Sudam @ Rahul Kaniram Jadhav vs State Of Maharashtra

2. Residents of Rupla Naik Tanda, a remote village

in District Nanded in the State of Maharashtra were

horrified when few of its natives found four dead

bodies floating in the village pond in the morning of

21st August, 2007. A male child of six years alongwith

a female child of ten years and another female child

of ten years alongwith a male child of two to four

years were tied separately. P.W.1 Yashwant Jadhav,

Inspector of Rupla Naik Tanda outpost came to know

about the presence of dead-bodies in the pond through

a villager and reached there at 8.00 A.M. There

besides the aforesaid dead-bodies, he found the body

of an unidentified woman with Mangalsutra on her neck

below a boulder. He accordingly informed the Mahur

Police Station and on that basis crime under Section

302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code was registered

and the investigation was entrusted to the Police

Inspector Parmeshwar Munde (P.W.14). He went to the

spot took out the dead bodies from the Pond and

prepared the inquest reports. During the course of

investigation, Maroti Madavi identified the dead body

of the woman to be his daughter, Anita and the two

children of deceased Anita born to her from the first

husband and two children from the appellant herein.

Search was made to apprehend the appellant but he was

not found till 24th August, 2007. During the course of

investigation, it further transpired that the deceased

Anita who was living with the appellant as his wife

had come to know about his illicit relationship with

P.W.6, Muktabai. The deceased used to protest the said

relationship. This relationship led to serious

dispute amongst deceased Anita, Muktabai and the

appellant. Appellant orally divorced Muktabai and

agreed to pay Rs.15,000/- to her. It was the deceased

Anita who promised to pay the amount. Thereafter,

Muktabai went to her village and the appellant the

deceased Anita and the four children came to Juna Pani

where because of the strained relationship, appellant

committed the murder of Anita and the four children.

3. Police after usual investigation submitted the

charge-sheet under Section 201 and 302 of the Indian

Penal Code and the appellant was ultimately committed

to the Court of Session to face the trial. Appellant

denied to have committed any offence and claimed to be

tried.

4. In order to bring home the charge the prosecution

has altogether examined 14 witnesses besides a large

number of documents have been exhibited. There is no

eye-witness to the occurrence and relying on the

circumstantial evidence the trial court came to the

conclusion that the circumstances proved clearly lead

to one and the only conclusion that the appellant had

committed the murder of the four children and Anita

and in order to cause disappearance of evidence of

murder threw the dead bodies in the Pond. For coming

to the aforesaid conclusion, the trial court held that

the appellant had motive to commit the crime and the

five deceased were last seen in the company of the

appellant. Further extra-judicial confessions given

before PW.6, Muktabai and PW.9, Ishwar were reliable.

Failure to explain the circumstances under which all

of them met homicidal death were taken into

consideration to hold the Appellant guilty of the

charge. Abscondence was another circumstance relied on

by the trial court to hold the appellant guilty. The

trial court awarded the death sentence. On appeal,

the High Court concurred with the findings of the

trial court and finding the case to be one amongst the

rarest of the rare cases confirmed the death sentence.

5. We have heard Mr. Manoj Prasad, learned Counsel

appearing for the appellant; whereas respondent-State

is represented by Mr. Sushil Karanjakar.

6. All the deceased met a homicidal death has not

been questioned before us. Dr. Bandiwan (P.W.10) who

had conducted the post mortem of the dead bodies of

the four children has clearly stated in his evidence

that all the four children died of asphyxia due to

throttling. Dr. Bhosale (P.W.4) who conducted post-

mortem examination of deceased Anita in his evidence,

has opined that she died of asphyxia due to

strangulation. In view of this, we have no manner of

doubt that all the five deceased met homicidal death.

7. Mr. Prasad, however, contends that the

circumstantial evidence brought on record do not point

out towards guilt of the appellant. Mr. Karanjakar,

however, submits that the circumstances proved point

towards the guilt of the appellant.

8. PW.5, Anusayabai is the mother of the deceased

and she has stated in her evidence that her daughter

Anita was earlier married to one Anil Gedam and they

were blessed with two children. Because of

differences, he deserted Anita and the deceased

thereafter started residing with her. According to

her evidence, Anita suddenly left her house with the

children and she did not make any enquiry as she

thought that she had gone to her husband's place.

After few days, according to this witness she came to

know that the deceased was not residing with her

husband Anil but in fact residing with the appellant.

She went to the house of the appellant, saw the

deceased along with her children residing there.

According to her evidence when she came to know about

the dead bodies of the children floating in the Pond

she went there and identified the dead bodies. They

were the two children of the deceased and her husband

Anil, and other two children of the deceased and the

appellant. She also found the dead body of her

daughter Anita there.

9. PW.6, Muktabai has stated in her evidence that

proposal for her marriage came on behalf of a person

called Rahul and she was told that he is unmarried.

Her evidence is that the prospective bridegroom came

to her house and proposed to marry her claiming that

he was single. After marriage, both of them resided

at the village for eight to ten days and thereafter

went to Karim Nagar and resided there for about a

month. According to her evidence, she returned to her

village along with her husband to attend the marriage

of her cousin and while they were residing there the

deceased Anita came there and informed her that the

name of her husband is not Rahul but appellant Sudam

and she had two children from him. Hearing this, the

appellant fled away from there.

10. Muktabai has further deposed in her evidence that

after some time the appellant came to her house and on

being questioned, he disclosed that he was being

harassed by the deceased Anita. Appellant further

disclosed to this witness Muktabai that the two

children were his from Anita. The deceased requested

this witness to release the appellant, whereupon

appellant undertook to maintain both PW.6, Muktabai

and the deceased Anita but later refused to accept the

aforesaid proposal. According to her, appellant

orally divorced her and promised to give her

Rs.15,000/-. Thereafter, according to this witness,

Anita alongwith children went with the appellant. Few

days thereafter, the Police came to her house and

enquired the whereabouts of the appellant and the

deceased. She was shown the photographs of four

children and the deceased Anita. This witness has

further stated that after few days, appellant returned

and on being asked, he disclosed that he had

committed the murder of Anita and four children as

Anita was harassing him.

11. PW.9, Ishwar had stated in his evidence that the

appellant made an extra-judicial confession before him

that he strangulated the four children and his first

wife to death and threw their dead bodies in the Pond

as he was being harassed by his first wife.

12. PW.8, Pralhad has stated in his evidence that on

19th August, 2007 when he was at his house the

appellant along with his wife and four children came

and asked for water. He has further stated in his

evidence that he requested the appellant to stay back

but he left the place along with his wife and four

children and two to three days thereafter he came to

know that he had killed his wife and the children.

13. Thus from the evidence of PW.5, Anusayabai the

mother of the deceased and PW.6, Muktabai it is

evident that the deceased Anita along with the four

children were living with the appellant. The

appellant had married PW.6, Muktabai projecting

himself to be single and the protest made by the

deceased led to the divorce. From the evidence of the

aforesaid witnesses and further from the evidence of

PW.8, Pralhad it is evident that Anita and four

children were last seen alive with the appellant on

19th August, 2007. The dead bodies of the four

children were found floating in the Pond and of Anita

under a boulder on 21st August, 2007. Appellant has

also made extra-judicial confession before PW.6,

Muktabai and PW.9, Ishwar. He confessed to have

committed the murder on account of the harassment

meted out to him by his wife Anita. From the evidence

of the aforesaid witnesses it is apparent that the

appellant had motive to commit the crime, was last

seen with the deceased and had made extra-judicial

confession before the two witnesses PW.6, Muktabai and

PW.9, Ishwar admitting the commission of crime.

Further, he absconded and he is unable to explain how

the woman with whom he was living as husband and wife

and the children met the homicidal death. In our

opinion to bring home the guilt on the basis of the

circumstantial evidence the prosecution has to

establish that the circumstances proved lead to one

and the only conclusion towards the guilt of the

accused. In a case based on circumstantial evidence

the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is

sought to be drawn are to be cogently and firmly

established. The circumstances so proved must

unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused. It

should form a chain so complete that there is no

escape from the conclusion that the crime was

committed by the accused and none else. It has to be

considered within all human probability and not in

fanciful manner. In order to sustain conviction

circumstantial evidence must be complete and must

point towards the guilt of the accused. Such evidence

should not only be consistent with the guilt of the

accused but inconsistent with his innocence. The

circumstances referred to above, in our opinion lead

to one and the only conclusion that the appellant had

committed the murder of all the five persons.

Accordingly we uphold his conviction.

14. Now we proceed to consider as to whether the case

in hand fall in the category of rare of the rarest

case. The appellant had chosen to kill the woman with

whom he lived as husband and wife, a woman who was in

deep love with him and willing to pay Rs.15,000/- to

PW.6, Muktabai, to save the relationship. Appellant

had not only killed the two children of the deceased

who were born from the first husband but also killed

his own two children. He projected himself to be

single and changed his name to dupe a woman and in

fact succeded in marrying her. However, when the

truth came to light, he killed five persons. The

manner in which the crime has been committed clearly

shows it to be premeditated and well planned. It

seems that all the four children and the woman were

brought near the Pond in planned manner, strangulated

to death and dead bodies of the children thrown in the

pond to conceal the crime. He not only killed Anita

but crushed her head to avoid identification. Killing

four children, tying the dead bodies in bundles of two

each and throwing them in the Pond would not have been

possible, had the appellant not meticulously planned

the murders. It shows that the crime has been

committed in a beastly, extremely brutal, barbaric and

grotescue manner. It has resulted into intense and

extreme indignation of the community and shocked the

collective conscience of the society. We are of the

opinion that the appellant is a menace to the society

who cannot be reformed. Lesser punishment in our

opinion shall be fraught with danger as it may expose

the society to peril once again at the hands of the

appellant. We are of the opinion that the case in

hand falls in the category of the rarest of the rare

cases and the trial court did not err in awarding the

death sentence and the High court confirming the same.

15. In the result, we do not find any merit in these

appeals and the same are dismissed accordingly.

............................................... .....J. (HARJIT SINGH BEDI)

.............................................J. (CHANDRAMAULI KR.

PRASAD) NEW DELHI, JULY 4, 2011.