SUDAM @ RAHUL KANIRAM JADHAVversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

                           [2011] 6 S.C.R. 1104


    A             SUDAM @ RAHUL KANIRAM JADHAV
                                      v.
'                      STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
                 (Criminal Appeal Nos. 185-186 of 2011)
                                JULY 4, 2011
    B
           [HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND CHANDRAMAULI KR.
                          PRASAD, JJ.]

             Penal Code, 1860: ss.302, 201 - Homicidal death -
    c   Death due to strangulation - Five deceased - Conviction
        based on circumstantial evidence - Appellant-accused living
        with the deceased woman as husband and wife, along with four
        children, two from her first husband and two from the appellant
        - By projecting himself to be single, appellant married
    D   another woman (PW-6) - When deceased woman discovered
        the illicit relationship of appellant and PW-6, she agreed to
        pay Rs.15000 to PW-6 to leave appellant - Appellant,
        thereafter, came back with the deceased woman and children
        to his village - After two days, the dead bodies of the
    E   deceased woman and children found in the village pond -
        Relying on circumstantial evidence, trial court convicted the
        appellant ulss.302 and 201 and awarded death sentence -
        High Court confirmed conviction and death sentence - On
        appeal, held: All the deceased met homicidal death - The
        evidence of mother of deceased and PW. 6 showed that
    F
        deceased and four children were last seen alive with the
        appellant two days prior to recovery of dead bodies -
        Appellant had also made extra-judicial confession before
        PW. 6 that he committed murder on account of the
        harassment meted out to him by his wife - The circumstances
    G   led to one and the only conclusion that the appellant had
        committed the murder of all the five persons - Accordingly
        conviction of appellant upheld - As regards sentence, the
        appellant killed the woman with whom he lived as husband

    H                               1104
SUDAM @ RAH UL KANIRAM JADHAV v. STATE OF 1105
             MAHARASHTRA
and wife, a woman who was in deep love with him and willing A
to pay Rs.15,0001- to PW.6 to save the relationship - The
manner in which the crime was committed clearly showed it
to be premeditated and well planned - He not only killed the
deceased but crushed her head to avoid identification - Killing
four children, tying the dead bodies in bundles of two each B
and throwing them in the Pond would not have been possible,
had the appellant not meticulously planned the murders - It
showed that the crime was committed in a beastly, extremely
brutal, barbaric and grotesque manner - The offence resulted
into intense and extreme indignation of the community and c
shocked the collective conscience of the society - The case
in hand fell in the category of the rarest of the rare cases and
the trial courl did not err in awarding the death sentence and
the High court in confirming the same - Sentence/
Sentencing.
                                                                 D
      Evidence: Circumstantial evidence - Held: 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,     E
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        F
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     G
with the guilt of the accused but inconsistent with his
innocence.

   The prosecution case was that the victim (deceased-
woman) was living with the appellant as his wife. The            H
    1106    SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2011] 6 S.C.R.

A deceased-woman had two children from her first
  marriage and two childre·n from her marriage to the
  appellant. The deceased-woman came to know about the
  illicit relationship of the appellant with PW-6. Thereafter,
  the appellant, PW-6 and the deceased-woman had
B serious dispute over the issue. The appellant orally
  agreed to divorce Pw-6 and pay Rs. 15,000/- to her. The
  said amount was agreed to be paid by deceased-woman.
  Thereafter, PW-6 went back to her village. The deceased-
  woman and her children came back with the appellant.
c After two days, the dead body of the deceased-woman
  and her four children were found floating in the village
  pond.

       The trial court held that the circumstances clearly led
  to the only conclusion that the appellant had committed
D the murder of the four children and the deceased-woman
  and in order to cause disappearance of evidence of
  murder threw the dead bodies in the pond and convicted
  the appellant under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and
  awarded the death sentence. On appeal, the High Court
E concurred with the findings of the trial court and
  confirmed the conviction and the death sentence. The
  instant appeal was filed challenging the order of
  conviction and sentence.

F       Dismissing the appeal, the Court

       HELD: 1.1. All the deceased met homicidal death.
  P.W.10 who had conducted the post mortem of the dead
  bodies of the four children clearly stated in his evidence
  that all the four children died of asphyxia due to throttling.
G P.W.4 who conducted post-mortem examination of
  deceased (victim-woman) opined that she died of
  asphyxia due to strangulation. In view of that there was
  no doubt that all the five deceased met homicidal death.
  [Para 6) [1111-D-E]
H
SUDAM @ RAHUL KANIRAM JADHAV v. STATE OF 1107
            MAHARASHTRA

     1.2. The evidence· of PW.5, the mother of the          A
deceased and PW.6 was to the effect that the deceased-
woman ·along with the four children was living with the
appellant. The appellant married PW.6 projecting himself
to be single and the protest made by the deceased led
to the divorce. The evidence of these witnesses and         B
PW.8 showed that the deceased and four children were
last seen alive with the appellant two days prior to the
incident when the dead bodies of the four children were
found floating in the Pond and of the deceased under a
boulder. The appellant had also made extra-judicial         c
confession before PW.6 and PW.9. He confessed to have
committed the murder on account of the harassment
meted out to him by his wife. The evidence of the said
witnesses showed that the appellant had motive to
commit the crime, was last seen with the deceased and       D
had made extra-judicial confession before the two
witnesses PW.6 and PW.9, admitting the commission of
crime. Further, he absconded and he was unable to
explain how the woman with whom he was living as
husband and wife and the children met the homicidal
death. To bring home the guilt on the basis of the          E
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      F
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 conc(usion that
the crime was committed by the accused and none else.       G
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    H
    1108    SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2011] 6 S.C.R.

A inconsistent with his innocence. The circumstances, lead
  to one and the only conclusion that the appellant had
  committed the murder of all the five persons. Accordingly
  the conviction of appellant is upheld. [Para 13] [1113-E-
  H; · 1114-A-D]
B
         2. 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 to save the relationship. Appellant had not only
    killed the two children of the deceased who were born
C   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 succeeded in
    marrying her. However, when the truth came to light, he
    killed five persons. The manner in which the crime was
D   committed clearly showed it to be premeditated and well
    planned. It seemed that all the four children and the
    woman were brought near the Pond in planned manner,
    strangulated to death and dead b:>dies of the children
    thrown in the pond to conceal the crime. He not only killed
E   the deceased 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 showed that the
F   crime has been committed in a beastly, extremely brutal,
    barbaric and grotesque manner. It resulted into intense
    and extreme indignation of the community and shocked
    the collective conscience of the society. The appellant is
    a menace to the society who cannot be reformed. Lesser
G   punishment shall be fraught with danger as it may
    expose the society to peril once again at the hands of the
    appellant. The case in hand fell 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 in
H   confirming the same. [Para 14) [1114-F-H; 1115-A-D]
SUDAM @ RAHUL KAN IRAM JADHAV v. STATE OF 1109
            MAHARASHTRA

    CRIMINAL APPELALTE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal                A
No. 185-186 of 2011.

     From the Judgment & Order dated 22.4.2009 of the High
Court of Judicature at Bombay Aurangabad Bench in
Confirmation Case No. 1 of 2009 and Criminal Appeal No. 128
                                                                    8
of 2009.

    Manoj Prasad, Sadashiv Gupta, Ajay K;r. Chaudhary for the
-Appellant.

   Sushil Karanjakar, Sachin J. Patil, Sanjay Kharde, Asha          C
Gopalan Nair for the Respondent.

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

    CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, J. 1. Appellant, an
accused held guilty of committing the murder of four children       D
and a woman with whom he was living as husband and wife
and sentenced to death is before us with the leave of the Court.

     2. Residents of Rupla Naik Tanda, a remote village in
District Nanded in the State of Maharashtra were horrified when     E
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           F
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          G
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
                                                                    H
    1110    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011] 6 S.C.R.


A 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,
B 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
c 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
0
  murder of Anita and the four children.

        3. Police after usual investigation submitted the charge-
  sheet under Section 201 and 302 of the l;idian Penal Code and
  the appellant was ultimately committed to the Court of Session
E 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
F 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 appella{lt
  had committed the murder of the four children and Anita and
G 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
H given before PW.6, Muktabai and PW.9, lshwar were reliable.
SUDAM @ RAHUL KANIRAM JADHAV v. STATE OF 1111
MAHARASHTRA [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, J.]

Failure to explain the circumstances u.nder which all of them met    A
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    B
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             C
represented by Mr. Sushi! 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        D
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.                           E

     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.
                                                                     F
     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         G
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   H
    1112    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011] 6'S.C.R.


A 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,
B 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
C 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
D 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.
E
        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
F 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
G 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
H
SUDAM @ RAHUL KANIRAM JADHAV v. STATE OF 1113
MAHARASHTRA [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, J.]

after few days, ·appellant returned and on being asked, he         A
disclosed that he had committed the murder of Anita and four
children as Anita was harassing him.

     11. PW.9, lshwar had stated in his evidence that the
appellant made an extra-judicial confession before him that he
                                                                   8
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          C
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.                 D

     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            E
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
                                                                   F
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 PYIJ.9,
lshwar. 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       G
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, lshwar admitting
 the commission of crime. Further, he absconded and he is
                                                                   H
    1114     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (2011] 6 S.C.R.


A 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
B 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
c 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
0
  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.
E
        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
F 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
G 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
H death and dead bodies of the children thrown in the pond to
SUDAM @ RAHUL KANIRAM JADHAV v. STATE OF 1115
MAHARASHTRA [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, J.)

conceal the crime. He not only killed Anita but crushed her head      A
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           B
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         c
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.                                            o
    15. In the result, we do not find any merit in these appeals
and the same are dismissed accordingly.

D.G.                                         Appeal dismissed.