Shantanu Sitaram @ Anil Divekar vs The State Of Maharashtra

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.724 OF 2012

SHANTANU SITARAM @ ANIL DIVEKAR … APPELLANT

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA … RESPONDENT

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.736 OF 2012

DEEPAK @ GANESH S. PATIL … APPELLANT

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA … RESPONDENT

J U D G M E N T

ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

These two appeals have been filed against the

judgment of the Bombay High Court dated 21.07.2011

dismissing three criminal appeals filed by three

Signature Not Verified accused questioning their conviction and sentence Digitally signed by NIDHI AHUJA

imposed by the Additional District Judge, Satara by Date: 2017.09.22 18:19:17 IST Reason:

judgment dated 04.03.2004 by which they were 2

sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life

and to pay fine for the offence punishable under

Section 302 read with 34 IPC and further to RI for

three years and fine for offence under Section 201

read with 34 IPC and for three years and fine for

offence under Section 120B IPC.

2. The facts of the case are:

Accused No.1, Shantanu married deceased Supriya

on 28.04.1999. Their daughter, Mrunal was born on

22.03.2000. Both, Shantanu and Supriya belong to

same place that is Karad. With effect from

10.12.2000 Supriya along with her daughter was

living at her parents' house which was in Karad

itself. On 23.12.2000, Shantanu came to Supriya's

parents' house and took Supriya for a ride in car in

the evening at about 8.30 p.m. Shantanu took Supriya

hurriedly without even permitting her to change her

nightgown which she wore at that time. Supriya along

with her daughter aged about 9 months sat in the

Fiat Car of Shantanu driven by him. When till 10

p.m. Shantanu did not return, Bhalachandra Phadnis 3

(PW.29), father of Supriya made a telephone call at

the house of Shantanu enquiring about Supriya. He

was told that they have not returned to the house.

At about 10.30 p.m., near Shamgaon Ghat, Shantanu

carrying her minor daughter waved one Shambhaji Mane

(PW.6) to stop, who was riding a motorcycle.

Shamgaon Ghat was about 19 kms. from Karad;

Shambhaji Mane, who was returning from Karad to his

residence did not stop the motorcycle but halted at

Shamgaon village and told the incident of waiving

hands by a man to 10/12 boys who were sitting near a

fire place. After 10 to 15 minutes Shantanu

carrying her minor daughter, riding one goods truck

came at the place where Shambhaji Mane and 10 to 12

boys were standing. Shantanu told Shambhaji Mane,

PW.6 that he, his wife and her daughter who were

travelling by car near Shamgaonghat were robbed and

assaulted by three persons and his wife was still

laying in the car. Shambhaji Mane, PW.6 along with

certain persons went to place of occurrence and

found Supriya laying in the car in unconscious 4

condition. Shantanu along with her daughter were

also taken to the place of occurrence, by that time

Supriya had died. Police was informed. Shantanu and

her minor daughter were taken to the Police Out

Post. On the information of Shambhaji Mane crime

case under Section 394 and 302 IPC was registered.

Shantanu was admitted in Hospital and after he was

released from the Hospital, he was interrogated by

the IO, PW.30, P.S.I. Mhase. On the basis of the

interrogation, on 30.12.2000, the Police arrested

Shantanu and two other persons A2, Rafik and A3,

Deepak @ Ganesh S. Patil. At the instance of A2, on

30.12.2000 itself, recovery of an amount of

Rs.1,000/­ from his house and recovery of gold

jewellery which Supriya was wearing at the time of

occurrence was made from his neighbourer, Damodar

Gade. At the instance of A2, recovery of further

stick, piece of rope, knife and other articles was

made. All the articles were photographed by PW.22,

Shantaram Shinde. Certain recoveries were also made

at the instance of A3. Accused were charge­sheeted. 5

Prosecution produced 30 witnesses to prove guilt.

Autopsy and postmortem of body of Supriya was done

on 24th December, morning. Postmortem report

indicated following injuries on the dead body of

deceased Supriya:

“(1) Ligature mark on anterior aspect of neck on thyroid cartilage upper 1/3 going midline, horizontally on either side crossing midline marging towards right side measuring about 11cm x 3/4th cm red in colour.

(2) Ligature mark below cricoid cartilage 2 cm below injury no.1 going horizontally on either side encircling lower part of neck cricold cartilage measuring 25 cm. 3/4th cm red in colour cut section of both ligature mark shows white glistering. Parchment paper like band haematoma on both side present neck venus full of blood.

(3) Contusion 1/2 below injury no.2 on right side 2.5 cm x 0.5 cm red in colour.

(4) Contusion on post part of neck L/3 left side 1.5 cm x 1 cm red in colour.

(5) Abrasion on post part of neck right on trapozious muscle lower part of neck, 2 in number 1/2 cm apart from each other measuring 1 cm – 0.75 cm red in colour.

(6) Abrasion on lower end of left ear lobule 1/2 cm x 1/4 cm red in colour.” 6

3. The trial court after hearing and considering

the evidence on record convicted the accused and

sentenced all the three accused as noted above. All

the three accused filed criminal appeals before the

High Court which have been dismissed by the High

Court by a common judgment. Only accused Nos.1 and 3

have come up before this Court by filing criminal

appeals. A2 has not even challenged the judgment of

the High Court.

4. Learned counsel appearing for Shantanu, accused

No.1, in support of the appeal contends that the

High Court having acquitted the appellants from the

charge under Section 120B IPC, the conviction under

Section 302 read with 34 IPC ought not to have been

maintained. He further submits that marriage of

Shantanu with Supriya was a love marriage and there

was no marital dispute between husband and wife.

Evidence of Bhalchandra Phadnis, PW.29 and Mrs.

Bhagyashri Bhalchandra Phadnis, PW.3 father and

mother of deceased, Supriya that the complaints of

misbehaviour by Shantanu were all at the instance of 7

the Police since Police failed to find out the real

culprit and the accused was roped in. He further

submits that Shantanu has no acquaintance with A2

and A3 and Shantanu himself was injured in the

robbery and due to injuries was admitted in the

Hospital. Both the trial court and the High Court

made error in disbelieving the defence of A1.

Present is a case of circumstantial evidence and

chain of circumstances have not been fully proved.

5. Learned counsel for A3, Deepak @ Ganesh S.

Patil, also adopted the submission of A1. He further

submits that he had no friendship with A1 and he has

been unnecessary roped by the Police and there is no

evidence against him.

6. Learned counsel for the State refuting the

submissions of the counsel for the appellants

supported the judgment of the courts below and

submitted that the prosecution has fully proved the

guilt by the oral evidence, medical evidence on

record and recoveries made. The chain of

circumstances has been fully established 8

conclusively pointing out the guilt towards accused.

7. We have considered the submissions of the

parties and perused the records.

8. The trial court and the High Court have

examined the oral evidence as well as medical

evidence on record. The theory set up in defence by

A1 that when he was going by car along with her wife

and daughter, three persons had asked for lift who

were permitted to sit in the rear seat and those

three persons subsequently at the force of knife

asked A1 to take the car at their desired place and

assaulted Shantanu and put a noose in the neck of

Supriya has been disbelieved by both the courts

below. There is evidence of PW.13, Uday Girase, who

was priest of both the families and who had

performed the marriage of Supriya and Shantanu that

he had seen A1 moving in the company of A2 and A3

before the day of occurrence. Bhalchandra Phadnis,

PW.29, father of Shantanu has also stated that

accused Nos.2 and 3 are friends of accused No.1. A2

is rikshaw owner who was engaged to carry on the 9

bakery items of A1. A3 is residing near the house of

A1. At the instance of A2 the gold ornaments which

were worn by Supriya at the time of occurrence and

were missing from the body were recovered on

30.12.2000 from Damodar Gade, neibhourer of accused

No.1 and other gold articles which were deposited by

the wife of A2 Nilophar on 26.12.2000 in Dapoli

Urban Cooperative Bank for taking gold loan of

Rs.14,200/­ were also found out. The said gold

articles were produced by the Bank Manager, PW.1. In

the identification parade all the gold items were

identified by the father and mother of Supriya.

Further recovery of stick, piece of rope and knife

were proved by panch witnesses. The medical evidence

of Dr. Jadhav, PW.10, has been thoroughly considered

by both the courts below and from the medical

evidence it is proved that ligature marks on the

neck of Supriya were possible by nylon rope

recovered at the instance of A2. PW.22, Santosh

Balakrishna Shete, who took the photographs of

recovery of all the items proved the photographs in 10

his evidence. The theory as put by A1 that he gave

lift to three unknown persons in the car who robbed

husband and wife and assaulted them has been

disbelieved. The injury in the manner as stated by

A1 on his person has not been corroborated by the

medical evidence and other materials on record. The

statement made by A1 in 313 Cr. P.C. as well as

written statement submitted by him where he stated

that he does not know A2 and A3 has been rightly

found to be false. A2 and A3 have been held to be

friends of A1 by the courts below on the basis of

cogent evidence.

9. The submission of learned counsel for the

appellants that since the High Court has acquitted

the accused under Section 120B IPC they ought not to

have been convicted under Section 302 read with 34

IPC also cannot be accepted. The mere fact that

evidence under Section 120B has not been proved does

not in any manner affect the charge under Section

302 read with 34 IPC. A1 to A3 with common intention

committed the crime which has been proved by the 11

prosecution and the conviction of A1 to A3 under

Section 302 read with 34 IPC cannot be faulted.

10. Both the courts below have thoroughly examined

the oral evidence and found the chain of

circumstances fully proved pointing the guilt

towards A1 to A3. We, thus, do not find any merit in

these appeals. Both the appeals are dismissed.

Accused No.1, Shantanu Sitaram is on bail, he is

directed to be taken into custody forthwith.

..........................J. ( A.K. SIKRI )

..........................J. NEW DELHI, ( ASHOK BHUSHAN ) SEPTEMBER 22, 2017. 12

ITEM NO.1503 COURT NO.6 SECTION II-A

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Criminal Appeal No. 724/2012

SHANTANU SITARAM @ ANIL DIVEKAR Appellant(s)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondent(s)

WITH

Criminal Appeal No. 736/2012

Date : 22-09-2017 These appeals were called on for pronouncement of judgment today.

For Appellant(s) Mr. Shekhar Kumar, AOR

For Respondent(s)

Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, AOR Ms. Deepa Kulkarni, Adv.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan pronounced the judgment of the Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. K. Sikri and His Lordship.

The appeals are dismissed in terms of the signed reportable judgment.

(NIDHI AHUJA) (MALA KUMARI SHARMA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

[Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file.]