Pramod vs The State Of Maharashtra

(PER: ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.)

The present appeal is filed in order to challenge judgment and order dated 21.04.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, in Sessions Case No.363 of 2019, whereby the present appellant/original accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC” for short) and is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month.

It is the case of the prosecution that the accused has committed murder of his mother on 21.02.2019, at around 4:15 to 4:45 p.m., at his residential house at village Ambala, Tahsil Ramtek, District Nagpur, by assaulting her with an axe.

The FIR is lodged by PW 2, Sachin Sangitrai. The deceased was working as a housemaid in the house of PW 2. He has stated that he had received a call from his father at around 5:00 p.m., informing him that the accused went to his house and informed that somebody has murdered his mother. The father of PW 2 asked him to lodge report with the concerned police station. PW 2 accordingly made a call to the police station and reached the spot of incident, i.e. the house of the deceased and accused. He has stated that the accused was sitting with the head of his mother in his lap and that the entire area around the place where he was sitting was covered with the blood. He has stated that the accused was under complete intoxication. He further stated that the people who had gathered at the house of the accused were talking that the accused was seen washing the axe at pond/tank.

Based on the said complaint, FIR came to be registered against the accused vide FIR No.0122/2019. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed. The case was thereafter committed by the learned Magistrate to the learned Sessions Court for trial. Charge under Section 302 and Section 201 of the IPC came to be framed on 04.12.2021 vide Exhibit 12.

The prosecution has examined 13 witnesses in all. The relevant witnesses are PW 1, who is panch witness, PW 2, who has lodged the FIR, PWs 3 and 5, who had seen the accused going out of his house with an axe in his hand. PW 4, who had heard quarrel inter se between the accused and the deceased at the relevant time. PW 6, who is mother of PW 2. PW 8, who had met the accused in the village shortly before the incident and PW 12, the Doctor, who had conducted the post-mortem examination of the deceased. It must be stated that there is no eye-witness to the incident. The prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence.

The spot of the offence is not in dispute. The fact that deceased had died homicidal death is also not in dispute. As per prosecution case, the accused himself informed employer of his mother that somebody has killed his mother. The tenor of cross-examination of witnesses will also indicate that this fact is not in dispute.

PW 1 is the panch witness with respect to seizure of the axe, clothes of the deceased, clothes of the accused and soil from the place of offence. He has stated that pursuant to letter dated 22.02.2019, he had been to the spot of incident alongwith other panch witness, Rajakumar Dupare and the aforesaid articles were seized in is presence. In his cross-examination, suggestion was given to him that all the panchanamas were prepared in the police station and he has merely signed the same, which he has denied.

PW 2 has deposed as per the contents of the report lodged by him that on the date of incident, i.e. on 21.02.2019, he had received a call from his father at around 5:00 p.m., stating that the accused had been to their house and informed that somebody had murdered his mother. He has stated that he informed the police about the incident by making a call and reached the spot of incident, where his father and few other persons were already present. He has stated that the accused was sitting in the house with the head of his deceased mother on his lap and was under influence of liquor. Bloodstains were found everywhere in the house. A quilt was found burning in the house and upon questioning the accused, he went inside the room of the house and brought the axe and said that he did not assault his mother with the said axe. The witness has stated that the accused again sat beside the corpse of his mother and started crying. The witness has stated that he went to the concerned police station thereafter and lodged the FIR. The witness has stated that the deceased was working as a maid at his house. He identified the accused, the axe and the quilt during the course of his deposition. During the cross-examination, suggestions were given to him regarding frequent disputes between the accused and his family members, since accused used to take the deceased to his house while she used to work at the house of the informant/PW 2 and there used to be frequent quarrels between the accused and their neighbours.

PW 3 and 5 have stated that house of PW 3 is situated within the vicinity of the house of deceased and that on 21.02.2019, at around 5 p.m., when they were siting the courtyard of the house of PW3, they saw the accused going out of his house with an axe in his hand. They have stated that shortly thereafter, they came to know that Kamlabai was murdered in her house. During the cross-examination, PW 3 admitted that there is a wall between the house of the accused and her house and that in order to go to house of accused, it is not necessary to take road in front of her house. She has admitted that the accused used to go to forest for cutting wood. With respect to the statement in the examination-in-chief that accused was addicted to liquor, a suggestion was given that accused never consummated liquor beyond reasonable limit, which she denied. Suggestion was also given that PW 3 had not seen the accused going out of his house with an axe in his hand. She, however, denied the said suggestion. Examination-in-chief and cross-examination of PW 5 is also on similar lines. PW 5 has also denied the suggestion that she had not seen the accused going out of his house with axe in his hand.

PW 4 has stated in her examination-in-chief that on 21.10.2019, at around 5 pm, she was roaming for collecting cow dunk. She has stated that she saw a cow standing on the road in front of the house of accused and, therefore, she went there. She has stated that she heard noise of quarrel between deceased and the accused. She has stated that the accused was asking the deceased to vacate his house. She has specifically deposed that the door of the house was closed. She has stated that she was left the said place and while returning, she saw that deceased was lying dead in her house. She has stated that she is residing in the same village for years together and, therefore, could identify the voices of deceased and accused. She has also deposed that the accused was addicted to liquor. She has also stated that quarrel between the accused and deceased were a regular feature. In her cross-examination, a suggestion was given that the accused was not quarreling with her mother/deceased, which she has denied. She has admitted that she was not aware about day to day affairs of the deceased and the accused. She answered that she was not aware whether the relations with the deceased mother and the accused that son were cordial.

PW 6, mother of PW 2, in whose house the deceased was working as housemaid, has deposed that Kamlabai (deceased) was working in her house as maid for 6 to 7 years prior to her demise. She has stated hat she had two sons, Vinod, who stays at Nagpur and the accused, who resided with her at Ambala. She has deposed that the accused was addicted to liquor and that he used to demand money from his mother/deceased for consuming liquor. She has further deposed that the accused used to frequently assault his mother/deceased, if she did not give him money. She has stated that, on 21.02.2019, the deceased had come to her house at around 4 pm. She watered the plants and sprinkled water on the ground. She completed her work and left for her house after having tea. She has deposed that around one hour thereafter, the accused came to her house under intoxication, his clothes had bloodstains and he informed that somebody has murdered his mother. She has further stated that she went to the house of the deceased along with other persons and found that the house was bolted from outside and upon opening the door, the deceased was found lying in the room and there were bloodstains in the house. She has stated that everybody came out of the house and bolted the house from outside. She then states that the accused came to the house and sat with head of the deceased in his lap. In her cross-examination, she has confirmed that, on the said date, the deceased had been to her house at around 4 pm and further that she worked for around one hour and thereafter left for her house. She has stated that the accused came to her house at around 5.50 pm.

PW 7, is a neighbour of the deceased and the accused, who has stated that his house is located two houses away from the house of deceased and accused. PW 7 has stated that the accused was addicted to liquor and used to quarrel with his mother regularly and that he often used to beat his mother/deceased. He has also stated that the accused used to kill dogs and hens in the area. He has deposed that, on one occasion, the accused has injured the deceased by assaulting her by means of a stick. However, in the cross-examination, he has admitted that relations between accused and the deceased were good.

PW 8 has deposed that he also resides in the vicinity of the house of the deceased and accused. He also deposed that the accused was addicted to liquor and used to regularly quarrel with his mother/deceased and also used to beat her after consuming liquor. He has deposed that the accused had caused a fracture injury to the deceased in the past. He has stated that on 21.2.2019, at around 3.30 pm there was a quarrel at a Dharamshala located in front of his house and that he was standing outside his house witnessing the said quarrel when the the accused came to that spot by an autorikshaw. He has stated that the accused was heavily drunk and was not even able to walk properly. He has stated that after some time, when the accused left towards his home, the witness himself left for doing his work and the accused proceeded towards his house. He has also deposed that after learning about the demise of the deceased, when he went to the house of the accused and deceased, he found that the accused was crying and on inquires being questioned, he stated that he did not kill his mother with the axe. In the cross-examination, suggestion was given to this witness that he is friend of the accused, which he admitted. He admitted that accused used to do labour work of cutting forest wood. He has admitted that although the accused was under influence of liquor on 21.02.2019, he could recognize him and also had some conversation with him. He admitted that the house of accused is situated within densely populated area.

Perusal of the evidence of PW 12, the doctor, who has conducted the post-mortem examination, reveals that the following injuries were noticed during the post-mortem examination of the deceased:-

The doctor has given opinion with respect to the query report, the endorsement by the Doctor is that, “weapon brought for examination may or may not be responsible for the injury”.

The learned Sessions Court has held that the offence is duly proved against the accused. The learned Sessions Court has taken into consideration the evidence of all the witnesses, including the history of the accused assaulting the deceased under intoxication of liquor.

Perusal of the judgment by the learned Sessions Court will indicate that the learned Sessions Court has given undue importance to the past conduct of the accused, which, by itself, is not relevant for establishing his guilt in a criminal case.

Mr. Khergade, learned Advocate for the appellant, argues that there is no eyewitness to the incident. He contends that the case is based merely on circumstantial evidence and that chain of circumstances is not complete. The contention is that the blood of the axe does not have bloodstains and no witness is examined to explain the same. He contends that although it is stated in the FIR that the informant had heard from some persons that the accused had washed the axe at the village pond, no witness is examined in order to prove the same. The learned Advocate further argues that the learned Sessions Court has acquitted the appellant for the offence of destruction of evidence under Section 201 of the IPC. The learned advocate contends that the only evidence available on record is that there was a quarrel between the accused/son and deceased/mother. He contends that this evidence is not sufficient to hold that the prosecution has proved its case and that too beyond any reasonable doubt. The learned advocate, therefore, contends that the appeal deserves to be allowed.

Per contra, Mr Doifode, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, defends the findings recorded by the learned Sessions Judge. The contention of Mr Doifode is that the offence has occurred in the house of the accused and deceased, the door of the house was closed when the incident had occurred, as is narrated by PW4, the accused is not denying the fact of homicidal death caused in the house and, therefore, the burden is on him to explain how the offence has occurred. The learned APP further contends that in cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, the accused has not disputed his presence in the residential house at the relevant time. Mr Doifode contends that in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused has stated that he was witnessing the quarrel till darkness and thereafter he had been to the house and after seeing the mother, he informed the persons about the incident. Mr Doifode contends that the stand taken in the statement under Section 313 is false and is yet another circumstance for holding the accused guilty. He contends that as per PW8, the accused left the spot of quarrel for his house at around 3.45 pm. He contends that shortly before the incident, PW4 had heard quarrel between the accused and the deceased in their residential house and shortly thereafter, Pws 3 and 5 had seen the accused leaving the house with an axe in his hand. He also points out that the clothes of the accused had bloodstains, for which there is no explanation.

We have heard rival submissions as aforesaid and also perused the relevant depositions and documentary evidence on record.

The case is one of circumstantial evidence. There is no direct evidence to link the accused to the offence. With respect to circumstantial evidence, the legal position is well settled that the prosecution has to complete the chain of circumstances and that every link in the chain is required to be proved with cogent and reliable evidence. Even if any link is missing or is not properly proved, the outcome must be acquittal of the accused. There cannot be any quarrel with the said legal proposition.

In the light of aforesaid, it is necessary to consider the facts of the present case. The facts will reveal that at the relevant time, the accused was in inebriated condition. The evidence on record will suggest that PW 4 had heard noise and quarrel between the accused and the deceased.

PWs 3 and 5 have deposed that they had seen the accused coming out of his house at the relevant time with an axe in his hand. The evidence of PWs 6 and 8 will suggest that he was under influence of liquor at the relevant time. The evidence of PW 8 indicates that the accused was heavily drunk when he met PW 8 at around 3.30-3.45 p.m.

Although PWs 3 and 5 have stated that they had seen the accused coming out of his house with an axe in his hand, they have not deposed that the axe had bloodstains. They have also not deposed that the clothes of the accused had bloodstains when they saw him coming out of his house with an axe in his hand. Perusal of a FIR indicates that the informant has stated that he had learnt from some persons that the accused had washed the axe at the village pond. However, no witness is examined in order to establish the same. Although PW6 has stated that the clothes of the accused had bloodstains when he had come to their house informing about the death of his mother, PWs 3 and 5, who saw him first coming out of the house with an axe, have not stated that his clothes were stained with blood. Perusal of photograph of the axe, which is at Exhibit 71, indicates that an 11cm round bloodstain is found at the end of the handle of the axe, on opposite side to the blade of the axe. The blade of the axe does not have any bloodstains. As mentioned above, no one has seen the accused removing the bloodstains from the axe. Perusal of the CA report indicates that the axe was found to be stained with human blood of Group, ‘O’, which is the blood group of the accused.

The blood group of the deceased could not be determined. The bloodstains on the clothes of the deceased, which had found when the accused was sitting in the house with head of his deceased mother in his lap, are understandable. On the basis of bloodstains found by the people while he was sitting with the head of his deceased mother in his lap will not be established that fatal wounds were inflicted by the accused.

In the considered opinion of this Court, the absence of bloodstains on the blade of the axe, coupled with the fact that no one has seen the accused removing the bloodstains from the axe and the fact that the Pws 3 and 5, who have seen the accused coming out of the house with the axe, have also not deposed that his clothes or axe were stained with blood, breaks the chain of circumstances. It must also be stated that the evidence reveals that the house of the accused and deceased is located in a dense locality. PW4 has deposed that news of the accused and deceased quarreling could be heard outside on the road. Yet nobody has deposed about hearing the voice of the deceased while she was being assaulted. It is natural that when a person is assaulted with a weapon like axe, he/she would raise a hue and cry. The person will also shout and cry due to pain. No witness has deposed that the voice of the deceased was heard while the wounds were being inflicted to her.

Having said so, it must be stated that there is a serious needle of suspicion pointing towards the accused as author of the injuries on the person of his deceased mother. However, it is also well settled that suspicion, howsoever great, cannot be a substitute for concrete evidence, particularly in criminal cases. In criminal cases, the burden of proving the guilt is always on the prosecution. The burden is very heavy and the prosecution must prove guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt to the hilt. The benefit of doubt is always to be given to the accused, and in case of any doubt, the prosecution must fail. In the light of the said legal position, in the present case, although there is some material against the accused, in the considered opinion of this Court, the same is not sufficient to establish the charge to the hilt and, therefore, the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Court warrants interference by setting aside the conviction. The appeal deserves to be allowed and is allowed in the following terms:-