"Witnesses may lie but circumstances speak for themselves:" Bombay High Court upholds conviction for murder of three women

The Bombay High Court on Friday upheld the conviction of the appellant for the offence of murder of three women on the ground that the only conclusion that could be arrived at from the circumstantial evidence was that the accused committed the crime. .A Bench of Justices Sadhana S Jadhav and NR Borkar proceeded to uphold the conviction observing that “witnesses may lie by circumstances speak for themselves”..The Court opined that the cumulative effect of the circumstances must be such as to negate the innocence of the accused."In a case of circumstantial evidence, if the material collected in the course of investigation are interlinked the same has to considered accordingly. A logical inference has to be drawn. What needs to be appreciated and considered is the cumulative effect of the circumstances which must be such as to negate the innocence of the accused and the said circumstances lead to the only conclusion that the accused is the perpetrator of the crime," the Court said. In the instant case, the Court found that the circumstances led to the conclusion that the appellant had committed the crime..The prosecution’s case was that the three women, mother and two sisters of the complainant went missing. .The complainant received phone calls from her mother’s phone that if she wishes to see her mother, then she should come to a remote location with further caution that she should come alone..She, however, fortunately contacted the police. Her cousin informed her that one of her sisters had an affair with the appellant-accused, and because there was opposition to the same, he was driven out of the village..When she conveyed her suspicion to the police, they arrested the appellant who allegedly confessed to having killed the three women..The appellant, who was convicted of offence of murder by the Alibaug Sessions Judge, approached the High Court assailing the order on the ground that the prosecution had relied on a lot of information which was in fact provided by the appellant himself. .His contention was that the whole case rested on suspicion and that conviction cannot take place without proof. He also pointed out certain procedural lapses by the police which would create a reasonable doubt on the prosecution’s case..From the evidence before it, the Court noted that the accused was not a resident of the locality where the bodies of the deceased were found. However, there was no explanation why his wallet was found close to the spot from where one dead body was recovered."The bodies were found in the forest area far from the main road. The accused is not a resident of that locality and neither it is a road commonly used by passers by and if so he ought to have disclosed the source of his knowledge. There is no explanation as to why his wallet was found on the spot close to the dead body," the judgment said. Further, the Court also stated that the prosecution was able to show that t the scene of offence a wallet containing the driving license of the accused, affixed with his Photograph, a card of Royal Twinkle, Star Club belonging to the accused, the election card of the accused, the visiting card of a political leader, a passport size photo of the accused, the passport size photo of a woman and other photographs had been recovered."This would by itself show that he is the perpetrator of the offence," it was held. .It was only at the behest of the appellant that led to the discovery of the fact that the missing persons had died and location of the decomposed bodies. The belongings of the accused were found at the scene of the offence..It was also noted that the photograph of deceased Leelabai and her cellphone from which he had purportedly called prosecution witness 1 were recovered from his house. The tower location established that the calls were made by none other than the accused, the Court said. .The Court also said that the contention of the counsel that cause of death is not ascertained and therefore the accused being entitled to benefit of doubt, is without any relevance. "The accused cannot take the benefit of the admission of the Doctor that the bodies were not referred to anatomy expert. A suggestion that the dead bodies were not of the missing person is falsified and set at rest by the DNA report," it held .Immaterial and irrelevant lacunae in investigation would not entitle an accused to benefit of doubt, the Court emphasised."A misplaced leniency would result in miscarriage of justice especially in cases like the present one where a mother and daughter have died a homicidal death at the hands of the accused,” the judgment said..The Court, therefore, dismissed the appeal and directed the appellant to surrender before the Sessions Court if out on bail or parole within 8 weeks.[Read Judgment]