YUVARAJ AMBAR MOHITE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
LAWS(SC)-2006-10-58
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on October 19,2006

YUVARAJ AMBAR MOHITE Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

CHABI KHARKA VS. STATE OF SIKKIM [LAWS(SIK)-2015-4-8] [REFERRED TO]
MOHD SALEEM @ SALIM VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2012-7-155] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH PAL SINGH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2012-10-132] [REFERRED TO]
LAL SURAJ ALIAS SURAJ SINGH VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(SC)-2008-12-178] [REFERRED TO]
ACHARAPARAMBATH PRADEEPAN VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(SC)-2006-12-61] [REFERRED TO]
ALPESH VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2022-1-294] [REFERRED TO]
PARAMJIT SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2013-10-667] [REFERRED]
RANJYOTSINGH GURUDAYALSINGH VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2008-10-42] [REFERRED TO]
SALEEM ALIAS SALIM VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2012-7-657] [REFERRED TO]
C MUNIAPPAN VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(SC)-2010-8-78] [REFERRED TO]
PREM DAS TRIPATHI VS. STATE [LAWS(ALL)-2011-8-186] [REFERRED TO]
SANJOG @ SANJOGITA AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER [LAWS(P&H)-2012-7-274] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDAPPA GOWDA VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [LAWS(KAR)-2021-1-114] [REFERRED TO]
SATYA PRAKASH @ PRAKASH DHOBI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2017-1-201] [REFERRED TO]
VELMURUGAN VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2008-6-517] [REFERRED TO]
BHURYA ALIAS GULAB ALIAS FAJITYA KALE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2010-2-20] [REFERRED TO]
OSBAN FERNANDES VS. STATE [LAWS(BOM)-2020-8-107] [REFERRED TO]
VISHAL YADAV VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(DLH)-2014-4-24] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. IMDAD ALI WAID ALI SAYYAD [LAWS(BOM)-2016-4-53] [REFERRED TO]
ASHWANI KUMAR VS. STATE OF H.P. [LAWS(HPH)-2015-10-79] [REFERRED TO]
RUPESH AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2018-7-124] [REFERRED TO]
CHINTU MALHOTRA VS. THE STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2009-5-319] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

S.B. Sinha, J. - (1.)Jubedabhai, deceased although a lady was of unique character. She although passed medical course from Burhanpur and initially started medical practice, she was earning her livelihood by driving an autorickshaw. The first informant, Yusuf Sardar Pinjari (PW-1) was her foster brother. Ashraf Yusuf Pinjari who examined himself as PW-3 was son of PW-1. He at the relevant time was a minor. Jubedabhai Abdul Rajjak Shaikh who examined herself as PW-4 was the younger sister of the deceased. Appellant herein was an employee of the State Reserves Police. He was an accused of commission of an offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code for causing hurt to another autorickshaw driver Machindra Baburao Thombare (PW-2). The deceased was called upon to mediate in the said dispute. PW-2 with a view to settle the dispute between himself and Appellant herein met each other in the morning of 3.9.1988. Appellant thereafter came to the residence of the deceased. He was of black complexion and was sporting beard. The deceased at about 10.30 - 11.00 a.m. was standing in the balcony of her house. She invited PW-1 for meals as the food was being cooked. He went inside the room and found Appellant present there. They were consuming liquor. PW-3 was asked to bring more liquor. While the deceased, Appellant and PW-1 were in the room, PW-4 Jubedabhai Abdul Rajak Shaikh (sister of the deceased) came. She requested for some money for seeing a movie. The deceased gave her Rs. 5/- for the said purpose.
(2.)PW-1 finished his lunch early and returned home to have a nap. He overheard the deceased and Appellant conversing in relation to settling of a matter by way of compromise. The deceased gave PW-3 Ashraf a sum of Rs. 11/- for purchasing mutton for the dog. He enquired about the identity of Appellant to which the deceased named him. He recollected that he had seen him teaching Judo Karate in School No. 9. He brought three bottles of beer, payments whereof was made by Appellant. When he was delivering the third bottle of bear, he saw the deceased adjusting the channel of the TV and Appellant had been standing near her and had put his hand round her neck. They mixed drinks. PW-3 further saw Appellant recoiling on the body of the deceased. He thereafter went to his uncles place for watching a serial in T.V. He came back at about 4.00 p.m. The door was locked. He was not allowed entry in the room. PW-4 after witnessing the movie also came back in the meanwhile. Appellant allegedly opened the door partially and peeped through the top of it and informed her that the deceased was sleeping.
PWs 3 and 4 separately came to the house of PW-1. He was awakened up and was informed that the room of the deceased was locked from inside. In the meantime, the dog of the deceased was seen out. It was brought back to the house by PW-1 and chained. They took a cup of tea there, and then came back to the place of occurrence. The deceased was found lying unconscious on the bed. Dr. Vasant Kesha Manekar (PW-5) who used to reside on the ground floor of the house was requested to examine her. He on examining declared her dead.

PW-4 was asked by the doctor to report the matter to the police. She declined whereupon Dr. Manekar himself lodged a report on the basis whereof a First Information Report (FIR) was lodged at about 1730 hrs. PW-1 in his First Information Report not only gave description of Appellant but also categorically stated that to his knowledge the boy sporting beard was facing a prosecution in the court and the deceased was a witness therein. Appellant was arrested within 12 hours from lodging of the First Information Report on the basis of his description given in the FIR.

(3.)Appellant was charged for commission of an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He pleaded not guilty thereto. The prosecution in support of its case examined ten witnesses. PW-2 was the complainant in the case against Appellant wherein the deceased was mediating. PW-5 is the first informant who had examined the deceased and declared her dead. Dr. Prakash Patil (PW-9) who conducted the autopsy opined that the death was homicidal in nature. The doctor opined that the death was caused due to extensive head injuries with associated evidence of throttling. He found the following injuries on the person of the deceased:
(1) Linear transverse cuts (probably sharp cutting instrument), left index, middle ring finger and right index and middle fingers.

(2) Contusion and swelling on the lower lip.

(3) Contusion over the anterior side of the neck and small contusion on right side of neck and three linear contusions left side of the neck with scratches probably due to nails.

(4) CLW 1 cm x 1 cm over bridge of the nose

(5) CLW 3 cm x 2 cm on left parietal region with evidence of Haemotoma

(6) Multiple small contusions present on medial aspects of both thighs

(7) Contusion over the left leg near medial malleolus

(8) Contusion on right leg posteriorly.

Bhagwan Sabaji Talewar (PW-7) in his deposition stated that Appellant had informed him on the date of incident that he would not be available for Judo class in the evening. He was declared hostile. Vijay Ramchandra Deokar (PW-8) is a driver of autorickshaw. He deposed that Appellant had travelled in his autorickshaw from pan shop on Jail Road to SRPF Camp and then to his residence. PW-10 was the Investigating Officer.

The learned Trial Judge as also the High Court recorded a judgment of conviction against Appellant relying on the evidence of PWs. 1, 3 and 4.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.