be allowed to frame his questions in such a manner that the witness by answering merely âyesâ or ânoâ will give the evidence which the prosecutor wishes to elicit. The witness must account for what he himself had seen. Sections 145 and 154 of the Evidence Act are intended to provide for cases to contradict the previous statement of the witnesses called by the prosecution. Sections 143 and 154 provide the right to crossexamination of the witnesses by the adverse party even by leading questions to contradict answers given by the witnesses or to test the veracity or to drag the truth of the statement made by him. Therein the adverse party is entitled to put leading questions but Section 142 does not give such power to the prosecutor to put leading questions on the material part of the evidence which the witness intends to speak against the accused and the prosecutor shall not be allowed to frame questions in such a manner to which the witness answer merely âyesâ or ânoâ; but he shall be directed to give evidence which he witnessed. The question shall not be put to enable the witness to give evidence which the prosecutor wishes to elicit from the witness nor the prosecutor shall put into witnesss mouth the words which he hoped that the witness will utter nor in any other way suggest to him the answer which it is desired that the witness would give. The counsel must leave the witness to tell unvarnished tale of his own account. Sample leading questions extracted hereinbefore clearly show the fact that the prosecutor led the witnesses to what he intended that they should say on the material part of the prosecution case to prove against the appellant which is illegal and obviously unfair to the appellant offending his right to fair trial enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution. It is not a curable irregularity.â

Therefore, in the light of authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court in the case of Varkey Joseph, the trial Court should not have permitted the Public Prosecutor to put such leading questions to the approver â Gulab in his examination-in-chief, which certainly caused the prejudice to the interest of the accused. So also it has reflection over the conduct of fair trial by the trial Court.

45. PW-1 further deposed that, he can identify the bangles and necklace, which were on the person of victim. He was shown four bangles. He identified the same as same bangles, which were on the person of deceased Vijaya Chaudhari on the date of incident.

He further deposed that, there were blood stains appearing in the Ambulance. After washing the place of platform where blood stains were seen, the accused Yuvraj came to the Ambulance and cleaned and washed the spot in the Ambulance where blood stains were appearing. In his evidence, he made reference to his letter through Jail Authority on 21.06.2012 addressed to Investigating officer. He was feeling repentance of his evil act. He further stated that, Exhibit â 52 i.e. letter is in his own handwriting. He further stated that, he wanted to become approver and he agreed the terms put up by the Court.

46. It further appears that, this witness was cross examined by the Advocate of accused no.1. He specifically admitted that, he cannot speak and write Marathi. Therefore, there is specific admission in the cross-examination by this witness that, he cannot speak and write Marathi. He stated in his cross-examination that, he does not know whether, dead body can be moved from P.M. House after P.M. without receiving receipt in that regard. He further stated that, Pawan (PW-9) and Suklal are appointed by Civil Hospital to assist in postmortem. He further stated that, there is one more gate/door to P.M. House. He further voluntarily deposed that, there are three other doors inside postmortem house. He further stated that, he does not know whether postmortem of one lady Vispute was conducted in P.M. House on 12th March 2012. Before coming to Civil hospital on 12th March, 2012, he was present at his house. He reached to the hospital within 10 minutes. He reached to the hospital at about 4.30 p.m. His statement was recorded by the Police on 16/03/2012 at about 6.00 to 6.15 p.m.

He further stated that, he returned to Jalgaon from Ratnagiri at about 6.15 p.m. on 16th March, 2012 and Police arrested him from his house. He stated before the police that, he returned to Jalgaon in the morning and he was arrested in the evening. According to him, he did give information to the police on his own without enquiry by police. He further stated that, he could not tell any reason as to why Police had mentioned about making enquiry with him in the first line of his statement. During his police custody, he did not express his desire to become approver. He was knowing that, he was accused for the offence under Section 302 of I.P. Code. He further stated that, he has not committed any offence much less the murder of Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari. He further stated that, he is not made approver on the instance of police. He denied other suggestions given by the defence that, he did not follow Yuvraj in the P.M. House and did not catch the legs of Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari at the instance of accused no.1. Other suggestions are also denied by him. He stated that, he identified the bangles of victim on the basis of its design.

47. He was cross examined by the Advocate of accused no.2. He stated that, the letter dated 21st June, 2012 is in Marathi. He stated that, he can write poor Marathi. He was further cross examined by the Advocate of the accused nos. 3 and 4. He admitted that, on 19.11.2012 he stated about only two bangles before the Court. However, he mean to say that, two bangles in each hand.

48. In view of the order below Exhibit â 145, this witness was recalled for cross examination by the Advocate for the accused no.1. He stated that, he has studied in Sindhi school. His mother tongue is Hindi. On 12.03.2012, he carried patient to Mumbai. He reached Ratnagiri on 14.03.2012 in the morning. After dropping patient at Ratnagiri, he returned back to Jalgaon on 15.03.2012 in the evening. He denied the suggestion that, he went to Vaikunthdham at Neri Naka, Jalgaon on 14.03.2012 at about 8 p.m. He further stated that, he was arrested, produced before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class on the next day. He deposed further that, he was wearing the same dress when he went to Mumbai and returned back to Jalgaon via Ratnagiri. When he was produced before the Court, the same clothes having blood stains were on his person. His clothes were seized at the same time. He specifically stated that, it did not happen that, he came to Jalgaon on 16.3.2012 in the morning and he was arrested on 16.03.2012 in the evening. While replying the questions i.e. did it happen that on 16.03.2012, you were arrested?, he stated that, he was arrested but he is not sure about the date. He received phone call on 12th March, 2012 at about 4.30 p.m. Again it is deposed that, it might be between 4.00 to 4.30 p.m. He reached to the hospital within five minutes of receiving phone call. Civil Hospital is at a distance of half kilometer from his house. He took his vehicle in the hospital at about 4.00 to 4.30 p.m. He stated that, he does not recollect the exact timing. He further stated that, Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari came to the hospital within five minutes, when he reached there. It did not happen that, he saw Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari going out of the hospital at about 4.00 to 4.15 p.m. It did not happen that Pawan, Sachin and Ashok came to Postmortem room at about 4.00 p.m. He specifically stated that, from the next date of incident he was feeling repentance. He did not personally requested the Magistrate at the time of his production about his feeling of repentance. He disclosed before Jailer about his health and feeling of repentance. He issued a letter on 21.06.2012. Other suggestions given by defence are denied by him.

49. The learned counsel appearing for the accused at the cost of repetition would submit that, approver â Gulab has studied upto 1st standard. He cannot speak or write Marathi, and therefore, the letter dated 21st June, 2012 was not written by him. It is further submitted that, PW-1 is got up witness. If he was feeling repentance from 2nd day of incident, he had occasion to tell before the Court when he was produced before Magistrate for remand from 17.03.2012 onwards and as well as before Sessions Court after committal of case. Nobody prevented him from disclosing the same before the Court. According to the learned counsel, the accused-PW-1 was given assurance by the prosecution that, he will be exonerated from the case, if he becomes approver and accordingly he was released on bail and his vehicle was also released before conclusion of the trial in breach of the conditions imposed while accepting his prayer to become approver. Though the learned Additional Public Prosecutor at the cost of repetition submitted that, the act of Gulab to become approver was voluntary and same is reflected in his letter dated 21^st June, 2012 at Exhibit â 52 and also his statement before the Court on 5th July, 2012 in Hindi at Exhibit-53. We are not inclined to accept the same after considering the evidence of PW-1 Gulab before the Court and the conditions imposed while granting pardon. One thing is clear that, PW-1 was not conversant with Marathi. He has clearly stated before the Court that, he cannot speak or write Marathi. It is also matter of record that, he was released on temporary bail and same was continued time to time till conclusion of trial and prosecution has not objected the same. Therefore, there is some substance in the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the accused that, there was some influence by the police machinery to get the said statement extracted from the approver by assuring him certain favour though the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the accused that, the trial vitiated on account of breach of conditions of pardon cannot be accepted in the light of discussion in foregoing para 37.

In order to properly appreciate the evidence of PW-1, it is necessary to refer the evidence of PW-11 Ravi Khemraj Pardeshi, who was working as Circle Officer of Vodaphone Cellular Limited at Pune for Maharashtra and Goa Region, and who was examined as witness to prove and bring on record phone calls received on the cell phone of the deceased as well PW.1. On 12.03.2012, in his evidence before Court, he stated that, mobile number 09372573532 belonged to their company. As per record of the company, the said mobile number is allotted to Yuvraj Kashinath Sabale the accused No.1. Same was prepaid card. He produced the original application form submitted by the accused Yuvraj to enroll as subscriber of their company, which is at Exhibit-106. He further deposed that, on 25th May, 2012, his office received a letter from D.S.P. Office, Jalgaon seeking call detail report, customer application form and all the necessary information in respect of mobile number 09372573532, which is at Exhibit-107. He further stated that, he personally collected all the information as per the letter also downloaded call details in respect of said mobile number from the server. He sent all the information including call details duly certified as per law to D.S.P. Jalgaon. The call details report is at Exhibit-108. He further deposed that, âas per Exhibit 108/1â the call was made on 12th March, 2012 from mobile Nos.09372573532 to 09822756324 at 15:44:31 and the call duration is 17 second. On the same day there was a outgoing call from Mobile Nos.09372573532 to 09890220086 at 16:22:20 and the call duration is 21 second. His evidence is at all not shattered in the cross-examination.

50. It has come on record that, mobile no.09372573532 belonged to ccused no.1 Yuvraj. The prosecution has also brought on record through testimony of PW-3 that, cell number 09822756324 was as that of deceased. PW-1 (Gulab) stated in his evidence before Court that, his cell number as 9890220086. Upon perusal of the evidence of PW-11 it appears that on 12th March, 2012 from mobile no. 0972573532 (belonged to accused no.1 Yuvraj), there was call on mobile no. 09822756324 (belonged to deceased) at 15:44:31 and the call duration was 17 second. It means the accused Yuvraj called deceased from his cell number to her cell number at 15:44:31 hours on 12th March, 2012 and on the same day, there was outgoing call from mobile no. 09372573532 to 09890220086 at 16:22:20 and call duration is 21 second. Thus, it is crystal clear from the evidence of PW-11 that, there was a call from the cell phone of the accused No.1 to the deceased at 15:44:31 and the call duration is 17 second and there was also call to PW-1 approverâGulab from the cell phone of accused no.1 Yuvraj at 16:22:20 and call duration is 21 second.

51. Upon careful perusal of the findings recorded by the trial Court, it appears that, the trial Court has completely ignored the timings stated by the prosecution witnesses. While appreciating the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the trial Court ought to have duly considered the timings of phone calls stated by the prosecution witnesses. As per the evidence of PW-11, the deceased received call from accused no.1 on 15:44:31 hours and PW-1 Gulab on 16:22:20 hours on the date of alleged incident. It is the prosecution case that, call which was made by Yuvraj from his cell phone to deceased was for calling Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari to P.M. House for postmortem of unidentified body and accordingly, she i.e. victim went to the P.M. House. As per the prosecution case, as disclosed by PW-1 in his evidence, he received call on his cell phone from Yuvraj at 16:22:20 and at that time he was in his house, which is at a distance of one and half kilometer from the said hospital. After receiving call he reached to the hospital within 5 to 10 minutes. Therefore, as per the evidence brought on record by prosecution, Gulab (P.W.1) reached in Hospital at about 4.30 p.m. PW-1 Gulab has stated that, he got down from the vehicle, Yuvraj came to him. He told him that, âAaj Apneko Ek Game Karna Haiâ. However, PW-1 did not understand what is mean by âAaj Apneko Ek Game Karna Haiâ and therefore, he did ask accused Yuvraj that, how Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari will give jewelery to him. Then Yuvraj told him that, they would kill her. Accused Yuvraj told PW-1 that, Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari is wearing jewelery of 10 to 12 Tola and they have to snatch jewelery. The reason for snatching the said jewelery as stated by accused â Yuvraj to the PW-1 was that, Yuvraj was highly indebted and he has to discharge the loan. According to the prosecution case, the motive behind murder of Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari was to snatch 10 to 12 Tola gold on her person. As told by Yuvraj to PW-1, Yuvraj was highly indebted and he has to repay the loan, and therefore, he wanted to snatch the jewelery from the person of Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari. Upon perusal of the entire evidence placed on record by the prosecution, there is nothing on record to show that, the prosecution has discharged its burden by adducing any evidence to show that, the accused Yuvraj was highly indebted. The prosecution proceeded to prosecute the accused with the aid of Section 120B of the I.P. Code coupled with other sections.

52. In the present case, it was necessary for the prosecution to bring on record some evidence showing that accused Yuvraj was indebted and he hatched criminal conspiracy with PW-1 to snatch jewelery so as to discharge the loan. It has come on record that, accused Yuvraj is owner of two vehicles. Therefore, in absence of any evidence placed on record that, accused No.1 (Yuvraj) was indebted and he hatched conspiracy with other two accused and in particular Gulab, to kill the deceased Dr.Vijaya Chaudhari, it will have to be held that, the prosecution failed to establish motive on the part of accused for commission of offence.

53. It is also difficult to believe the prosecution case that, as soon as PW-1 reached to the Civil Hospital, Yuvraj disclosed his plan to kill Dr. Chaudhari, and PW-1 Gulab readily agreed to kill her. The prosecution story itself appears to be highly improbable. Even according to evidence of PW-1, there was no specific agreement as such in between him accused arrived at to share the amount, which would be received, after snatching and selling gold ornaments from the person of deceased Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari. Therefore, it raises serious doubt about the truthfulness of prosecution story that, accused â Yuvraj told PW-1 that, âAaj Apneko Ek Game Karna Haiâ and thereafter approver Gulab readily agreed to assist him in commission of murder of Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari that too in day time and crowded place like District Hospital.

54. As already observed, the prosecution has not firmly established the strong motive for commission of offence by the accused. According to the prosecution case, after arrival of PW1Gulab in the civil hospital, accused no.1âYuvraj disclosed him plan for commission of offence. Accused no.1âYuvraj told PW1 Gulab that, he is indebted and therefore, in order to pay the loan amount, they will kill Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari and snatch the gold ornaments worn by her on the date of incident. Such hatching of criminal conspiracy within few minutes that too for causing of murder of lady doctor for 10 to 12 tolas of gold and the approver Gulab immediately agreed to that is also something unusual which makes the prosecution case doubtful. The Supreme Court in the case of Baliya alias Bal Kishan V/s State of Madhya Pradesh (2012) 9 S.C.C. 696) while explaining the ambit and scope of section 120B of I.P. Code, the principles to be borne in mind in evaluating such evidence in para 17 the Court has observed as under:-

â17. The offence of criminal conspiracy has its foundation in an agreement to commit an offence or to achieve a lawfulobject through unlawful means. Such a conspiracy would rarely be hatched in the open and, therefore, direct evidence to establish the same may not be always forthcoming. Proof or otherwise of such conspiracy is a matter of inference and the court in drawing such an inference must consider whether the basic facts i.e. circumstances from which the inference is to be drawn have been proved beyond all reasonable doubt, and thereafter, whether from such proved and established circumstances no other conclusion except that the accused had agreed to commit an offence can be drawn. Naturally, in evaluating the proved circumstances for the purposes of drawing any inference adverse to the accused, the benefit of any doubt that may creep in must go to the accused.â

55. In the light of discussion made in the foregoing paragraphs and broad principles as evaluation of evidence in the case of criminal conspiracy laid by Apex Court in the case of Baliya (supra), it will have to be held that, the circumstances from which inference of criminal conspiracy has to be drawn, the prosecution has failed to bring on record sufficient evidence to prove that conspiracy was hatched by accused to kill the deceased with motive to take away her jewelery. Admittedly, conspiracy as alleged by the prosecution hatched between accused no.1 Yuvraj and approver â Gulab. Other coaccused Pankaj was not in process of hatching the conspiracy of murder of Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari and removing the jewelery on her person. Therefore, in the facts of the present case and in the light of the evidence on record, in absence of anything on record to show that, accused no.1 â Yuvraj was really indebted and in order to pay the loan amount, he entered into conspiracy with approver â Gulab and the fact that approver Gulab immediately agreed for commission of murder of Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari and removal of ornaments on her person even without determining his share, the entire prosecution case appears to be doubtful and unbelievable.

56. It has come in the evidence of Investigating Officer that, they inspected the spot shown by the accused and they found some human bones, ash, three clips of ladies purse, ladies wrist watch and coins, silver Jodave, anklet and same articles were seized in presence of panchas. The prosecution claimed that, from the articles recovered, three clips of ladies purse and ladies wrist watch was identified by PW-3 husband of the deceased. However, PW-3 has not stated in his evidence anything about recovered Silver Jodave and silver anklet. None of the witness has identified these articles as that of deceased.In absence of identification of silver Jodave and silver anklet, creates serious doubt about the claim of the prosecution that, the accusedpersons burnt dead body of the deceased on Platform No.11 on 12thMarch, 2012. It was necessary for the prosecution to place on recordsatisfactory evidence so as to connect recovery of silver Jodave andsilver anklet as that of the deceased. Even the clips of purse and wristwatch is identified only by PW-3 the husband of the deceased. No other evidence is placed on record so as to strengthen the case of theprosecution that, the said articles belonged to that of the deceased. In absence of identity of silver Jodave and anklet and seized from ash and bushes lying on plat form as that of deceased the possibility of those articles of a women other than deceased, where body was cremated on plat form No.11 cannot be ruled out.

57. Though it is stated by the Investigating Officer that, ash, the burnt pieces of bones were recovered from platform No.11 from Vaikunthdam, Jalgaon and were sent to the C.A. for examination, but the C.A. report provide no assistance to prosecution in as much as the said report does not disclose that the bones are as that of deceased.

58. It appears from the evidence of PW-1 that, he arrived at Civil Hospital at about 4.30 p.m. and thereafter, the accused no.1 disclosed his plan and thereafter Dr. Chaudhari came to the P.M. House and she was followed by Yuvraj, approverâGulab and Pankaj, and thereafter the door of P.M. House was closed from the inside. After arrival of approver, at least, it would have taken couple of minutes to hatch the conspiracy and then design it and then go for commission of offence. Further the evidence of approver discloses that, Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari was murdered in mortuary adjacent to the P.M. House. By any stretch of imagination, from hatching criminal conspiracy till the wrapping dead body of Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari, would not take less than 15 to 20 minutes. The prosecution has not brought anything on record to show that, the accused persons had some criminal background and they were experts in committing such crimes. Therefore, if arrival of approver Gulab is taken at 4.30 p.m. in the Civil Hospital, and after hatching the criminal conspiracy to kill victim, wrapping the body of the victim cleaning the blood stains and keeping the same in Ambulance, certainly taken considerable time to complete these act. Upon careful perusal of the evidence of prosecution witnesses, in particular PW-9, who has deposed that, he saw vehicle of Gulab going out of Civil Hospital in between 4.15 p.m. to 4.20 p.m. According to the evidence of PW-5 i.e. Lab Technician working in the Civil Hospital, he saw Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari going from Civil Hospital towards P.M. House in between 3.45 p.m. to 4.00 p.m. According to PW-5 he did interact with Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari, and asked whether she had to attend any function as she was wearing gold ornaments. At that time, she replied that, after performing postmortem, she had to attend one function, scheduled at Royal Palace Hotel in the evening. PW-5 himself has stated in his evidence that, on that day his duty was at Railway Station. He had come there as he wanted to collect H.I.V. Kit from Civil Hospital. However, there are no corresponding entries in the record, which would show that, on the relevant date, he collected H.I.V. Kit from the hospital to show his presence in the hospital.

Therefore, the presence of PW-5 in the hospital at the relevant time itself was doubtful. Even if the evidence of PW-5 is taken as it is, he stated that, Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari was proceeding from the Civil Hospital to P.M. House in between 3.45 p.m. to 4.00 p.m. She told him that, she wants to perform postmortem of one unidentified dead body. Even if the prosecution case is taken as it is, Yuvraj called Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari from cell phone 09372573532 at 15.44:33, and as per evidence of PW-5 if Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari was proceeding in between 3.45 p.m. to 4.00 p.m. from Civil Hospital to P.M. House, for performing postmortem of unidentified dead body. PW-5 further stated that, after meeting Dr.Vijaya Chaudhari, he along with Sachin proceeded to tea stall near the gate of Civil Hospital. He waited therefor about 10-15 minutes and came back in the Civil Hospital and went to P.M. Room, however, he found that same was locked.

The prosecution has not brought on record any evidence to show whereabouts of Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari from 3.45 p.m. onwards till the arrival of Gulab PW-1, who stated that, Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari came after five minutes towards P.M. House after his arrival. Therefore, the entry of Vijaya Chaudhari to the P.M. House, according to the evidence of Gulab (approver) is after 4.30 p.m. As already observed, the prosecution has not brought anything on record to show the presence/whereabouts of Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari from 3.45 p.m. to 4.35 p.m. and till her arrival to the postmorterm House as stated by PW-1, and therefore, under such circumstances, the prosecution case appears to be doubtful.

59. It has come in the evidence of PW-5 that, he along with his friend Sachin went to the Tea Stall. He was expecting call from Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari that, she may ask him to drop her at Royal Palace. According to this witness, he was not specifically told on that day by Vijaya Chaudhari that, he has to drop her at Royal Palace Hotel. According to this witness, usually he used to receive call from her asking him to drop her by his vehicle. According to PW-5 he saw Ambulance owned by Gulab going out of gate at about 4.15 p.m. to 4.30 p.m. According to him, accused Gulab, accused Yuvraj and accused Pankaj were sitting on front seat of the vehicle. Since the glasses are dark, he could not see inside the vehicle. However, fact remains that, he saw the vehicle going outside the hospital in between 4.15 p.m. to 4.30 p.m. He also stated that, he came to the P.M. House and he saw that, the said P.M. Room is locked. Therefore, the presence of PW-5 at the alleged date and time of incident, appears to be doubtful. This witness has admitted in his cross examination that, door of the P.M. House was not visible from the spot where he met Dr.Vijaya Chaudhari or from the tea stall. This witness claimed that, PW-3 came to the Civil Hospital on 13.03.2012, next day of the incident, and met him. However, PW-3 in his evidence has not mentioned about such meeting. It is also pertinent to mention that, PW-3 stated that, he went to the Civil hospital at 8.00 a.m. on 13.03.2012 and met only PW-9 and one Mr. Bharambe. As already observed PW-5 stated that, PW-3 met him in civil hospital on 13.03.2012, but PW-3 did not say so. The evidence of PW-5 is untrustworthy, in as much as, as per his version he came to hospital on that day at 3.30 p.m., and therefore there was no question of meeting PW-3, who visited civil hospital at 8.00 a.m. on 13.03.2012. Statement of this witness is recorded by the Police in the Police Station on 17.03.2012, after about 5 days from the date of incident. On 16.03.2012 memorandum statement of the accused No.1 was recorded, and pursuant to it there is recovery panchnama. In the light of discussion herein before, evidence of PW-5 does not appear to be truthful and raises serious doubt about its reliability and truthfulness.

60. PW-9 (Sweeper) Pawan Babu Jadhav, in his evidence before the Court has stated that, he is working as a Sweeper in P.M. House since last 15 years. On 12th March, 2012, he was working in P.M. House round the clock for 24 hours, since Suklal Karosiya another Sweeper was on leave on that day. He had called accused no.1 Yuvraj to assist him in P.M. Room. He himself, Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari and accused no.1 were present in the P.M. House till 3.00 p.m. on 12th March, 2012. Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari was wearing gold ornaments. Then he did ask Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari as to whether there was any function, on which Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari replied that, she had to attend one function at Hotel Royal Palace in the evening. At that time, he himself, accused no.1 Yuvraj and Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari were only present in P.M. Room. After completion of P.M. he went out. He further stated that, he handed over keys of postmortem room to accused no.1, and then Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari proceeded towards Civil Hospital and accused no.1 Yuvraj sat on the bench. The bench was situated outside the P.M. Room. He further stated that, when he was standing at the food stall, he saw the vehicle Maruti Van of Gulab and he asked him as to where he was going and he told him that, accused no.1 Yuvraj had called him for carrying the dead body of unidentified person. After half an hour, Ashok Pawar came to him and asked him whether there was any dead body. This witness told him that, no dead body was brought. Ashok Pawar told him that, Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari had gone towards P.M. Room. However, he was knowing that, no unidentified dead body was brought therefore, he did not go to P.M. Room. He specifically stated that, after 10 to 15 minutes, he saw the same vehicle going out of the Hospital and accused Nos. 1, 2 and Gulab were inside the vehicle. According to his evidence, at about 3.45 p.m. Gulab was proceeding towards the P.M. Room along with his vehicle. After half an hour one Ashok Pawar came to him and after that within 10-15 minutes, he saw the same vehicle going out of the Hospital. It means, he saw the vehicle going outside the hospital at about 4.15 p.m. to 4.30 p.m. Therefore, if the evidence of PW-5 and PW-9 is considered, they saw vehicle of Gulab going outside the hospital in between 4.15 p.m. to 4.30 p.m. It appears that, neither PW-5 nor PW-9 saw Dr.Vijaya Chaudhari entering into P.M. House. When PW-3 i.e. husband of the deceased, went to the Hospital on the next date of incident, he met PW-9 Pawan. PW-9 told him that, after P.M. of Sunita Vispute was over at 3.00 p.m. Dr.Vijaya Chaudhari proceeded to take round in the Civil Hospital. Therefore, evidence of PW-9 Pawan creates serious doubt in the mind about whether he has really seen accused and deceased after 3.00 p.m. on the date of alleged incident and it is not safe to rely upon it. PW-3 in his evidence further stated that, on 13.03.2012, when he went to the civil hospital at 8.00 a.m. he made inquiry with R.M.O. Nitin Bharambe about wife (Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari). Nitin Bharambe made inquiry with other staff members and informed him that, Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari left the hospital at 3.00 p.m. on 12.03.2012 i.e. date of alleged incident.

61. In the present case, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses about timing of arrival of Gulab in the hospital and also arrival of victim at P.M. House is important in view of the evidence of PW-11 i.e. Nodal Officer brought on record by the prosecution. The prosecution cannot escape from discharging its burden explaining the timing stated by the prosecution witnesses. The prosecution case is that, the accused Yuvraj called Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari from his cell phone at 15:44:33 for performing postmortem of unidentified dead body and thereafter, Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari proceeded towards P.M. House. Another call by accused Yuvraj to P.W. 1 Gulab was at 16:22:20 and thereafter, Gulab arrived in the hospital. Prosecution examined PW-11 and timings are brought on record, and PW-1 Gulab in his evidence stated that, when he received the phone call at 4.20 to 4.30 p.m. from cellphone of Yuvraj he proceeded to Civil hospital from his house. Therefore, the entire incident according to the prosecution case inside the postmortem room/mortuary had taken place after arrival of Gulab in Civil Hospital. As already observed, PW-1 Gulab in his evidence deposed that, he arrived at hospital at 4.30 p.m. Thereafter, accused Yuvraj disclosed him his plan. He agreed for commission of offence. In all probabilities, it might have taken few minutes to hatch such conspiracy. Thereafter, according to PW-1 after 5 minutes of his arrival, Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari came to the P.M. room. According to the evidence of PW-1 Gulab Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari entered into the P.M. Room followed by Yuvraj and Gulab and then Pankaj and then door was closed from inside. It is also pertinent to mention that, accused did not enter in P.M. Room with any weapon to kill Dr.Vijaya Chaudhari. It is also not the case of the prosecution that, by using available instruments in the P.M. Room accused no.1 killed Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari and other two accused helped him. Upon perusal of the evidence of PW-1, about narration of the actual incident happened inside postmortem house/mortuary, it might have consumed considerable time. According to P.W.1 Gulab, to carry dead body in his Ambulance from hospital to Vaikunthdham i.e. Crematory, it took 15 minutes to them. Therefore, by any stretch of imagination, their entry in Crematorium/Vaikunthdam could not have been before 5 p.m. It has come in the evidence of PW-6 Dayaram Parshuram Sonawane that, on 12th March, 2012 as usual he was present at Vaikunthdam. At about 4.30 p.m. accused no.1 Yuvraj, accused no.2 Pankaj and accomplice Gulab came in one white Ambulance with one dead body. Then he went near him. PW-7 Kailas Dayaram Sonawane has also stated in his evidence that, on 12.03.2012 at about 4-30 p.m. accused nos. 1, 2 and Gulab came to Vaikunthdham along with one dead body kept in one white Ambulance. It has also come in the evidence of PW-4 Manoj Bhaskar Patil that, on 12th March, 2012 he had gone to crematory at Neri Naka to attend the funeral of one Narayan Sapke, at about 4.45 p.m. When he reached at crematory at Neri Naka, the dead body of Narayan Sapke was not brought there and he was waiting. At that time, he saw accused no.1 Yuvraj, accused no.2 Pankaj and approver Gulab in the crematory along with their vehicle. It is pertinent to note that, PW-1 (approver) has not stated in his evidence that, they saw PW-4 in the crematory.

62. It has further come in the evidence of prosecution witness no.13, Nikhil Bharat Varma that, accused Yuvraj came to the shop of accused no.4 for selling the gold ornaments in between 5 to 5.30 p.m. If the entire prosecution case is considered in the light of evidence of PW-11 Ravi Pardeshi, PW-1 approver Gulab, PW-4 Manoj Patil, PW-5 Ashok Pawar, PW-6 Dayaram Sonawane, PW-7 Kailas Sonawane, PW-9 Vikas Patil and PW-13 Nikhil, it is impossible to believe the prosecution case and also the evidence of approver Gulab, which is totally inconsistent with the timings stated by all other prosecution witnesses. As already observed, the trial Court ought to have considered the evidence of the prosecution witness in its entirety including the timings of the happenings of the events as deposed by them. The prosecution itself has brought on record through PW-11 Nodal Officer of Vodaphone Cellular Limited that, there was call to deceased by accused no.1 at 15.44.31 and another call was made to approver Gulab at 16.22.20 and thereafter Gulab came to the Civil Hospital.

63. In the peculiar facts of this case, the timings about the events as deposed by the prosecution witnesses cannot be ignored, as same are very relevant to believe the prosecution story as well as due appreciation of evidence on record. As already discussed, if the evidence of aforementioned prosecution witnesses considered from the view point of timings told by them of arrival of deceased in the P.M. House, the arrival of PW-1 approver Gulab in the Hospital and time of incident and Ambulance going out of the Civil hospital in which according to PW5 and PW9, the accused Yuvraj, Pankaj were sitting in the said vehicle, the entire prosecution case appears to be imaginary. If the prosecution case is considered in the light of evidence of prosecution witnesses about timings of arrival of Gulab in the Civil hospital, vehicle going out of the hospital, arrival of vehicle along with accused in Vaikunthdam and further accused Yuvraj going to the house of accused no.4 for selling gold ornaments in between 5.00 to 5.30 p.m., the entire case of the prosecution leads to conclusion that entire story of the prosecution is doubtful and unbelievable and so also the probability of false story being cooked can not be ruled out.

64. Keeping in view discussion in forgoing paragraphs, so far timing is concerned, to sum up in the light of evidence brought on record by the prosecution, approver â Gulab received call from the accused no.1 from his cellphone as per the C.D.R. Record and proved through PW-11 Ravi Pardeshi is 4:22:20. Approver Gulab came to the hospital at about 4.30 p.m. He was required to stop near the entrance gate of Hospital, because PW-9 Pawan, who was standing there gave call to him. Thereafter sometime required to talk and hatch conspiracy with accused No.1, followed by alleged act of killing of deceased. PW-1 deposed that, it took 15 minutes to reach to the graveyard from P.M. House. He admitted in his cross examination that, he reached to the P.M. House at 4.30 p.m. and distance between his house and P.M. Room is one and half kilometer. PW-4 Manoj Patil stated before the Court that, he was at graveyard at around 4.45 p.m. and at that time, he saw accused persons with Ambulance in graveyard. However, approver Gulab did not say in his evidence that, PW-4 was present in the crematory. PW-5 Ashok Pawar working as Lab Technician in the Civil Hospital met deceased between 3.45 p.m. to 4 p.m. He saw approver's ambulance passing through gate at around 4.15 to 4.30 p.m. As per evidence of PW-6 Dayaram Sonawane and PW-7 Kailas Sonawane ambulance reached at 4.30 p.m. in the graveyard. PW-9 Pawan Jadhav, Sweeper in P.M. House stated that, he left the P.M. Room at about 3 p.m. After that, he handed over keys to accused Yuvraj and went for lunch. As per his deposition, ambulance of Gulab entered in the Hospital at about 3.40 p.m. and thereafter, after 10-15 minutes, ambulance proceeded to graveyard. PW-11 Nodal Officer deposed before the Court that, the call from mobile no. 09372573532 to the deceased was at 3:44:31 p.m., duration of said call was 17 second, and call from Yuvraj to approver Gulab was from mobile no. 09372573532 and duration of said cell was 21 second. PW-13 Nikhil Varma stated in his deposition that, on 12th March, 2012, at about 5.00 to 5.30 p.m. accused Yuvraj came to his uncle's shop. Therefore, as per evidence of the prosecution witnesses all acts have been taken place in between 3.45 p.m. till 5.00 to 5.30 p.m. It includes PW-5 saw deceased going towards P.M. House in between 3.45 to 4.00 p.m. Approver Gulab received call from accused Yuvraj at 4.22 p.m. Thereafter, he came to the hospital by his vehicle at about 4.30 p.m. Thereafter, they hatched conspiracy to kill Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari. Dr.Vijaya Chaudhari came to the P.M. Room, and then she entered in the P.M. House followed by accused, and incident inside the P.M. House/mortuary as narrated by PW-1 Gulab had taken place, and body of the deceased was wrapped, and thereafter it was kept in ambulance, and then they left from the Civil hospital and went to Vaikunthdam and thereafter accused Yuvraj went to the house of accused no.4 to sell gold ornaments in between 5.00 to 5.30 p.m.

65. In the light of discussion hereinabove, and in particular time stated by the prosecution witnesses in their evidence before the Court, the entire prosecution story appears to be improbable and unbelievable. It is also difficult to believe that, as soon as approver Gulab arrived in the civil hospital, Yuvraj came to him and disclosed him his plan to snatch the jewelery from the person of deceased after killing her inside the P.M. House so as enable to repay the debt/loan borrowed by accused Yuvraj, and for such plan PW-1 Gulab immediately agreed without having any discussion whatsoever about what he is going to get out of it. PW-1 Gulab in his deposition has not stated that, accused Pankaj was also present when accused Yuvraj disclosed him plan and when they hatched conspiracy to kill Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari. PW-1 Gulab deposed that, Pankaj is relative of accused Yuvraj and employed as driver of the vehicle owned by Yuvraj. However, the prosecution has not brought on record any material to show that, Pankaj was also part of that criminal conspiracy hatched by Yuvraj and Gulab to kill Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari. Therefore, the prosecution case so far it relates to hatching conspiracy interese amongst the accused is concerned, it exclude Pankaj as it is apparent from the evidence of PW-1 Gulab.

66. The Additional Sessions Judge while accepting the evidence of approver Gulab as trustworthy has observed that, the evidence of approver Gulab is supported by independent witnesses. However, so far actual alleged incident of killing Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari inside the postmortem house/mortuary is concerned, from perusal of the findings recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, it appears that no specific corroboration to approver's evidence has been stated. Admittedly, in the present case, the dead body was not recovered, and therefore, in order to have some corroboration to the evidence of approver, so far as actual commission of offence inside the P.M. room/mortuary is concerned, there should have been some corroborative piece of evidence on record.

67. PW-23 Dnyandeo Gaware, who was working as Police Inspector at Local Crime Branch, Jalgaon at the relevant time, took investigation of C.R. No.53/2012 from Zilla Peth Police Station, Jalgaon on 16th March, 2012. According to this witness while in custody of police, accused no.1 Yuvraj Sable gave disclosure statement to show the spot where he had burnt dead body of Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari and accordingly memorandum statement of accused no.1 Yuvraj as per his say in presence of panch witnesses at Exhibit -99 was recorded. He further deposed that, in pursuance of the disclosure statement at Exhibit â 99, he along with accused and other police staff and panchas proceeded to Neri Naka Smashan Bhumi in police vehicle. Accused asked to stop the vehicle at Smashan Bhumi and he took them to Platform No.11 at Smashan Bhumi. They inspected the spot shown by the accused Yuvraj and there found ash and bones, three clips of ladies Purse, one Pen Clip, ladies wrist watch and Coins, one coin of Rs.2/-, one coin of Rs. 1/- and one coin of 50 paise, silver Jodve and silver Anklets. All these articles were seized in presence of panch witnesses and Investigation Officer recorded seizure panchanama, which was marked at Exhibit 100. According to his further evidence before the Court accused Yuvraj was brought back to the Police Station. Accused gave another disclosure statement that he will show the spot, where Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari was killed. His disclosure statement was recorded in presence of the panchas. The same was given Exhibit â 101. Accused no.1 led police party and panchas in police vehicle to Postmortem Room in Civil Hospital, Jalgaon. Accused then led them inside postmortem room. Accused showed the spot i.e. near Shitgrah of Mortuary room, where head of victim was struck against the wall. Investigating Officer deposed that, he examined the wall and found one hair slicked up to the blood appearing on the wall. Two more hairs were also found appearing on the wall. Similarly, the accused also shown two pieces of bricks appearing in that room. Both the two pieces of bricks were having blood stains. Investigation Officer seized and sealed all the above articles in presence of panchas and Exhibit â 102 was given to it. Same was signed by the panch witnesses. It has come in the evidence that, two pieces of bricks, hairs recovered from P.M. House, hairs taken from the house of PW-3 and deceased, were sent for Chemical Analysis.

68. Through C.A. Report, nothing has been brought on record by the prosecution that, either blood on the two pieces of bricks was of deceased or the hairs which were recovered were ofdeceased. Therefore, from C.A. Report nothing specific has beenbrought on record by the prosecution so far actual incident inside themortuary is concerned, as well as as to corroborate the version of theapprover. As already observed, dead body is not recovered and same claimed to have burnt, it was necessary for the prosecution to haveprovide corroboration to the evidence of the approver so far actual incident inside the P.M. Room/mortuary is concerned. If on two pieces of brick, which were recovered from the mortuary, the blood of deceased could have been detected then certainly it would havetreated as corroboration to testimony of PW-1. Therefore, so faractual incident i.e. commission of actual offence of killing of Dr.Chaudhari is concerned, there is no corroboration to the approver's evidence from the aforesaid C.A. Report or any other recovery.

69. It was argued by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that, to the approver's evidence the recovery of two pieces of brick at the instance of accused no.1 Yuvraj, corroborates theversion of the approver as actual incident inside the mortuary isconcerned. In our opinion, merely two pieces of bricks wererecovered from the mortuary, it cannot be said prosecution has provided corroboration to the version of PW-1 Gulab as actual incident of killing in the P.M. Room/mortuary. Therefore, we are not inclined to accept argument of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that there is due corroboration as to testimony of PW-1 asto facts deposed by him as to what was transpired inside P.M. Room.The Supreme Court in the case of Amitsingh Bhikamsing Thakur vs. State of Maharashtra (AIR 2007 SC 676) in para 29, has summed up various requirements of Section 27 of Evidence Act, which are reproduced as follows;

i) The fact of which evidence is sought to be given must be relevant to the issue. It must be borne in mind that the provisions has nothing to do with question of relevancy. The relevancy of the fact discovered ust be established according to the prescriptions relating to relevancy of other evidence connecting it with the crime in order to make the fact discovered admissible.

ii) The fact must have been discovered.

iii) The discovery must have been in consequence of some information received from the accused and not by accuseds own act.

iv) The persons giving the information must be accused for any offence.

v) He must be in the custody of a police Officer.

vi) The discovery of a fact in consequence of information received from an accused in custody must be deposed to.

vii) Thereupon only that portion of the information which relates distinctly or strictly to the fact discovered can be proved. The rest is inadmissible.

70. It has also come in the evidence of PW-9 that, on the date of incident, when the vehicle of Gulab left the hospital after half an hour, he went to P.M. Room, but he did not see blood stains on the steps and platform of the P.M. Room. He did not see blood stains on the way to gate. He did not enter into the P.M. Room on that day. On the next day, he opened P.M. Room, he did not notice blood stains in P.M. Room on that day. He did not notice blood stains on the walls of P.M. Room. Even in his evidence PW-9 has not stated that, he saw two pieces of bricks. In fact, PW-9 is a Sweeper duly appointed and having keys of the said P.M. House in his possession on the date ofincident, therefore, his evidence before the Court that, he did not notice blood stains on the wall of P.M. Room assumes importance. He further stated in his evidence that, he did not notice two pieces of bricks in the P.M. House on 13th March, 2012. It is also not brought on record by the prosecution that, when PW-3 collected keys of P.M. Room from accused Yuvraj.

71. The prosecution did examine Devidas Budha Ahire as PW-21. In his evidence, he stated that, he was working in local crime branch, Jalgaon at the relevant time. He took over the charge of investigation in Missing Complaint No. 20/2012 from PSI Shitre on15th March, 2012. He started search of Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari. He received a tip off that, Yuvraj Sable, Gulab Sindhi and Pankaj Sandanshiv have carried one dead body wrapped in one cloth to Neri Naka Smashan Bhumi, then they went to Smashan Bhumi. This witness made inquiry with municipal Employee Dayaram Parshuram Sonawane working there. He checked Death Register maintained at Neri Naka Smashan Bhumi, Jalgaon. He found while inspecting the Register that, there was entry of the name of the deceased Sakharam Ghashiram Sabale at Page No. 027483 and there was alteration at the column of gender of the deceased. The name of informant was written as Yuvraj Kashinath Sable. Then he started search of the above three persons and so also Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari. He could not trace the accused on 15th March, 2012. Thereafter, he went to Zilla Peth Police Station, Jalgaon on 16th March, 2012 at about 9:15 a.m. and filed complaint. He further identified his signature on the said complaint.

In his cross examination he specifically deposed that, he did not find blood appearing in Smashan Bhumi, Neri Naka, Jalgaon on 15th March, 2012. He did not notice blood stains in postmortem room, on platform and Courtyard of Civil Hospital, Jalgaon. He did not inform about the identification of the dead body in Smashan Bhumi. He did not seize the Death Register on 15th March, 2012. He further stated that, ash was not seized on that day. It is also pertinent to note that, as discussed here in above, PW-21 (Police Officer) went to crematory and saw Otta No.11 and also went inside the P.M. Room on 15.03.2012. Therefore, the prosecution case that, spot of incident and also where dead body was cremated was discovered at the instance of accused No.1 Yuvraj in pursuance to his memorandum statement dated 16.03.2012, lost its significance. If PW-21 (Investigating officer) already knew both the spots on 15/03/2012, and in fact he visited P.M. Room and also platform No.11 in Cemetery, then on 16/03/2012 form the memorandum statement of accused Yuvraj, nothing new fact/information was discovered on 16/03/2012 in respect of alleged two spots, one where Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari was killed and then cremated.

72. Therefore, the evidence of PW-9 Pawan Jadhav and PW-21 Devidas Ahire, and the Chemical Analysis Report so far blood appearing on pieces of brick is concerned, is not useful to the prosecution in as much as no blood of blood group of deceased was detected on it. Therefore, upon considering the evidence of PW-1 Gulab, so far it relates to actual commission of murder/incident inside the mortuary is concerned, there is no corroboration to his evidence, and therefore, it is unsafe to place reliance on the evidence of PW-1 Gulab approver, so as to sustain the conviction of the accused in absence of corroboration.

73. The trial Court relied upon the evidence of PW5 and PW9 and held that, the dead body of Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari was taken by accusedYuvraj, accused no.2Pankaj and PW1 Approver in his ambulance to the graveyard situated at Neri Naka. As already observed in foregoing paragraphs that, PW5 and PW9 in their evidence have stated that, they saw the vehicle of PW1 approver actually going out of civil hospital in between 4.15 p.m. to 4.30 p.m. As discussed in foregoing paragraphs, evidence of PW5 and PW9 is untrustworthy and it is unsafe to rely on their evidence. Even if the evidence of PW5 and PW9 is considered to be true to the effect that, PW1 Gulab, accused no.1 Yuvraj and accused no.2 Pankaj were sitting in ambulance and went to the graveyard situated near Neri Naka, nevertheless they have not stated in their evidence that, they saw actually keeping of the dead body by the accused inside the ambulance. The evidence of PW5 and PW9 is discussed in detail in foregoing paragraphs and there is total mismatch of timing told by them when actually the ambulance went outside the hospital. If their evidence is taken as it is, in that case, they saw ambulance going out of civil hospital, in which all three accused persons were sitting was in between 4.15 p.m. to 4.30 p.m. Infact, entire prosecution story as narrated by PW1 approver in his evidence before the Court starts only after arrival of P.W. 1 in the hospital at about 4.30 p.m. As per the evidence of approver, hatching of the criminal conspiracy and going inside the hospital started after 4.35 p.m., and therefore, the evidence of PW5 and PW9 to the effect that, they actually saw the ambulance going outside the hospital in between 4.15 p.m. to 4.30 p.m. appears to be totally inconsistent with the prosecution case, and therefore, the said piece of evidence cannot be accepted as corroboration to the evidence of PW1 approver to the effect that, he himself, accused no.1Yuvraj and another accused Pankaj kept the dead body of Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari in the ambulance and he drove the vehicle accompanied with other two accused towards graveyard situated at Neri Naka. In the light of discussion hereinabove, it will have to be concluded that, there is no corroboration to the evidence of approver so far his contention that, dead body of Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari was kept in his ambulance and he himself along with two accused took the dead body of Dr.Vijaya Chaudhari to the graveyard situated near Neri Naka.

74. Another circumstance, which is taken as corroboration to the evidence of approver by the trial Court is that, PW1 approver stated that, his ambulance reached crematory at Neri Naka within 15 minutes from civil hospital. PW6Dayaram and PW7 Kailas were present in the crematory and there accused no.1 Yuvraj informed PW7 Dayaram that, dead body was of his grandmother. PW1 Gulab in his evidence stated that, accused no.1 put his signature on Municipal Register in presence of approverâGulab. We have carefully perused the original Death Report Numerical Information Register which is part of original record. Upon perusal of the said Death Report Numerical Information Register, it appears to us that, the aforesaid entry is not chronologically maintained. PW4in his evidence stated that, he came in the crematory to participate in funeral of Narayan Lotu Sapke. It appears from the evidence of prosecution witness that, the dead body of Narayan Lotu Sapke and arrival of the accused in crematory is about the same time. Upon careful perusal of the Death Report Numerical Information Register, so far deceased Narayan Lotu Sapke is concerned his entry is at Sr. No. 027476. The date of death is shown on 12th March 2012. There are other particulars given about his age, address etc. As per prosecution case, entry made at the instance of accused â Yuvraj, in the Death Report Numerical Information Register is at Sr. No. 027483. Though the date is mentioned as 12th March, 2012, said entry is not in sequence. At Sr. No. 027475, the name of dead person is written as Manjulabai Krushna. The date of death is shown 12^th March, 2012. At Sr. No. 027476, the name of dead person is written as Narayan Lotu Sapke and the date of death is mentioned as 12^th March, 2012. At Sr. No. 027477, the name of dead person is written as Rago Mahendrasing Thakur and date of death is mentioned as 12th March, 2012. At Sr. No. 027478, the name of dead person is written as Hirabai Jagannath Patayit and the date of death is mentioned as 12th March, 2012. At Sr. No. 027479 the name of dead person is written as Santosh Waman Sonwane and the date of death is mentioned as 13th March, 2012. At Sr. No. 027480, the name of dead person is written as Ghansham Pandurang Igale andthe date of death is mentioned as 12th March, 2012. At Sr. No. 027481, the name of dead person is written as Narmadabai Singane and the date of death is mentioned as 13th March, 2013. At Sr. No.027482, the name of dead person is written as Sopan Vaikode and date of death is mentioned as 14th March, 2012. At Sr. No. 027483, the name of dead person is written as Sakharam Sabale and date of death is mentioned as 12th March, 2012. However, date on which said entry is made in said register is 14.03.2012. Upon careful perusal of Exhibit â 76 it appears that, the name of accused no.1 Yuvraj Kashinath Sabale is mentioned and his signature is shown as informant, however, upon careful perusal of Exhibit â 76, there is name of accused no.1 Yuvraj and his signature, however, other information is written in different handwriting and in different ink, which is clearly visible upon perusal of the Exhibit â 76 in its entirety. Therefore, in the first place the entry at Sr. No. 027483 is not in sequence and secondly, the name of accused no.1 and his signature is in different ink and other writing in other column is in different handwriting and different ink.

We have also perused another Register wherein there are column in respect of receipt number, date of cremation, date of death, name, address and name of informant and signature. Upon perusal of entry No. 027483, the same is not maintained in chronological order. Upon perusal of the relevant pages of the Register, it appears that, entry at Sr. No. 27476 is on 12th March, 2012, followed by other entires at Sr. No. 27477 on 12th March,2012. Entry at Sr. No. 27478, 27479, 27480, the date of cremation is shown as 13th March, 2012. However, in the death column so far as entry at Sr. No. 27478 is concerned, same is shown as 12^th March, 2012. Entry at Sr. No. 27479 is shown on 13th March, 2012 and entry at Sr. No. 27480 the death is shown on 12th March, 2012. So far as the entry at Sr. No. 27481 is concerned, the date of death and also cremation is shown on 13th March, 2012. Entry at Sr. No. 27482 is concerned, in both the column the date of cremation and death is shown as 14th March, 2012 and thereafter the entry at Sr. No. 027483 is shown in the register in the column of death and cremation as 12th March, 2012. Therefore, it creates serious doubt about correctness of the entries made in both the registers and also whether, accused no.1 Yuvraj has really informed to take such entries in the death report numerical information register at Sr. No. 027483 as claimed by the prosecution.

It is the prosecution case that, accused No.1 Yuvraj made signature in the register, and hand writing experts report shows that, those are his signatures. Even if, the prosecution case is taken as it is that, the entries in the Death Report Numerical Information Register are entered at the instance of accused Yuvraj by the PW7 as stated by PW6 in his evidence, and Yuvraj signed the same, the Supreme Court in the case of Magan Bihari Lal V/s The State of Punjab (1977 Cri.L.J. 711) held that, it is unsafe to base a conviction solely on expert opinion without substantial corroboration. In the facts of that case, the Supreme Court held as under :

âIt is now well settled that, expert opinion must always be received with great caution and perhaps none so with more caution than the opinion of a handwriting expert. It is unsafe to base a conviction solely on expert opinion without substantial corroboration. This type of evidence, being opinion evidence, is by its very nature, weak and infirm and cannot of itself form the basis for a conviction.â

It is admitted position that, PW7' s handwritten portion in the said entry in the register was not sent to hand writing expert.

75. Though PW4 Manoj Patil in his evidence has stated that, he saw approver â Gulab accompanied with accused Yuvraj and another accused Pankaj, approver Gulab in his entire evidence has not stated that, he met PW4 in the graveyard/cemetery. Therefore, it creates serious doubt about the truthfulness of the evidence of approver Gulab and so also PW4 about arrival of accused in the crematory with dead body of Dr.Vijaya Chaudhari and further events told by approver during their presence in the crematory (Vaikunthdam). It is admitted position that, accused No.1 Yuvraj was not employee of the Corporation or Government. He used to carry unidentified and unclaimed bodies for cremation in his vehicle by accepting about Rs.300/per trip to crematory (Vaikunthdam) frequently, since about 10 to 12 years. Therefore, in case of unidentified and unclaimed bodies, about their name, place of residence etc. giving information in that respect would not have been possible. Therefore, it was routine affair for accused No.1 Yuvraj to carry unidentified / unclaimed bodies. It is possible that, PW6 / PW7 might have obtained his signatures on blank pages of registers maintained by them. It has come in the evidence of the PW6 (Dayaram) that, many times unidentified bodies were brought in the cemetery, whose names were not known.

76. Whether PW-1 Gulab has disclosed true and correct facts as agreed by him while granting pardon to him, and so far hiscontention that, after commission of offence on 12th March, 2012, he received call to take the patient to Mumbai and accordingly he left with his vehicle along with patient to Mumbai, and waited there for 2- 3 days and thereafter he went to Ratnagiri and returned back to Jalgaon on 16th March, 2014 is concerned, upon perusal of the entire evidence brought on record by the prosecution, the prosecution has not made any endeavour to place on record whereabouts of Gulab from the date of incident till his arrival at Jalgaon. PW-6 â Dayaram Sonawane in his cross examination by the Advocate for the accused deposed that, he has not stated before the Police that, Pankaj and Gulab Sindhi had also come to him along with Yuvraj at about 8.00 to 8.30 p.m. Portion marked `A' in this regard is not correct and not stated by him. He cannot say any reason as to why police mentioned portion mark `A' in his statement. He has no enmity with police. He further stated that, it is not true that, none of the accused came to him on 14/03/2012 at about 8.00 to 8.30 p.m. and they did not give him information about the name of the deceased as Sakharam. In this respect, it is necessary to make reference to the evidence of Dnyandeo Gaware, Investigating officer. In his evidence, he stated that, he has recorded the statement of PW-7 Kailash Sonawane. Portion marked âAâ and âBâ in his statement are correctly recorded as per his say. They are at Exhibit â 188 and Exhibit â 189. He further deposed that, he has also recorded the statement of PW-6 Dayaram as per his say. Portion marked âAâ in his statement is correctly recorded as per his say. It is marked at Exhibit â 190. PW-6 Dayaram in his statement stated that, all the three accused i.e. Yuvraj, Pankaj and Gulab came to his house in between 8 to 8.30 p.m. In the light of evidence of prosecution witnesses, the statement of approver Gulab that, on the day of incident in the evening, he left Jalgaon and came back to Jalgaon on 16.03.2012 is not true and correct disclosure, as it has come in the evidence of Investigating officer that, PW-6 Dayaram told him that, all the accused came to his house at 8.30 p.m. on 14.03.2012. Therefore, the evidence of Gulab that, he left Jalgaon on 12.03.2012 and came back to Jalgaon on 16th March, 2012 is not trueand correct disclosure and therefore, his evidence is not trustworthy and deserves no consideration and that too, in absence of corroboration.

77. ApproverGulab PW1 in his further evidence stated that, dead body of Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari was completely wrapped by cloths on the head to toe. Accused no.1 Yuvraj, accused no.2 Pankaj and approver â Gulab put the dead body at the platform no. 11 of the graveyard. Accused no.1 then asked accused no.2 Pankaj and approver Gulab to bring some more pieces of fuel wood and following directions of accused no.1 Yuvraj, both accused no.2 and approverGulab handed over the pieces of wood to accused no.1 â Yuvraj who was arranging the pyre. They all three put the dead body on the pyre. Thereafter there further details have been stated by this witness. He further stated that, they came out of graveyard and sat in ambulance of Gulab and ambulance proceeded to PandeChowk, where accused no.1Yuvraj gave Rs. 5000/to approver â Gulab and he parted company of other two accused. ApproverGulab parted the company of the other two accused and went to Mumbai and thereafter Ratnagiri. According to his version, he received Rs. 5000/-from accused No.1, even before selling gold ornaments, which appears to be doubtful. As already observed in foregoing para 64, approverGulab did not disclose true and correct facts before the Court that, he visited the house of PW6 on 14th March, 2012 at about 8 to 8.30 p.m., as already it has come on record through the evidence of Investigation Officer. The prosecution has not led any evidence which would suggest that, PW1 Gulab had really left the Jalgaon and came back on 16/03/2012.

78. The defence examined Dr. Narayan Gajanan Rathod as witness. In his evidence before the Court he stated that, Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari was serving as Medical Officer in Civil Hospital, Jalgaon since 2006. He stated further details about assigning duty to Medical Officer in Civil Hospital. He further stated that, one register is maintained in that respect. Every page of said register bears the name of dead person whose postmortem is done and name of doctor performing autopsy and duration of postmortem with timings and the name of concerned Police Station referring the dead body for autopsy and signature of doctor performing autopsy. During his recording of evidence, he stated that, he has brought the original original Register of Civil Hospital, Jalgaon for the period March, 2012. As per entries in the said Register, the duty hours of Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari were from 12th March, 2012 from 8.30 a.m. to 13th March, 2012 at 8.30 a.m. As per record with him, he stated that, Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari has performed postmortem of only one body on 12th March, 2012 and timings of the said postmortem are 2.00 p.m. to 3.00 p.m. and this postmortem was pertaining to the dead body. He further stated that, he received information from the husband of Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari that, she did not return to house in the evening on 12th March, 2012. He further stated that, he does not know, who has last seen Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari. He further stated that, he has brought original duty Register of doctors. As per the said duty Register, said Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari was on P.M. duty as D.M.O. and P.M.O. The said Register bears the signature of R.M.O. Dr. Bharambe. He acquainted with his signature. The extract of this Register is already on record. When he was confronted with the extract from the Register, he stated that, the contents therein are identical with the original Register. He produced the original Register before the Court. He stated that, after verifying the said Register, the postmortem, which was performed was of Sunita Pandit Vispute. As per record, dead body of Sunita Vispute was brought to Civil Hospital at 1.50 p.m. on 12^th March, 2012. Entry in that regard is taken in that Register at Sr.No. 214. The record also shows that, Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari put her signature in the concerned column. When he was confronted with photocopies of extract of Entry at Sr. No. 214, which was prepared from original Register maintained by Civil Hospital, Jalgaon, he compared the same with the original Register and stated that, it is correct as per original. He further stated that, two helpers are appointed to help the Medical Officer for performing postmortem. In March, 2012, two helpers namely Suklal Karosiya and Pawan Baburao Jadhav were appointed as helpers. These helpers assist the Medical Officer for lifting the dead body and assisting in postmortem. On 12th March, 2012, helper Suklal Karosiya was on earned leave and he sanctioned his leave. He further stated details about accused no.1 that, he used to bring unclaimed dead bodies to Civil Hospital for postmortem and for that purpose he was getting some amount from Municipal Corporation, Jalgaon.

Upon perusal of the evidence of this witness, it is crystal clear that, there was no entry in the Register maintained by the hospital that, any unidentified and unclaimed body was arrived in the hospital for postmortem and for that purpose Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari went to the postmortem room. D.W. 1 served as Civil Surgeon in Civil Hospital, Jalgaon during the period from June, 2009 till 7th June, 2012. He has not stated in his evidence supporting the prosecution case that, on 12th March, 2012, the incident of killing of Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari as alleged by the prosecution had taken place in the P.M. Room/Mortuary. His evidence is significant, in as much as he was working as Civil Surgeon as a controlling authority of entire administration of the hospital.

79. Therefore, in the light of discussion in the foregoing paragraphs, there is no corroboration to the evidence of approver Gulab and therefore, it is unsafe to rely upon the evidence of PW1 Gulab in absence of any corroboration, as discussed hereinabove.

80. The trial Court has considered the case of the prosecution independently without taking help of the evidence of approver. In doing so, the trial Court relied upon the following circumstances :

(ii) on 12/03/2012 he was present in Civil Hospital, Jalgaon and he was helping Dr.Vijaya Chaudhari in conducting postmortem.

(iii) He has made phone call to deceased Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari and soon after, she had come.

(iv) There was practically no reason for accused No.1 to call Dr.Vijaya Chaudhari, as no unidentified dead body was brought for postmortem.

(v) Dr.Vijaya Chaudhari was last seen with Accused No.1, 2 and approver Gulab (P.W.No.1).

(vi) After deceased Dr.Vijaya Chaudhari, was last seenwith Accused No.1 and 2, within short span of time Accused No.1, 2 and approver were seen at crematory with one female dead body.

(vii) Dr.Vijaya Chaudhari was missing after the moment she was last seen with the Accused.

(viii) Procrastination on the part of Accused No.1 to supply necessary information to municipal employee in respect of dead body he cremated with the help of other Accused and approver.

(ix) Accused No.1 gave wrong and false information twice to the Municipal Employee about the name of deceased and name that he had given is proved to be imaginary.

(x) There was human blood stains on the shirt of Accused No.1, when he was arrested.

(xi) Signatures of the Accused in Municipal Register while giving information in crematory and on the receipt Exhibit No.75 are proved by cogent evidence.

(xii) Knowledge of Accused about the two spots where deceased was murdered and where she was cremated.

In dealing with the circumstantial evidence, the Supreme Court in the case of Hanumant V/s State of MadhyaPradesh (AIR 1952 S.C. 343)held that, in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis except one proposed to be proved. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the following conditions must be fulfilled before the case against an accused can be said to be fully established on circumstantial evidence;-

i) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn must or should be and not merely âmay be fully established,

ii) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty,

iii) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency,

iv) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and

v) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.

81. If the evidence of approver is excluded then the entire prosecution case rests upon the circumstantial evidence. If approver â Gulab's evidence is kept out of consideration, in that case, there is no other witnesses, who have stated about the motive for commission of alleged offence.

82. It is settled law that, while motive does not have a major role to play in cases based on direct evidence but it assumes importance in cases based on circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court in the case of Rushipal V/s State of Uttarakhand (2013 (12) SCC 551) in para 14 held that, it is fairly well-settled that while motive does not have a major role to play in cases based on eye-witness account of the incident, it assumes importance in cases that rest entirely on circumstantial evidence. It is further observed that, absence of strong motive is something that cannot be lightly brushed aside.

83. If the present case is con sidered keeping aside the evidence of approver â Gulab, absence of strong motive is something that cannot be lightly brushed aside. If the prosecution case is considered solely on the circumstantial evidence, in absence of the evidence of approver, in that case, the prosecution has not brought on record any independent evidence except the evidence of approver about the motive for commission of alleged offence by the accused persons. Therefore, it will have to be held that, the prosecution has failed to bring on record strong motive for commission of offence.

84. Admittedly, in the present case neither dead body was recovered nor the postmortem was performed, and therefore, factum of murder in such case must be proved by strongest possible evidence. The Supreme Court in the case of Ramua alias Ram Lal V/s State of U.P. (1992 Cri. L.J. 3972) held as under :-

â21. There is another aspect of the case. The accused is not a defined term and Section 273 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that the evidence must be taken in presence of the accused. The explanation of Section 273 indicates that the accused includes a person in relation to whom any proceeding under Chapter VIII has been commenced under this Code and Chapter VIII is about Security for keeping a peace and for good behaviour. Even if this explanation under Section 273 of the Code can be said to include a definition of word accused but that definition if it can be so properly called is an inclusive definition. This is not exhaustive. This term accused of an offence is not narrowly construed and interpreted. It is at the same time not necessary that his name must find place in the first information report. In AIR 1958 AP 37: (1958 Cri LJ 18) it was held that a person who is arrested by the police during investigation is an accused. In Amin v. State of U.P., AIR 1958 All 293 : (1958 Cri LJ 462), it has been held that the moment suspicion attached to a person or where a witness points to his guilt and he is taken in custody and interrogated, on that basis he becomes a person accused of an offence. In the present case he was taken into custody only after he has pointed out the 'Kulhari'. It means that he was not in the police custody at the time when he pointed out the weapon used and consequently the recovery of the weapon does not become admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Even the statement of P.W. 7 the Investigating officer does not show that the appellant was arrested first and thereafter the recovery was made on his pointing out. There is doubtful explanation to the effect that the accused was arrested and on his pointing out some bones and kulhari the instrument were recovered and memo Ext. Ka-4 was prepared. The statement of the accused appellant, in order to be admissible under S.27 of the Act, it must have been stated by the Investigating officer P.W. 7 that the appellant was in police custody and while he was under custody, on his pointing out the weapon and some bones were recovered. We have perused the statement of P.W. 7 Ram Karan Singh and we find it not to be reliable.

22. In the absence of positively admissible and reliable evidence, which is lacking the recovery of the bones, chappal, glass bangles and pieces of the clothes including blouse alone could not be said to be sufficient to indicate that these articles belonged to the deceased. The dead body was not recovered nor any post-mortem has been conducted. What was the nature of the injuries, has also not been indicated. In such matters we are reminded of an old Maxim Corpus Delicti. This obviously connotes that before seeking to prove that the appellant is the author of the crime, it must be proved beyond all reasonable doubts that the crime charged has been committed. In the charge of murder it must be proved before convicting the accused that murder has been committed. The body of the victum must be recovered or must be proved by cogent evidence. The strongest possible evidence is required as to the fact of murder as the dead body was not forthcoming or the bones etc. have not been proved to be of the victim.

85. In the facts of the present case also the strongest possible evidence as to the fact of murder of Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari and dead body, which was allegedly cremated on Platform no.11 in Vaikunthdam is of her, has not been convincingly established.

It is true that, corpus delicti not found, even so accused can be convicted, if there is direct or circumstantial evidence conclusively showing that, the victim had died and that accused committed his/her murder. The Supreme Court in the case of Ram Gulam Chaudhary v. State of Bihar (2001 SCC (Cri) 1546)in para 23 held thus :-

â23. There can be no dispute with the proposition of law set out above. As is set out in the various authorities (referred to above), it is not at all necessary for a conviction for murder that the corpus delicti be found. Undoubtedly, in the absence of the corpus delicti there must be direct or circumstantial evidence leading to the inescapable conclusion that the person has died and that the accused are the persons who had committed the murder. Both the courts below have come to the conclusion, based upon the evidence of PWs 3 and 4 (who were eyewitnesses) that Appellant 9 had killed the accused before the body was taken away by all the appellants. We have read the evidence of all the witnesses. We have given a careful consideration to the material on record. We see no reason to take a different view. The evidence in this case is direct and there is no reason to disbelieve this evidence. We see no substance in the submission of Mr Mishra that these two ladies could not have seen the boy being killed and could not have in any case come to a conclusion that he had died. Their presence at the place of incident could not be doubted. Their evidence clearly indicates that the incident took place before their eyes. We cannot accept the submission of Mr Mishra that their evidence discloses that the incident took place outside the courtyard and on the road. Mr Mishra has relied on stray sentences. The evidence has to be read as a whole. Read as a whole, both the ladies have given positive evidence that the murder took place in the courtyard. We also see no substance in the submission that PW 3 and PW 4 could not positively say that Krishnanand Chaudhary had been killed. The evidence is that Bijoy Chaudhary stated that âhe is still alive and should be killedâ. On this statement Appellant 9 gave a chhurablow on the chest. The evidence is that Krishnanand Chaudhary, who was till then struggling twitched and thereafter his body became still. From this it could be concluded that death had taken place. It must be mentioned that even PW 1, whose evidence Mr Mishra relied upon, has deposed that Krishnanand Chaudhary had died.â

86. Yet in another exposition, the Supreme Court in the case of Mani Kumar Thapa v. State of Sikkim ((2002) 7 SCC 157)in para 4 held as under :-

â4. Mr U.U. Lalit, learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued that in the absence of any motive and the corpus delicti, it is unsafe to place reliance on the circumstantial evidence adduced by theprosecution; more so when the said evidence is replete with discrepancies, omissions and improvements. He pointed out that in regard to a part of the evidence of the prosecution, the courts below themselves have not placed reliance, therefore, in a case of circumstantial evidence of this nature, it would be dangerous to base a conviction. We do not find much force in this argument of Mr Lalit. It is a well-settled principle in law that in a trial for murder, it is neither an absolute necessity nor an essential ingredient to establish corpus delicti. The fact of the death of the deceased must be established like any other fact. Corpus delicti in some cases may not be possible to be traced or recovered. There are a number of possibilities where a dead body could be disposed of without a trace, therefore, if the recovery of the dead body is to be held to be mandatory to convict an accused, in many a case the accused would manage to see that the dead body is destroyed which would afford the accused complete immunity from being held guilty or from being punished. What is therefore required in law to base a conviction for an offence of murder is that there should be reliable and plausible evidence that the offence of murder like any other factum of death was committed and it must be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence albeit the dead body may not be traced. (See Sevaka Perumal v. State of T.N.1) Therefore, the argument that in the absence of corpus delicti the prosecution case should be rejected, cannot be accepted. Similar fate will follow the argument that in the absence of any specific motive there can be no conviction. In the instant case, PW 1, wife of the deceased, has spoken about some enmity between A-1 and the deceased. Assuming that this evidence is insufficient to establish the motive for murder even then if the prosecution is able to establish beyond all reasonable doubt from other circumstantial evidence that it is the accused (including the appellant) alone who could have committed the murder, the absence of the motive will not hamper a safe conviction. In the instant case the chain of circumstances starting from the afternoon of 12-2-1988 right up to 16- 2-1988 clearly shows that the deceased was taken by A-1 and the appellant in the jeep and thereafter the deceased was never seen. The subsequent conduct of A-1 visiting the checkpost in the night, A-1 and A-2 visiting the checkpost thereafter at different times without an acceptable reason, A-1 and PW 22 visiting Kerabari Forest Headquarters on 13-2-1988 and thereafter recovery of the belongings of the deceased from the place where the dead body was allegedlythrown in the first instance, the apprehension entertained by thedeceased which was made known to PW 3, the apprehension entertained by PW 5 which was made known to his superior vide letters Exts. P-2 and P-3, the statements of the accused made to PW 5 (to the extent they are acceptable), the contradictory versions given by theappellant to PWs 5 and 36, the presence of the appellant and A-1 together at the farewell function of their colleague in the evening of 12- 2-1988 and unacceptable explanation amounting to falsehood given by the appellant in regard to his whereabouts on 12-2-1988 cumulatively establish the continuous links in the chain of circumstances which was, in our opinion, rightly accepted by the courts below to base a conviction. Having carefully considered the evidence led by the prosecution in regard to the above circumstances we are of the opinion that the courts below were justified in arriving at the finding that the appellant was guilty of the charge framed against him, and we find no reason whatsoever to disagree with this finding.â

87. However, in the present case, so far recovery of articles from P.M. Room/mortuary is concerned, from the C.A. Report available on record nothing beneficial to the prosecution is brought on record in the nature of corroborative piece of evidence so as to connect the accused with killing of Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari.

88. Arvind Meghasham Chaudhari husband of the deceased is examined as PW-3. In his evidence, he stated that, he completed M.B.B.S. and Diploma of ENT. He retired on 30/04/2010. Deceased Dr.Vijaya Chaudhari was his wife and she had completed M.B.B.S. and also passed Diploma in Pathology. She was working in Civil Hospital, Jalgaon since 1997 as a Medical Officer. All the Medical Officers have to do the job/duty as Medical Officer periodically. The D.M.O. has to attend the Hospital throughout day and night for 24 hours and D.M.O. has to perform the duties of attending the serious patients in the ward and doing postmortem in the Hospital.

He further deposed that, on 12/03/2012 his wife was attending the duty as D.M.O. Her duty hours were 8.00 a.m. on 12/03/2012 till 8.00 a.m. on 13/03/2012. He dropped his wife at Civil Hospital, Jalgaon in his Car at about 8.00 a.m. to 8.30 a.m. on that day. She returned back to his house at about 1.00 p.m. for lunch. They took lunch together. She told him that she had to do postmortem in a burnt case at Civil Hospital. Then he dropped his wife at Civil Hospital, Jalgaon in his Car at about 2-00 p.m. At that time she was wearing Blue Saree, similar coloured Blouse and she had a white purse. She was wearing four gold Bangles, two each in her hand and the necklace and gold Ring and Ear-rings. She had also a Wristwatch of Citizen Company. She told him that after completion of postmortem she would take a round of the Hospital and she had to attend one function at Hotel Royal Palace, at about 5-00 to 5-30 p.m. He had asked his wife as to why she was wearing gold Bangles and other jewelery, on which she replied that, she had to attend one function and, therefore, she was wearing jewelery.

According to this witness, he returned back from his work at about 7-00 p.m. He gave ring to his wife at about 7.00 p.m. on her mobile but it was switched off. Her Mobile number was 9822756324. It was giving out of coverage signal. He thought that, his wife might be attending the Hospital due to some urgent work. He was waiting for her. He took meal at about 8.15 p.m. and went to sleep. He further deposed that, on 2nd June, 2012, he was called by the Taluka Magistrate at about 10 a.m. for identification of articles etc.

He further deposed that, as his wife did not return on 13/03/2012, he made enquiry with R.M.O. Nitin Bharambe in Civil Hospital at 8.00 a.m. about his wife. Nitin Bharambe made enquiry with other Staff and informed him that, Dr.Vijaya Chaudhari had left the Civil Hospital at about 3.00 p.m. on 12/03/2012. Then he made enquiry with Pawan, who was assisting in p.m. duty. Pawan told him that Dr.Vijaya Chaudhari had finished the postmortem of Sunita Vispute at about 3.00 p.m.on 12/03/2012. He further told him that after finishing p.m. Dr.Vijaya Chaudhari proceeded to take round in Civil Hospital. Thereafter, he went to Hotel Royal palace to enquire about his wife. He got information that, his wife had not attended the function at Royal Palace Hotel on 12/03/2012. Then he made enquiry with his relatives about his wife, but he could not get any clue. Therefore, he went to Jilhapeth Police Station and lodged missing report. He identified the missing report and the signatures on it, which was shown to him. The same is at Exhibit No.55. He identified the wristwatch as that of his wife, which was shown to him and the same is at Article `C'.

He further deposed that, on 16/03/2012 Police came to his house and he gave them the hairs of his wife stuck in her comb, at about 3.00 to 3.30 p.m. Police seized the hairs stuck in the comb and recorded seizure panchanama in presence of two panchas.

89. In his cross examination by the Advocate for the accused no.1, he stated that, it is not necessary to give information to R.M.O. about every duty done by D.M.O. It is not true that, after receiving dead body, D.M.O. should report to R.M.O. The first information of receipt of dead body in the Hospital is not given to R.M.O. There are no junior doctors to help D.M.O. He admitted in his cross examination that, there is no mention of wristwatch and gold Ring in Exhibit -55. Exhibit â 55 is Missing Report, which was filed by this witness on 13th March, 2012. He has further admitted in his cross examination that, he did not recollect whether this fact was stated by him before Police or not. He further stated that, Police did not issue him a letter in writing to attend identification parade. He further stated that, he received phone call to remain present at the office of Taluka Magistrate. He further stated that, there was big crowd in Tahsil office on 2nd June, 2012. Some persons were accompanying him. He stated that, he identified die jewelery of his wife on the basis of the design and look. In his cross examination by Advocate for the accused Nos. 3 and 4, he stated that, the seized gold Bangles were purchased by him just prior to two months of the incident. He has purchased readymade bangles from Rajmal Lakhichand Jewelery Shop. He obtained a small receipt of that purchase. That receipt was not given to Police. He did not remember the exact price of the Bangles. There is a trademark of the shop on the jewelery. He further stated that, he is income tax payee. The transaction is not shown in the income tax return. He further stated that, he does not know from where the Police had brought the other two similar gold ornaments sets at the time of identification parade. He further deposed that, he cannot say whether the weight of other sets were identical to that of the identified set and only their look was similar. He did not recollect whether the design of other sets was also similar.

90. The learned counsel for the defence has criticize evidence of PW3 and submitted that, so far wristwatch and gold ring is concerned, the same was not mentioned in the Missing Report, and therefore, this witness improved his version in his evidence, in as much as he claimed that, he identified the wristwatch, which was recovered from Platform no.11 of Vaikunthdham. The counsel further submitted that, this witness has not stated that, the recovered articles i.e. pair of Jodwa and silver anklet is of deceased. It is true that, PW-3 in his cross examination admitted that, he did not mention watch and ring in missing report. He did not mention about purse, pair of jodva and silver anklet in his evidence before the Court.

Non-explanation of recovered articles, silver Jodva and silver anklet is something, which cannot be brushed aside easily since dead body is not recovered, and therefore, it was necessary for the prosecution to connect those recovered articles with deceased. Admittedly, in Missing Report there is no mention of wristwatch and gold ring by the PW-3.

In his evidence, PW-3 has not stated that, when he visited the Civil Hospital on 13th March, 2012, in order to find out whereabouts of the deceased Vijaya Chaudhari, he met PW-5 Ashok Pawar. However, PW-5 â Ashok Pawar in his evidence claimed that, PW-3 met him in the Civil Hospital.

The PW-3 claims that, he identified three gold bangles, Padak, four gold Beads and Karnafule on the basis of their look and design and stated that, the said Jewelery is of his wife. In this respect, firstly the identification of ornaments is after about two and half months from the date of incident and secondly the procedure followed by Taluka Magistrate for identification is untraceable in law. If the evidence of PW-3 is that, he did purchase the seized gold bangles just prior to two months from the date of incident, then it is difficult to believe that, the said transaction was not shown in the income tax returns. According to the prosecution case, the total weight of bangles was roughly around 32 Grams and coupled with other ornaments is of considerable quantity, and therefore, receipt of purchase of the said ornaments and also reflection of the said transaction in the income tax was necessary. However, no documents are placed on record to suggest the purchase of said ornaments or said transaction of purchase of ornaments is shown in Income Tax Record.

Upon perusal of the evidence placed on record, it appears that, the Taluka Magistrate conducted identification parade on 2nd June, 2012 at about 1.30 p.m. PW-3 was shown three sets of jewelery, though he claimed that three sets were in similar in look, however, it has come in the evidence of PW-18 Kailas Deore (Magistrate) that, other two sets of jewelery were brought from the Bafna Jewelers. Therefore, such identification of jewelery wherein two sets of Jewelery from Bafna Jewelers and one set from Rajmal Lakhichand Jewelery Shop is not significant in as much as it is easy to identify one set of jewelery having mark of Rajmal Lakhichand Jewelery Shop. The prosecution in absence of receipt of purchase of ornaments from Rajmal Lakhichand Jewelery Shop by PW-3, ought to have examined somebody from the shop of the said Jewelery so as to at least tell before the Court that, the said ornaments bears their stamp and were sold to PW3.

As already observed, PW-3 claimed that, he purchased readymade jewelery from Rajmal Lakhichand Jewelery Shop. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to make reference to the evidence of PW-16 Tushar Arvind Chaudhari. In his evidence, he deposed that, he completed Fashion Textile Design diploma and he runs business at Aurangabad under the name and style Diva Candle Crafts since last 4 to 5 years. Yogesh is his elder brother and he is working as Software Engineer at Pune. Dr. Arvind Chaudhari (PW3) is his father and deceased Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari was his mother. Both of them were residing at Muktainagar. His mother was working as Medical Officer at Civil Hospital, Jalgaon. His father was retired as medical Officer from Civil Hospital, Jalgaon. He received a phone call on 13th March, 2012 from his maternal uncle Kishor at about 9.00 a.m. that, his mother was missing since 12th March, 2012. He rushed to Jalgaon and he himself and his friend circle started search of his mother but she could not be traced out. He further stated that, he was called at TahsilOffice, Jalgaon on 2nd June, 2012 for identification of gold articles of his mother. He claimed that, the set which he identified contained three gold Bangles, two gold Karnafule (an ear ornament), one gold Padak (Pendant) and four gold Beads. He was shown four bold Beads. He identified the same before the Court. When he was asked how do he identify the articles of his mother, he deposed that, before 15 days of the incident, he had purchased the four gold Bangles for his mother from Jalgaon. Each Bangle was weighing 9 to 10 gram. The specific circles in the design are also sufficient to identify the bangles. The other articles that he identified have been seen by him many times on the person of his mother and therefore, he could correctly identify them. It appears that, leading question which was asked by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor is that, how do he identify the articles of his mother, the same was objected by the defence on the ground that, it would cause prejudice to the case of the accused.

This witness further stated that, bangles, which were shown to him before the Court was not kept in identification parade. The said bangle belonged to his mother. He can identify this Bangle on the basis of identical design with three other Bangles. The other sets kept at the time of identification parade had similar look with similar weight and the number of articles were also the same. In his cross examination, he stated that, he does not remember the name of the shop from where he purchased the bangles, for his mother. However, the same bangles were purchased by paying cash. However, he admits that, he has no receipt of purchase of set of bangles. In his cross examination by the Advocate for the accused nos. 3 and 4, hestated that, prior to 13th March, 2012 he had come to Jalgaon 15 days before for purchasing bangles for his mother. He further stated that, he has not seen four Bangles on the person of his mother prior to 15 days of 13th March, 2012, when he came to Jalgaon. He specifically stated that, it did not happen that the four bangles were purchased by his father prior to two months of the incident. He further stated that, he had no knowledge on 17th March, 2012 that, four bangles of his mother were stolen and she was murdered for those Bangles. He further stated that, he is not sure about the date of 17th March, 2012 as to whether on that date he was knowing about the murder of his mother. After 5 to 6 days of the incident, he came to know about murder of his mother for her jewelery. He further stated that, he had not stated about the composition of set of jewelery in his statement before Tahsildar and also that, he purchased four bangles for his mother 15 days back. He further deposed that, he stated that, he had seen that isolate Bangle before the Court for first time after purchasing the same.

90. Upon considering the evidence of PW-3 Arvind Chadhari, father of PW-16 â Tushar Chaudhari, in his evidence he stated that, he purchased bangles two months prior to date of incident from the Rajmal Lakhichand Jewelery Shop and PW-16 â Tushar Chaudhari stated that, he purchased the said bangles 15 days prior to the date of incident and he paid the price of the said bangles in cash, however, no receipt was produced on record, therefore, there is material inconsistency in the version of PW-3 and PW-16 about purchasing of bangles. The prosecution has brought on record two version of father and son i.e. PW-3 and PW-16, that the PW-3 stated that, the bangles were purchased two months prior to the date of incident and PW-16 claimed that, he purchased the said bangles 15 days prior to the date of incident. He has not stated name of shop from which he purchased the said bangles. Therefore, the said two inconsistent versions goes to the root of the matter in as much as in absence of receipt of purchase of bangles on record, it create serious doubt in the mind, whether the said ornaments were really belonged to deceased. It was necessary for the prosecution to examine either the owner of the shop from which the bangles were purchased or at least examine anybody from the said shop so as to establish that, the bangles were purchased from the particular shop prior to the date of incident. Therefore, inconsistent version of PW-3 and PW-16 about actual purchase of bangles is something which cannot be brushed aside.

91. It is not the case of the prosecution that, in pursuant to the memorandum statement of Yuvraj gold ornaments are recovered from accused no.4. Infact recovery of these ornaments is not in pursuant to the disclosure statement of accused â Yuvraj. However, it appears that, when accused no.3 Maheshkumar was in police custody, he disclosed that, he purchased the said ornaments and in pursuant to disclosure, the said ornaments were recovered by the Investigating Officer from his shop/house. In support of prosecution case that, accused no.3 purchased the gold ornaments, the prosecution examine PW-13 Nikhil Bharat Varma. His evidence is at Exhibit â 118. He is the nephew of accused no.3. In his evidence before the Court he told that, accused Mahesh is his uncle and accused Premlata is his aunt. Both the accused were present in the Court. He has one more uncle namely Rajaram. He further stated that, Mahesh Varma is the eldest among his brothers. They constitute joint family. Their family runs shop namely Sheth Bansilal Mishrilal Varma. Accused Mahesh and Premlata run the shop. He further stated that, he know accused no.1 â Yuvraj Sabale. He deposed that, on 12th March, 2012, at about 5.00 to 5.30 p.m. accused no.1-Yuvraj Sabale had come to the shop. At that time, he was also present in the shop. Then he has stated further details about the ornaments given by Yuvaj Sabale. He further deposed that, out of four bangles his aunt took out one bangle. Thereafter his aunt Premlata went to Jalna along with that Bangle. After 2 to 3 months his aunt returned to Jalgaon from Jalna. This witness stated that, his aunt after return from Jalna gave him threat to involve him in the crime, if he did not deposit the gold bangles with local crime branch office, and therefore, he went to local crime branch office, Jalgaon and reported all the incident to Investigating Officer Gaware. He handed over the bangles to Investigating Officer Gaware. He has stated further details also. However, the defence criticized his evidence on the ground that, there is a dispute pending between accused Premlata and this witness and therefore, he has deposed against accused Mahesh and Premlata. In his cross examination he admitted that, he had filed private complaint R.C.C. No. 380/2012 on 11th June, 2012. According to the defence counsel due to private dispute pending between the parties he deposed against accused Premalata and Mahesh. In fact, his evidence deserves to be discarded on the ground that, his statement was recorded by the Police after three months from the date of incident, and therefore, his evidence is not trustworthy.

92. It is true that, the statement of this witness was recorded by the Police on 07.04.2012 and the charge-sheet came to be filedwithin few days from recording of his statement by the Police. Such belated statement after three months and the fact that, the private dispute is pending between the parties creates serious doubt about the truthfulness of evidence of PW-13 and therefore, in our opinion, the evidence of PW-13 ought to have been discarded by the trial Court.

93. So far circumstances (i) and (ii) which are enlisted hereinbefore in para No. 76 are concerned, it appears that, there is evidence of PW-6, PW-7 and PW-9 and also the evidence of defence witness Dr. Rathod, Civil Surgeon and also other documentary evidence to suggest that, Dr. Vijaya Chuadhari and accused no.1 was familiar with the atmosphere of Civil Hospital, and he was helping Medical Officer while doing postmortem and he was carrying dead bodies of unidentified and unclaimed person to Civil Hospital, and thereafter to crematory, and therefore, so far circumstance no.1 is concerned, the prosecution has proved the said circumstance. The second circumstance that, on 12th March, 2012, the accused was present in the Civil Hospital, Jalgaon and he was helping Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari in conducting postmortem is concerned, it has come in the evidence of PW-9 Pawan Jadhav that, on 12th March, 2012, he called accused no.1 Yuvraj to assist him in P.M. Room. PW-9 Dr. Pawan Jadhav and accused no.1 Yuvraj were present in P.M. House till 3 p.m. on 12th March, 2012. Therefore, the presence of accused no.1 â Yuvraj in P.M. House till 3 p.m. on 12th March, 2012 has been stated by PW-9 Pawan Jadhav, who is working as Sweeper in Civil Hospital, Jalgaon. However, the P.M. which was conducted from 2 p.m. to 3 p.m. was of one lady Smt. Vispute. Therefore, at the highest it can be said that, accused â Yuvraj was present till 3 p.m. in the P.M. Room as stated by PW-9.

It appears that, neither PW-5 nor PW-9 saw Dr.Vijaya Chaudhari entering into P.M. House. When PW-3 i.e. husband of the complainant, went to the Hospital on the next date of incident, he met PW-9 Pawan. PW-9 told him that, after P.M. was over at 3.00 p.m. Dr.Vijaya Chaudhari went to the Civil Hospital for round. Therefore, evidence of PW-9 Pawan creates serious doubt about whether he has really seen Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari was present in the hospital after 3.00 p.m.. Thereafter his evidence creates serious doubts about its truthfulness in the mind and it is not safe to rely upon it.

So far circumstances (iii) and (iv) relied upon by the trial Court is concerned, from the evidence of PW-11 Ravi Pardeshi Nodal Officer, it appears that, accused Yuvraj made phone call to deceased Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari at about 15:44:31, however, after receiving such phone call, whether Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari immediately thereafter went to the P.M. House is concerned, there is evidence of PW-5 Ashok Pawar. So far another circumstance, the last seen together is concerned, the evidence of PW-5 is relied upon by the trial Court. PW-5 Ashok Pawar in his evidence stated that, on 12th March,2012, in between 3.45 to 4.00 p.m. he was going to the main gate ofcivil hospital along with HIV kits. He met Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari on the way. He gave wish to Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari by calling good afternoon. According to PW-5, Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari responded himin the same manner. He noticed that, she had put on gold ornaments on her person on that day and she was not wearing such jewelery daily. He did ask Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari whether, she had to attend any function, on which she replied that, she had to attend one function, scheduled at Royal Palace Hotel in the evening. She also told himthat, she was going towards P.M. House as there was one unidentifieddead body to come and then this witness saw Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari going towards P.M. House and one white ambulance parked out of P.M. House. Accused no.1 Yuvraj and approver Gulab were standingnear the ambulance and accused no.2 Pankaj was going towards thegate of Civil Hospital. Accused Pawan Jadhav was standing in the gate. He did ask him as to why he was standing there and he replied that, as Dr. Vijaya Chaudari had gone in P.M. House and one dead body had come there. He told him that, the dead body was not brought by that time. Then this witness went with his friend to Tea Stall. While coming back, after consuming tea, again he saw accused no.2 Pankaj going towards P.M. House along with tobacco pouch. Again this witness asked Pawan as to whether the dead body was broughtthere or not. He replied that, the dead body was not reached there by that time. This witness stayed about 10 to 15 minutes at Tea Stall.Then he saw one ambulance coming towards the gate. It was driven by approver Gulab. Accused No.1 Yuvraj and accused no.2 were also seen in the ambulance. He has given other details. He further stated that, after 5-10 minutes he asked his friend Sachin that, they would see whether the P.M. work of Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari was over and he would drop her at Royal Palace Hotel. When he along with his friend went near P.M. House, he noticed that, it was locked. Then he went towards Railway Station. He further stated that, on the next day morning, the husband of Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari came to Civil Hospital and made enquiry with him about his wife. Then he told him that, he had seen Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari going towards P.M. House.

In his cross examination, he stated that, he cannot tell whether the keys of P.M. House were with Pawan (PW-9). When he went there P.M. Room was closed. He further stated that, door of P.M. Room was not visible from the spot where he met Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari first. He further stated that, the P.M. Room's door is also not visible from the tea stall. In his cross examination he further statedthat, when he went to P.M. House, same was locked. He further stated that, he cannot tell whether the dead body is directly taken to P.M. House. He further stated that, he was not known about the procedure of sending the dead body to P.M. House. He did not know design on the jewelery on the person of Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari. He further stated that, his statement was recorded by the Police on 17th March, 2012. He on his own had gone to Police Station. He came to know about the incident of Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari on 17.03.2012 at about 11 a.m., as there was discussion in the hospital. He further stated in the crossexamination by the Advocate for accused no.2 that, he used to talk Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari on Mobile. It did not happen that, he called Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari on her mobile phone for taking her to Royal Palace Hotel. She used to call him on his mobile whenever required. However, on the date of incident, she had not called him on his mobile for dropping her at Hotel Royal Palace. On 12th March, 2012, he had come to Civil Hospital at about 3.30 p.m. for taking H.I.V. Kit. On that day, he was allotted the duty at Railway Station. He further stated that, it is true that, after taking anything from Hospital, the necessary entry has to be made in the concerned register. However, he further stated that, he had no other evidence to show that, he collected H.I.V. Kit.

94. If the evidence of this witness is considered in its entirety, in the first place his duty was not in the hospital on the relevant day. As admitted by him in his cross-examination, at the relevant time, his duty was at Railway Station and he came at 3.30 p.m. to collect the H.I.V. Kit from the hospital. There is no entry in the register that, he collected H.I.V. Kit from the hospital and theprosecution has not placed any other evidence to show that, he collected H.I.V. Kit on that day. His presence on the date of incident in the hospital itself appears to be doubtful, in as much as, even according to him, he came in the hospital at 3.30 p.m. to collect the H.I.V. Kit and there is no entry in the register that he collected theH.I.V. Kit from the hospital, though he has stated in his examinationin- chief that, he was going towards main gate of Civil Hospital along with H.I.V. Kit and in between 3.45 to 4 p.m. he met Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari on the way. Infact, in the first place his presence in the hospital itself is doubtful. Secondly, even if his evidence is believed, at the most he saw Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari going towards P.M. House. He has admitted in his cross-examination, the gate of the P.M. House was not visible - either from the place where he was standing while talking to Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari or from the Tea Stall. It is also difficult to fathom that, though there was no request by Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari to him to drop her to Royal Palace Hotel to attend the conference, he waited in the hospital expecting the call from Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari that, she would ask him to drop her at Royal Palace Hotel. This witness has not stated anywhere that, at the relevant time, he saw Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari in the company of accused no.1 âYuvraj, accused no.2- Pankaj and Gulab. He only stated that, he sawDr.Vijaya Chaudhari going towards the P.M. Room. If the incident of killing Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari as alleged by the prosecution would have taken place in the P.M. Room in that case also some considerable time ought to have been consumed. PW-5 himself has stated that, he along with his friend waited at Tea Stall for about 10- 15 minutes. Infact as per his version, Tea Stall is situated infront of Civil Hospital. Therefore, according to his evidence, he met Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari in between 3.45 to 4 p.m. and he saw going her towards P.M. House. However, he has not stated that, he saw Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari entering in the P.M. Room. If his version is believed then within 10-15 minutes from the visit of Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari, this witness returned back in the Civil hospital and saw that, P.M. Room was locked. Therefore, it appears that, this witness is got up witness. Infact, if he met Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari in between 3.45 to 4 p.m. and within 10-15 minutes he saw P.M. Room was locked. The alleged incident of killing of Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari and taking her dead body in the ambulance by the accused is not possible within 10- 15 minutes. Further evidence of this witness is that, in between 4.15 p.m. to 4.30 p.m. he saw ambulance driven by Gulab accompanied with two accused going out of hospital. However, merely because he saw ambulance going out of hospital would not lead to the inference that, said ambulance was carrying the dead body of Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari. If the evidence of this witness is considered in its entirety, it appears that, his presence on the date of incident in the civil hospital itself was doubtful. Even if his evidence is taken in its entirety, it is difficult to fathom that, within short span of 10-15 minutes alleged act of killing of Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari in the P.M. Room and also taking dead body in the ambulance as alleged by the prosecution is beyond imagination and more so, when there is no criminal antecedents to the credit of accused persons. The prosecution has not brought any material on record to suggest that accused are habitual criminals and that, earlier they were involved in such commission of grave offences. It is also unbelievable that, PW-5 who was working as Technician in the said civil hospital, who claimed closeness with Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari, in as much as, she used to call him on his mobile phone whenever required to drop her on his vehicle, and on that day without even her phone call, he waited expecting call from Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari for dropping her to Royal Palace Hotel, and he did not know about the death of Dr.Vijaya Chaudhari till 17th March, 2012. It is difficult to fathom that, he himself went to the Police Station so as to give statement on 17th March, 2012 when the alleged incident had taken place on 12th March, 2012. Therefore, if the evidence of this witness is read in its entirety, his presence on the date of incident at the relevant time in the Civil hospital itself is doubtful. It appears that, he is got up witness so as to suit the prosecution case and in particular the circumstance that, the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused persons. It is totally unsafe to rely on the evidence of PW- 5 so as to reach to the conclusion that, he saw Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari going towards the P.M. House and further saw her in the company of the accused person.

PW5 claimed in his evidence that, PW-3 came to the Civil Hospital on 13.03.2012, next day of the incident, and met him. PW-3 in his evidence has not mentioned that, he went PW-5 in the civil hospital on 13/03/2012. The statement of this witness is recorded by the Police in the Police Station on 17.03.2012, after about 5 days from the date of incident. On 16.03.2012 memorandum statement of the accused No.1 was recorded, and pursuant to it there is recovery panchnama. In the light of discussion herein before, evidence of PW- 5 does not appear to be true and creates serious doubt about its reliability and truthfulness in our mind, and therefore, we refrain from relying on it.

95. Therefore, the vital circumstance, in the chain of the circumstances that, Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari (deceased) was seen lastly in the company of the accused before the alleged incident is concerned, the prosecution has not proved beyond reasonable doubt the said circumstance. The prosecution has not brought anything on record by way of documentary evidence to show that, PW-5 was present in the civil hospital at the relevant time on 12th March, 2012. There is no other evidence on record to prove the circumstance of last seen together.

96. So far, phone call by accused-Yuvraj on the cell number of deceased Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari at 3:44:31 is concerned, merely because there was phone call from the cell phone of accused Yuvraj, it would not lead to the conclusion that, he called her to P.M. House so as to perform the postmortem on unidentified dead body. By any stretch of imagination, it is unbelievable that, without any entry in the register/record in the civil hospital, the dead body is taken inside the hospital and directly to the P.M. Room and then the person i.e. accused no.1, who according to the prosecution used to help doctor in performing the P.M., but not a servant of Government or Corporation calls directly to Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari for performing the postmortem of unidentified body. The prosecution has not placed anything on record to suggest that, atleast, there was information received by the hospital and that too, there is entry of said information in the hospital record about receiving any unidentified body for postmortem. Therefore, merely because, there was call from the cell phone of accused no.1 â Yuvraj to Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari at 3:44:31, that circumstance alone is not sufficient to hold that, accused no.1 â Yuvraj called Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari in the P.M. House for performing the postmortem on unidentified dead body, though there was no unidentified dead body. Infact, the prosecution story itself is doubtful in as much as PW-9 who is working as Sweeper and duly appointed in the said hospital and on said day his duty was assigned for 24 hours, handed over the keys of the P.M. Room to accused no.1-Yuvraj at 3 p.m. and accused â Yuvraj was sitting on bench infront of P.M. Room, is not proved by the prosecution by independent evidence except bare words of PW-9. Whether there was bench out side the P.M. House is concerned, it appears from the discussion in the impugned judgment that, the learned Judge himself visited the spot including the P.M. House. However, what was seen by the learned Judge can not take place of the evidence or proof. The Supreme Court in the case of Keisam Kumar Singh and another V/s State of Manipur (A.I.R. 1985 SC 1664)in para 13 held as under :-

â13. Lastly, the learned Sessions Judge relied on the local inspection made by him. Here, the High Court rightly pointed out that the learned Sessions Judge had committed a serious error of law. Normally, a Court is not entitled to make a local inspection and even if such an inspection is made, it can never take the place of evidence or proof but is really meant for appreciating the position at the spot. The Sessions Judge seems to have converted himself into a witness in order to draw full support to the defence case by what he may have seen.

This Court in Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1956 SC 415 observed thus :

"A Magistrate is certainly not entitled to allow his view or observation to take the place of evidence because such view or observation of his cannot be tested by cross-examination and the accused would certainly not be in a position to furnish any explanation in regard to the same."

97. The defence examined Dr. Narayan Gajanan Rathod as witness. In his evidence before the Court he stated that, Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari was serving as Medical Officer in Civil Hospital, Jalgaon since 2006. He stated further details about assigning duty to Medical Officer in Civil Hospital. He further stated that, one register is maintained in that respect. Every page of said register bears the name of dead person whose postmortem is done and name of doctor performing autopsy and duration of postmortem with timings and the name of concerned Police Station referring the dead body for autopsy and signature of doctor performing autopsy. During his recording of evidence, he stated that, he has brought the original original Register of Civil Hospital, Jalgaon for the period March, 2012. As per entries in the said Register, the duty hours of Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari were from 12th March, 2012 from 8.30 a.m. to 13th March, 2012 at 8.30 a.m. As per record with him, he stated that, Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari has performed postmortem of only one body on 12th March, 2012 and timings of the said postmortem are 2.00 p.m. to 3.00 p.m. and this postmortem was pertaining to the dead body. He further stated that, he received information from the husband of Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari that, she did not return to house in the evening on 12th March, 2012. He further stated that, he does not know, who has last seen Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari. He further stated that, he has brought original duty Register of doctors. As per the said duty Register, said Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari was on P.M. duty as D.M.O. and P.M.O. The said Register bears the signature of R.M.O. Dr. Bharambe. He acquainted with his signature. The extract of this Register is already on record. When he was confronted with the extract from the Register, he stated that, the contents therein are identical with the original Register. He produced the original Register before the Court. He stated that, after verifying the said Register, the postmortem, which was performed was of Sunita Pandit Vispute. As per record, dead body of Sunita Vispute was brought to Civil Hospital at 1.50 p.m. on 12^th March, 2012. Entry in that regard is taken in that Register at Sr.No. 214. The record also shows that, Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari put her signature in the concerned column. When he was confronted with photocopies of extract of Entry at Sr. No. 214, which was prepared from original Register maintained by Civil Hospital, Jalgaon, he compared the same with the original Register and stated that, it is correct as per original. He further stated that, two helpers are appointed to help the Medical Officer for performing postmortem. In March, 2012, two helpers namely Suklal Karosiya and Pawan Baburao Jadhav were appointed as helpers. These helpers assist the Medical Officer for lifting the dead body and assisting in postmortem. On 12th March, 2012, helper Suklal Karosiya was on earned leave and he sanctioned his leave. He further stated details about accused no.1 that, he used to bring unclaimed dead bodies to Civil Hospital for postmortem and for that purpose he was getting some amount from Municipal Corporation, Jalgaon.

98. Upon perusal of the evidence of this witness, it is crystal clear that, there was no entry in the Register maintained by the hospital that, any unidentified and unclaimed body was arrived in the hospital for postmortem and for that purpose Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari went to the postmortem room. D.W. 1 served as Civil Surgeon in Civil Hospital, Jalgaon during the period from June, 2009 till 7th June, 2012. He has not stated in his evidence supporting the prosecution case that, on 12th March, 2012, the incident of killing of Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari as alleged by the prosecution had taken place in the P.M. Room/Mortuary. His evidence is significant, in as much as he was working as Civil Surgeon as a controlling authority of entire administration of the hospital.

99. Therefore, in the light of discussion hereinabove, the prosecution has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that, Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari was last seen with accused nos. 1, 2 and approver Gulab. This circumstance has not been proved by the prosecution. An another circumstance that, after deceased Vijaya Chaudhari was last seen with accused nos. 1 and 2 within short span of time, accused nos. 1 and 2 and approver â Gulab was seen at crematory along with one female dead body is concerned, even if such circumstance is taken as it is, in the first place, the prosecution has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that, Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari was last seen together with accused nos. 1 and 2 and Gulab and secondly, merely because accused nos. 1, 2 and Gulab, were seen in crematory with one female dead body that itself would not lead to the conclusion that, said dead body was of deceased Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari. Infact, the prosecution has brought on record that, in between 2 p.m. to 3 p.m. Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari performed one postmortem on dead body of Smt. Sunita Pandit Vispute. Even if this circumstance is taken in its entirety, at the most, it can be said that, accused nos. 1, 2 and Gulab, were seen at crematory with one dead body. However, the prosecution has not established beyond reasonable doubt that, the said dead body was of Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari. As already observed, the dead body was not recovered, and from the C.A. Report also nothing has been brought on record which would suggest that, the said dead body was of Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari. The another circumstance is that, Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari was missing after the moment she was last seen with the accused. Since the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that, deceased Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari was last seen in the company of accused, the existence of this circumstance itself would disappear.

The Supreme Court in the case of Kanhaiya Lal V/s. State of Rajasthan ((2014) 4 SCC 715)held that, the circumstance of last seen together does not by itself and necessarily lead to the inference that it was the accused who committed the crime. There must be something more needs to establish to connect the accused with the commission of crime.

100. Another circumstance relied upon by the trial Court is that, procrastination on the part of accused no.1 to supply necessary information to municipal employees in respect of dead body he cremated with the help of other accused and approver and also accused no.1 gave wrong and false information twice to the Municipal Employee about the name of deceased and name that he had given is proved to be imaginary, if both these circumstances are taken together, would also not lead to only conclusion that, wrong information given by the accused no.1 and cremation of dead body in the crematory on the relevant date, itself is sufficient to convict the accused. The prosecution has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that, the dead body which was cremated on platform no.11 in the crematory on 12th March, 2012 was of Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari. As already observed, nothing has come on record through C.A. Report so as to believe that, dead body which was cremated in the crematory on that day on 12th March, 2012 as alleged by the prosecution was of deceased Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari. The Additional Public Prosecutor argued that, the accused no.1 suppressed the vital information about whose dead body he cremated on 12th March, 2012 and further he did give wrong information to the PW-6 and PW-7 about the dead body. The prosecution examined PW-2 to prove that, information given by accused no.1 â Yuvraj about the dead body, which was cremated, was of Kashiram Sabale, in that case also provisions of section 106 of the Evidence Act would not attract automatically. In the first place to attract the provisions of section 106 of the Evidence Act, in the facts of the present case, the prosecution has not discharged its burden to prove that, the dead body which was allegedly cremated on 12^th March, 2012 on platform no.11 was of deceased Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari. Therefore, though Additional Public Prosecutor argued that, the aforesaid facts were within the special knowledge of accused no.1-Yuvraj, in our opinion, that itself is not sufficient since the prosecution has not discharged its burden to prove that, the dead body which was cremated was of Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari. The Supreme Court in the case of Joydeb Patra and ors V/s State of West Bengal (2013 Cri.L.J. 2729) in the facts of that case in paras 7 to 9 held thus :-

â7. Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Bijan Ghosh, vehemently submitted that since the death took place in the house of the appellants, burden was on the appellants to prove as to how the death of the deceased actually took place. He submitted that the death of the deceased obviously took place under very mysterious circumstances and when the medical facilities were very near to the place of occurrence, the appellants should have availed the medical facilities but have not done so and this conduct of the appellants has given scope to the prosecution to believe that they were guilty of the offence under Section 302/34, I.P.C.

8. We are afraid, we cannot accept this submission of Mr. Ghosh. This Court has repeatedly held that the burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt is on the prosecution and it is only when this burden is discharged that the accused could prove any fact within his special knowledge under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act to establish that he was not guilty. In Sucha Singh v. State of Punjab,(2001) 4 SCC 375 : (AIR 2001 SC 1436 : 2001 AIR SCW 1292), this Court held:

"We pointed out that Section 106 of the Evidence Act is not intended to relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, but the section would apply to cases where prosecution has succeeded in proving facts for which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding the existence of certain other facts, unless the accused by virtue of special knowledge regarding such facts failed to offer any explanation which might drive the court to draw a different inference."

Similarly, in Vikramjit Singh v. State of Punjab, (2006) 12 SCC 306 : (2006 AIR SCW 6197), this Court reiterated:

"Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act does not relieve the prosecution to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Only when the prosecution case has been proved the burden in regard to such facts which was within the special knowledge of the accused may be shifted to the accused for explaining the same. Of course, there are certain exceptions to the said rule, e.g., where burden of proof may be imposed upon the accused by reason of a statute."

9. As the prosecution has not been able to discharge its burden of establishing beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased died due to poisoning, in our view, the trial court and the High Court could not have held the appellants guilty just because the appellants have not been able to explain under what circumstances the deceased died.â

101. In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 166), the Apex Court has held that, the prosecution must stand or fall on its own legs and it cannot derive any strength from the weakness of the defence. It is not the law that where there is any infirmity or lacuna in the prosecution case, the same could be cured or supplied by a false defence or a plea which is not accepted by a Court.

It is also to be born in mind that the case in hand is a case of circumstantial evidence and if two views are possible on the evidence of record, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and other his innocence, the accused is entitled to have the benefit of one which is favourable to him.

102. Another circumstance relied upon by the trial Court was that, there was human blood stains on the shirt of accused no.1, when he was arrested. In fact merely because human blood stains on the shirt of the accused no.1 was found, that itself would not lead to the conclusion that, the said blood stains were of blood group of deceased Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari. In fact, it is difficult to believe that, the accused no.1 continued to wear the said shirt after three days from the date of incident till his arrest. The C.A. Report only indicates that, the human blood stains are found on the shirt of the accused no.1. The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Kailas Tukaram Patil and another V/s State of Maharashtra, (2006 All MR (Cri) 86) in the facts of that case held that, it was for the prosecution to bring on record the fact that, the blood had been drawn from the body of the deceased and it was this blood which was sent to the Chemical Analyser for analysis after taking due precautions relating to the sealing of the same. In the present case, even it is not the case of the prosecution that, the blood stains found on the shirt of the accused no.1 are of blood group of the deceased. Therefore, said circumstance should not have been taken into consideration and accepted by the trial Court.

103. The next circumstance relied upon by the trial Court is that, signatures of the accused in Municipal Register while giving information in crematory and on the receipt Exhibit No. 75 are proved by cogent evidence. As already observed in para 70 and 71 of this judgment, merely because handwriting suggest that, the signatures are of the accused on the register maintained by the Municipal Register that itself is not the basis to convict the accused. In the first place, as discussed in para No.70 and 71, the signature and also handwriting of alleged signature if compared with the other handwriting in the entry at Sr. No. 027483 are in different handwriting and ink. The prosecution claims that, PW-7 had written information given by the accused Yuvraj in Death Report Numerical Information Register. However, the prosecution did not send documents to hand writing expert to ascertain whether, those entries are in the hand writing of PW7.

104. The another circumstance relied upon by the trial Court is knowledge of accused about the two spots where deceased was murdered and where she was cremated. It appears that, memorandum statement of the accused no.1 was recorded on 16.02.2012. The prosecution claims that, on 16.03.2012 accused no.1 shown two spots. It is also pertinent to note that, as discussed here in above, PW-21 Devidas Budha Ahire (Police Officer) went to crematory and saw Otta No.11 and also went inside the P.M. Room on 15.03.2012. Therefore, the prosecution case that, spot of incident and also where dead body was cremated was discovered at the instance of accused No.1 Yuvraj in pursuance to his memorandum statement dated 16.03.2012, lost its significance. Therefore, the prosecution cannot claim that, from the memorandum statement of accused no.1, new fact was discovered about two spots. PW-21 Police Officer, incharge of the case, knew about these two spots and therefore, he visited both the spots on 15.03.2012.

105. The prosecution has not proved that, the silver Jodave and silver anklet, which were recovered from Otta No.11 was of Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari. Even the PW-3 did not claim that, silver Jodave and silver anklet was belonged to deceased. As already observed, there is no other evidence to suggest that, the body which was allegedly cremated at Otta No.11 on 12th March, 2012 was of Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari except the case of the prosecution that, accused no.1 disclosed where deceased was murdered and where she was cremated.

106. The another circumstance relied upon by the trial Court to convict the accused was that, accused no.1 sold gold ornaments to accused Mahesh on the same day i.e. on 12/03/2012 after the incident and the same have been recovered from the house of accused Mahesh, is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that, accused nos. 1, 2 and Gulab (P.W. No.1) have committed brutal murder of Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari in pursuance of conspiracy. The prosecution relied upon the evidence of PW-4, PW-6 and PW-7 to contend that, these witnesses saw the accused nos. 1, 2 and approver â Gulab in crematory and accused nos.1 and 2 and approver â Gulab (PW-1) had brought one dead body in their ambulance and they set on fire the dead body. When the prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that, deceased Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari was last seen in the company of accused nos. 1, 2 and approver- Gulab, the evidence of PW-4, PW-6 and PW-7 that, they saw the accused nos.1, 2 and approver Gulab in crematory with one dead body, would not lead to the conclusion that, the said dead body was of deceased Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari. As already observed, the presence of PW-5 Ashok Pawar itself was doubtful on the date of incident in the civil hospital. Even if the evidence of PW-6 and PW-7 is considered about suspicious conduct of accused, in that case also in absence of prosecution discharging its burden to prove that, the dead body which was carried out by the accused and cremated was of Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari, the alleged suspicious conduct of the accused itself is not sufficient to hold that, the accused committed murder of Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari and cremated dead body under suspicious circumstance. In order to press into service the provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, it is necessary for the prosecution to discharge its burden under Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act before the said provision is invoked as already observed by the Supreme Court in the case of Joydeb Patra (supra). In the light of discussion hereinabove, if all circumstances are taken together and examined, in the light of evidence brought on record by the prosecution, they do not form complete chain. The Supreme Court in the case of Shankarlal Gyarasilal Dixit V/s State of Maharashtra reported (1981 (2) SCC 35) in paras 13, 31 and 32 held thus:-

â13. Since this is a case of circumstantial evidence, it is necessary to find whether the circumstances on which the prosecution relies are established by satisfactory evidence, often described as 'clear and cogent' and secondly, whether the circumstances are of such a nature as to exclude every other hypothesis save the one that the appellant is guilty of the offences of which he is charged. In other words, the circumstances have to be of such a nature as to be consistent with the sole hypothesis that the accused is guilty of the crime imputed to him.

31. It causes us some surprise that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola, who tried the case, has not shown any awareness of the fundamental principle which governs cases dependent solely on circumstantial evidence. Nowhere in his judgment has the learned Judge alluded, directly or indirectly, to the principle that in a case of circumstantial evidence, the circumstances on which the prosecution relies must be consistent with the sole hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. It is not to be expected that in every case depending on circumstantial evidence, the whole of the law governing cases of circumstantial evidence should be set out in the judgment. Legal principles are not magic incantations and their importance lies more in their application to a given set of facts than in their recital in the judgment. The simple expectation is that the judgment must show that the finding of guilt, if any, has been reached after a proper and careful evaluation of circumstances in order to determine whether they are compatible with any other reasonable hypothesis.

32. The High Court, it must be said, has referred to the recent decisions of this Court in Mahmood v. State of U.P. and Chandmal v. State of Rajasthan in which the rule governing cases of circumstantial evidence is reiterated. But, while formulating its own view the High Court, with respect, fell into an error in stating the true legal position by saying that what the court has to consider is whether the cumulative effect of the circumstances establishes the guilt of the accused beyond the âshadow of doubtâ. In the first place, 'shadow of doubt', even in cases which depend on direct evidence is shadow of âreasonableâ doubt. Secondly, in its practical application, the test which requires the exclusion of other alternative hypotheses is far more rigorous than the test of proof beyond reasonable doubt.â

The Supreme Court in the abovesaid judgment held that, in a case of circumstantial evidence, the circumstances on which the prosecution relies must be consistent with the sole hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. In the test as to whether the cumulative effect of the circumstances establishes the guilt of the accused beyond the `shadow of doubt', the `shadow of doubt', even in cases which depend on direct evidence, is shadow of `reasonable' doubt. Secondly, in its practical application, the test which requires the exclusion of other alternative hypotheses is far more rigorous than the test of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

As already observed, the prosecution has not proved some of the circumstances beyond reasonable doubt and there is no complete chain of the circumstances, which would lead to only hypothesis of the guilt of the accused.

107. The accused No.3 Maheshkumar is convicted by the trial Court under section 235 of the Criminal Procedure Code for the offence punishable under section 411 of Indian Penal Code and he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. The provisions of section 411 of the I.P. Code reads thus:-

â411. Dishonestly receiving stolen property.â Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.â

108. In the first place, the prosecution has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that, gold ornaments were sold by accused â Yuvraj to accused nos. 2 and 4 namely Pankaj Maroti Sandanshiv and Premlata Maheshkumar Varma. There is evidence of PW-13 namely Nitin Varma, however, as already observed in the foregoing paragraphs, his evidence is not reliable, in as much as, his statement was recorded by the Police belatedly after three months. Admittedly before his statement was recorded, dispute was pending between the said witness and the accused nos. 3 and 4 before the Competent Court. It is also not the case of the prosecution that, at the instance of accused no.1- Yuvraj and in pursuant to his memorandum statement, the said ornaments were recovered from the house of the accused nos. 3 and 4. In fact, in the first place, so as to meet the ingredients of section 411 of the I.P. Code, the prosecution has to prove that, the person who received the stolen property is received the same dishonestly, knowingly or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property and then only the said person shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. In fact the prosecution has not brought on record the receipts of purchase of gold ornaments either by PW-3 or PW-16. There is inconsistency in the evidence of PW-3 and PW-16 in as much as PW-3 i.e. husband of Dr. Vijaya Chaudhari claimed that, he purchased the gold ornaments just prior to two months of the incident and PW-16 in his deposition has claimed that, he purchased the said gold ornaments before 15 days of the incident. Therefore, the prosecution case appears to be doubtful. The identification of the ornaments after two and half months from the date of incident that too by adopting procedure unknown to law by the Tahsildar is also not believable. No witness has been examined from the Jewelery shop from which the PW-3 claimed to have purchased the gold ornaments, therefore, the entire evidence if taken into consideration, the conviction of the accused no.3 cannot sustain. The Supreme Court in the case of Musheer Khan @ Badshah Khan and anr V/s State of M.P. (AIR 2010 S.C. 762) in the facts of that case held that, identification parade carried out after three months from the date of incident in absence of any explanation for such delay, no reliance ought to have been placed by the Courts below.

109. The Calcutta High Court in the case of Bharadwaj Singh V/s Harimati Dasi (1952 Cri. L.J.1298) while explaining the scope of section 411 held as under:-

âTo succeed in a prosecution under S. 411, I. P. C., the prosecution must not only prove that the property had been stolen, but they must also establish facts from which the Court can properly infer that the person charged with being, in possession of stolen property either knew the property to be stolen, or had reasonable grounds for believing the same to have been stolen. Unless there is some prima facie evidence as to the knowledge of the accused, the latter is entitled to be acquitted, because, merely proving that he was in possession of the stolen property establishes no offence of any kind.â

In another case (Mohan Lal V/s State of Maharashtra) (1979 Cri. L.J. 1328), while explaining scope of section 411 of I.P. Code, in the facts of that case, Supreme Court held that, the prosecution has to prove that, the accused/appellant was in possession of property which he has reason to believe that, it was stolen property. In absence of discharging the burden by the prosecution, mere presence of the accused in the shop where the goods were tried did not essential ingredient of section 411 of I.P. Code.

The Allahabad High Court in the case of Kishan Lal V/s State (1979 Cri.L.J. 309) in para 5 has held as under :-

â5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at sufficient length and after doing so I am firmly of the view that this revision must be allowed. Before a person could be convicted under S.411, I.P.C., it is necessary for the prosecution to prove two things, (1) dishonest receipt or retention of stolen property and (2) knowledge at the time of receipt that the property received was stolen property. From the evidence on record it does appear that the applicant had received stolen articles, viz., one bag Ex.1 Parat Ex.2, tumbler Ex.3., Ex.4 and copper wire weighing 21 kilo-grams and 30 grams Ex.5 from Bundu but there is nothing convincing to show that when he received those articles from him he knew them to be stolen property. The articles which he had purchased from Bundu were not worth more than Rs.400/- and it appears that for these articles he had paid Rs.357/- to Bundu because this amount had been recovered from Bundus' possession soon after the bargain for sale was struck. Seeing the value of the property sold and the price payed therefor there can be no doubt about the fact that there was nothing fishy about the transaction of sale. An effort was made to show through the mouth of Chaman Lal (P.W.2) that when the articles in question were being sold by Bundu to the applicant the latter was heard telling Bundu that he should sell off the articles at cheap rate because they were stolen property. This part of the statement of Chaman Lal has not in the least impressed me to be convincing. On the face of it, it appears too dressed up to be accepted as true. Such a thing was never mentioned in the report. Even Abdul Shakoor did not say such a thing in his statement. Obviously, this kind of statement was introduced with a view to give strength to the prosecution case. Therefore, as it is I am not prepared to believe that the applicant had told Bundu that he should sell the articles at cheap rates because they were stolen property. However, even if one took it for a moment that the applicant suspected those articles to be stolen property and even then purchased them that cannot go to make him liable under S.411, I.P.C. Section 411, I.P.C. does not apply to a case where the accused suspects the property to be stolen property. He must have reason to believe when he received the property that it was stolen property. The word 'believe' is a very much stronger word than 'suspect' and it involves the necessity of showing that the circumstances were such that a reasonable man must have felt convinced in his mind that the property with which he was dealing must be stolen property. It is not sufficient to show that the accused was careless, or that he had reason to suspect that the property was stolen, or that he did not make sufficient enquiry to ascertain whether it had been honestly acquired. In the instant case, there is nothing convincing on record to show that when the applicant purchased the articles in question from Bundu he believed those articles to be stolen property. On the other hand the fact appears to be that he was a bona fide purchaser of those articles and he had purchased them for adequate consideration. The conviction of the applicant under S.411, I.P.C. was, therefore, misconceived and consequently he deserves to be acquitted.â

110. Therefore, taking over all view of the matter, it clearly reveals that there is no chain of circumstance so as to sustain the conviction of the appellants. The Honble Supreme Court in the case of Toran Singh Vs. State of M.P. (AIR 2002 SC 2807) held that the case of the prosecution should rest on its own strength and not on the basis of absence of explanation or plausible defence by the accused. In the case of State of Punjab V/s Bhajan Singh and others (AIR 1975 SC 258), the Supreme Court held that, Suspicion, by itself, however strong it may be, is not sufficient to take the place of proof and warrant a finding of guilt of the accused.

The Supreme Court, in case of Kali Ram V/s. State of Himachal Pradesh (AIR 1973 SC 2773) observed as under :

âAnother golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. This principle has a special relevance in cases wherein the guilt of the accused is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence.â

111. We are conscious of the fact that, one woman Medical Officer lost her life and society is deprived from her services. However, in absence of cogent, trustworthy, reliable and sufficient evidence, we are unable to subscribe the view taken by the trial Court. We have to remind ourself of the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh V/s State of Punjab (AIR 1957 SC 637 (1)), which are as under :-

âThe result is that, if the approver's evidence is discarded as unworthy of credit and his own retracted confession is excluded from consideration as not being voluntary of true whatever circumstantial evidence remains is obviously insufficient to bring home to Sarwan Singh the charge framed against him. If that be the true position, we must hold that, the learned Judges of the High Court were in error in convicting Sarwan Singh of the offence of murder.

It is no doubt a matter of regret that a foul cold-blooded and cruel murder like the present should go unpunished. It may be as Mr. Gopal Singh strenuously urged before us that there is an element of truth in the prosecution story against both the appellants. Mr. Gopal Singh contended that, considered as a whole the prosecution story may be true; but between `may be true' and `must be true' there is inevitably a long distance to travel and the whole of this distance must be covered by legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence.â

112. Thus upon re-appreciation of entire evidence, we are of the considered opinion that, the evidence of the approver is not acceptable and cannot form basis for conviction. None of the circumstance relied by the prosecution can be treated as incriminating circumstance forming chain of events so complete that it leads to draw conclusion of guilt of the accused. So also,the evidence on record do not establish that it is the accused, who have committed the act of murder of the deceased and involvement of person other than accused cannot be ruled out. So also, the circumstances taken together cumulatively do not form chain, so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probabilities that the crime was committed by the accused and none else. The evidence on record is not sufficient to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. There is no clinching and credible evidence to convict the accused for the offences levelled against them as mentioned in paragraph No. 14. The reasons and findings recorded by the trail court are found to be perverse and based upon improper appreciation of evidence on record and not sustainable in law. We are of the view that prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the accused deserves to be given benefit of doubt.

113. In the result, the appeals of the accused deserve to be allowed and conviction of the appellants is liable to be set aside. We, therefore, pass the following order :

ORDER

I) Criminal Appeal Nos. 21 of 2014 and 29 of 2014 filed by the appellants original accused are allowed.

II)The judgment and order dated 18/12/2013 passed in Sessions Case No. 100 of 2012 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon convicting and sentencing the appellant-accused no.1 Yuvraj Kashinath Sable for the offence punishable under Sections 302 r/w 120B, 120B, 201 r/w section 120B, 397 r/w section 120B of I.P. Code, the appellant-accused no.2 Pankaj Maroti Sandanshiv for the offence punishable under Sections 302 r/w 120B, 120B, 201 r/w 120B, 397 r/w 120B of I.P.Code and the appellant-accused no.3 Maheshkumar Rameshchandra Varma for the offence punishable under Section 411 of I.P. Code is hereby set aside. The accused is acquitted of the said offences. The appellants/accused be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.

III) In view of the appeals filed by appellants are allowed, the reference made vide Confirmation Case No. 1 of 2013 stands disposed of in terms of decision in Criminal Appeal Nos. 21 of 2014 and 29 of 2014.

IV) The original record and proceeding of Sessions Case No.100 of 2012 be remitted back to Sessions Court, Jalgaon.

Court	Mumbai Aurangabad High Court
Decided On	Dec-17-2014
Case Number	Confirmation Case No. 1 of 2013 & Criminal Appeal Nos. 21 of 2014 & 29 of 2014
Judge	S.S. SHINDE & V.L. ACHLIYA
Appellant	The State of Maharashtra and Others
Respondent	Yuvraj and Others

The State of Maharashtra and Others Vs. Yuvraj and Others - Court Judgment