1

S.C.275/2012

Receivedon:20.04.2012 Registeredon:20.04.2012 Decidedon:08.04.2013 Duration:11M.18Ds. Exh. INTHECOURTOFADDITIONALSESSIONSJUDGEPUNE ATPUNE. (PresidedoverbyShriV .K.Shewale,Addl.SessionJudge,Pune) SESSIONSCASENO.275/2012 StateofMaharashtra. (ThroughSwargatepolicestation) Vs. SantoshMarutiMane Age40years,Occ.Service, R/oAtPostKavthaleTal.UttarSolapur, Dist.Solapur. Appearances : Smt.UjwalaPawar,PublicProsecutorforprosecution. ShriMane,Advocateforaccused. ... :JUDGMENT: (Deliveredon8thdayofApril,2013) The accused Santosh Maruti Mane stood charged u/ss 381,302,307,324,427oftheIndianPenalCode(hereinafterreferredto astheI.P .C.)Inaddition,hestoodchargedu/ss3(2)ofthePrevention of Damage to Public Property Act,1984 under the chargesheet institutedbySwargatepolicestation,Pune. ... ) )...Accused. ) ) ) )...Complainant.

S.C.275/2012

2]

Thebrieflystatedcaseisasfollows: TheaccusedisservingasdriverinMaharashtraStateRoad

TransportCorporation,since8.8.1999andhasbeeninservicewiththe SwargateS.T.DepotPune. 3] The accused has discharged duty as the bus driver in

Swargate S.T. Depot regularly on 23rd and 24th Jan.2012. He has discharged night out duty on S.T.Bus No.MH14BT0717 whereon, VijayanandGulve(P .W.2)hadservedasbusconductor.Ontheabove saiddate,oneachday,about10to11hoursbuswaspliedbythe accusedfromSwargatetoGangapurandviceaversa. 4] ThatitisthedutyofAsstt.TrafficControllersandTraffic

ControllerofthesaidS.T.Depottoallotdutiestoallbusconductors, drivers in advance. Pursuance thereto, on 24.1.2012, Asstt.Traffic Controller Rajendra Gaikwad(P .W.3) had assigned night out duty to the accused to move the bus from Swargate to Waduste. Then, on 25.01.2012,whenShashikantDamkale,P .W.23Asstt.TrafficController ofSwargateDepot,haddischargeddutyfrom11a.m.of24.1.12to8 a.m.of 25.1.12 of allocation of duties to the staff of S.T.buses, was presentintheallocationroom.Then,on25.1.12,atabout7.30to7.45 a.m., the accused had been in allocation room, requested the said witnesstochangehisnightoutdutyintosingleduty.However,the saidwitnesshasshownhisinabilitytodoso,assingledutywasnot available.Then,theroomwascalmlyandquietlyleftbytheaccused. 5] Further, it isthe prosecution case thatonthe saiddate,

S.C.275/2012

S.T.busNo.MH14BT1532pliedbyP .W.21SantoshHendre,whoisthe driverofS.T.DepotSatara,hadmovedthenonstopandnonconductor busNo.MH14BT1532toSwargate,Pune.Hehadparkedthesaid businfrontofpanstallsituateinthepremisesofS.T.depot,Swargate. Thereafter, had been in lavatory to answer nature's call and meanwhile,afterlisteningcommotionofpassengersfromtheOutgate ofthesaidbusdepot,noticed,somebodyhadmovedhisabovesaid S.T.busdishonestlyoutoftheOutgateofthesaidS.T.depot.Hence, he had rushed to chase the bus but in vain. Then immediately, he himself,otherS.T.controllersandAsstt.TrafficControllersnoticedthe bus setting out fromoutgate,hadgiven dashtopedestrians,fruit carts,autorickshaws.Then,againthesaidbuswasmovedbywrong directionandcamefromIngateandsetoutfromOutgatebygiving dashtothepedestrians,passengersandvehiclescomingintheway. 6] Thus,duetothesaidincident,hueandcryandcommotion

wasraisedbytheconcerned.Consequently,AjitLimaye,theinformant P .W.17,VijayDiwateP .W.24,theDepotManager,alongwithothers rushedintheS.T.Depotandontheway,wherefrom,buswasmoved bytheaccused. 7] Further,itisthecasethatthebuswaschasedbytraffic

policeonduty,bytheinformantAjitLimaye,byShashikantDamakale P .W.23,bygivingcalltotheaccusedbynametostopthebus,asitwas killinginnocentpersonsbyindiscriminatedrivingofthebus.However, theaccuseddidnotpayheedtheretoandmovedthebusasperhis whimandcapricion.

S.C.275/2012

8]

Further, it is the case that said bus was also chased by

DeepakKakadePoliceNaikofLashkarpolicestation(P .W.15),byAmar Santosh Chavan, P .M.T. bus driver(P .W.18), by Bapu LonkarPolice constable,ShivajiTapareHeadconstable(P .W.19),whowasdriveron thejeepNo.MH12AH8890ofthenAsstt.CommissionerofPoliceShri YewaleofSwargatedivision.Thesaidpersonshaveurgedtheaccused tostopthebusbutitwasnotstopped. 9] Further,itistheprosecutioncasethatthebusassetout

from Outgate of Swargate S.T.Depot, proceeded towards Shankarsheth road, then, 7 Loves chowk, Golibar Maidan, Narsing chowk,Nepiarroad,MahammaDevdechowk,Talerabunglowchowk, Lashkar police station square, Eastern road, Khanya Maruti chowk, thenoldmotorstand,thenKasewadichowkbygivingdashtomany vehicles,bikers,andcauseddeathofnineinnocentpersons.Hehas causedgrievousandsimpleinjuriesto37persons. 10] Further,itistheprosecutioncasethatwhenbythesaid

route, bus was plied by the accused indiscriminately, the first star witness Amar Santosh Chavan(P .W.18) by taking advantage of bus was slowed down when it has given dash to other vehicles, had enteredinthecabinofthedriverofthebus,triedtoapplyhandbrake but the accused had dealt blow on the chest of the said witness, resultant upon, he fell down on road near the wheel of the bus, thereby,hislifewasendangeredbytheaccused.Thereafter,whenthe buscamenearLaxminagarchowk,twoPMPMLbuseswerethere,one was making movement and the other was to move, the accused skillfully drove the bus by moving his bus around the said buses

S.C.275/2012

withoutgivingdashtothemandthereafter,ithasdashedtobarricades and other vehicles and attempted to reverse it and accordingly, reversed. In the said course, the second star witness Bapu Lonkar (P .W.20)bytakingadvantageofslowmotionofthebus,byitsladder hadbeenontheroofofthesaidbusandfromwindowno.8,effected entryinthebus,then,inthecabinofthedrivertheaccused,informed him that by driving the bus indiscriminately, he had taken lives of manypersons,manypersonsareimpairedbycausinginjuries,hence, hewasinformed,whyheiscommittingmurdersofinnocentpersons, onwhich,hegotannoyedandassaultedthesaidwitness,thenhetried tomovethesteeringtostopthebusbuthewasassaultedbymaking attempt to pull down from moving bus so as to endanger his life. Then,the accused retorted that he may kill many persons, cause injuriestomanymorebutthiswitnesshasnobusinesstosayanything thereto.Thus,duetothesaidincident,theaccusedhaslostcontrol overit,hence,ithasdashedtotheroaddivider,barricadesandthen,it wasstopped. 11] Further, it isthe prosecution case that the said buswas

stoppedatLaxminagarchowk,infrontofSamadhanBhelshop.Then, thepublicwhosefurywasinvitedbytheaccusedbytakinglivesof manymorepersonsandbycausinginjuriestoothers,hadassaulted theaccused.Therefore,BapuLonkar(P .W.20)withthehelpofhead constable Shivaji Tapare, A.P .I. Kundlik Kaigude, tried to save the accused from public assault. Then, he was moved in six seater rickshaw,itwasalsoattackedbythepublic,bybreakingitswindscreen glasses.Then,hewasmovedinothervantothepolicestation.

S.C.275/2012

12]

Thus,aftertheabovesaidepisode,theP .W.17AjitLimaye,

the traffic controller of Swargate S.T. Depot had been in Swargate policedstation,lodgedthereportvideEx.109.Onthebasisthereof, C.R.no.29/12u/ss381,302,307,326,324,427oftheI.P .C.andunder sec.7ofthe PreventionofDamagetoPublicPropertyAct,1984,was registered. 13] As the P .W.17 had set the criminal law in motion, the

Investigating Officer RajendrasihaMohite,then A.C.P .(P .W.39) had giveninstructionstohissubordinatesincarryinginjuredinrespective hospitals, inpreparingpanchanamasofcrimesceneofallthespots, wherein,theabovesaidmassacredidoccurattheinstanceofaccused and preparing inquest panchanamas. Accordingly, injured were referredtorespectivehospitals,theyweretreatedbydoctors.Then, theinquestpanchanamasofEx.17to25(admitted)wereprepared. Thereafter, he had collected autopsy reports of Ex.41 to 49, injury reportsofEx.50to65. 14] Then,thestatementsofalltheinjuredandeyewitnesses

wererecordedbytheInvestigatingOfficer. 15] The Investigating Officer had arrested the accused,

prepared arrest panchanama Ex.138 in presence of P .W.30 Dilip Agarwal and other panch. In his search, one cell phone with duel SIMs,ofAirtelandVodaphone,onewalletcontainingcashamountof Rs.100/,hisdrivinglicence,batch,photoofhimselfandladies,were foundwhichwereseizedalongwithhisclothes.

S.C.275/2012

16]

Astheaccusedwasassaultedbythepublicoutofpublic

fury,theInvestigatingOfficerP .W.39founditdesirabletocallteamof doctors viz.Dr.Rahul Telang, E.N.T. SpecialistP .W.27, Dr.Kirankumar Jadhav,SurgeonP .W.28,Dr.VishalPatil,P .W.29andonepsychiatrist Mrs.Bahale. They have examined the accused,who had narrated historyof roadtrafficaccidentbydisclosinghisname,occupation, hence,hisinjuriesweretreatedbythesaiddoctors.Thepsychiatristof Sassoon hospital hasexpressedopinion inreferringthe accusedfor observation in the Mental Health hospital of Yerawada and accordingly, he was sent in the said hospital . Then, the team of psychiatrists P .W.31Dr.Dongalikar, Dr.Smt.M.R.Bahale, Dr.Himanshu Pendse, Dr.S.B.Gadekar had observed the accused about 10 days w.e.f.28.1.12to6.2.12buttheaccusedwasfoundsound,sane,having noabnormalityorsymptomsofinsanity,atthetimeofhisexamination andatthetimeofcommissionofthecrime.Hence,theaccusedondue investigation,cametobechargesheetedinJ.M.F.C.CourtNo.8,Pune on20.4.2012. 17] TheJ.M.F.C.Courtno.8,Punebytheorderdt.27.4.2012

didcommitthecasetotheSessionsCourt,Punefortrialaccordingto law.Pursuancethereto,thecasewasallottedtothiscourtfortrial. 18] Theprosecutionhadopenedthecase.Hence,afterlistening

thesubmissionsofprosecutionanddefence,chargeatEx.5cametobe framedon30.5.2012,whichwasreadoverandexplainedtoaccused invernacular,towhich,hepleadednotguiltyandclaimedtobetried. Hecamewiththedefencethathehasbeenfalselyinvolvedinthis falsecase.

S.C.275/2012

19]

Moreover,byexaminingthedefencewitnessDr.DilipBurte,

andPharmacistShivanandSheteD.W.2,defenceu/s84ofI.P .C.came tobe set up for the first time. Hence, on this premise, accused has prayed for clean acquittal, on the plea that his case squarely falls undersec.84ofI.P .C. 20] Thus,ontheabovecase,thefollowingpointsariseformy

determination and I record my findings thereon as under for the followingreasons: Points 1]Isitprovedbytheprosecutionthaton 25.1.12inbetween8.05a.m.to8.45a.m. fromSwargaeS.T.Depotsituatewithinthe limitsofSwargatepolicestation,accusedbeing thebusdriverwithMaharashtraStateRoad TransportCorporationandtherebypublic servantinthecapacityofbusdriverof Swargatebusdepot,committedtheftofS.T. busNo.MH14BT1532belongedtoSatara S.T.busdepotoutofthepossessionof regulardriverShriHendreandwithouthis consent,dishonestlymovedthesaidbusfrom theparkinglotofSwargateS.T.depotand useditincausingdeathof9personsand causinginjuriesto37personsandthereby didcommittheoffenceoftheftthereof punishableu/s381ofI.P .C.? 2]WhetherdeathofPujaBhauraoPatil,Ram LalitShukla,ShubhangiSuryakantMore, PinkeshLalchandKhandelwal,Ankush BabanTikone,AkshayPramodPise,Milind PurushottamGaikwad,ShwetaDhaval Findings Yes.

Yes.

S.C.275/2012

OswalandChangdevPandharinathBhandwalkar, hasbeencausedduetohomicidalinjuries outofthedrivingofS.T.busno.MH14BT1532, withintentionofcausingdeathorwith theintentionofcausingsuchbodilyinjuries astheaccusedknewitlikelytocausethe deathoftheperson,towhom,theharmwas causedorithasbeendonewiththeintentionof causingbodilyinjurytosuchpersonsor thesaidactwasdoneknowingthatitisso imminentlydangerousthatitmustinall probability,causedeathorsuchbodilyinjury asislikelytocausedeathandcommitted suchactwithoutanyexcuseforincurringthe riskofcausingdeathsoftheabovesaidpersons? 3]Isitprovedbytheprosecutionthaton thesamedate,timeandplace,andmore particularly,onSwargateoutgate,Shankarsheth road,infrontofJankihall,GolibarMaidan chowk,SMJoshihighschoolPunecamp, infrontofbunglowno.20,situateatNepiarroad, Camp,atDr.Koyajiroad,Camp,EastStreet, IndiraGandhichowk,Campinfrontof Corporationbank,Camp,7Loveschowk, Mitramandalchowk,Swargateandinfront ofSamadhanBhelandBharatCycleMart, SarasbaugandsoutherncornerofPune,on publicroad,theaccusedbydrivingtheS.T. BusNo.MH14BT1532intentionallyor knowinglythattheactofdrivingbuswasso imminentlydangerous,thatitmustinallthe probability,causedeathorsuchbodilyinjury tothepedestrians,bikers,autodriversand driversofothervehicles,asislikelyto causetheirdeathandcommittedsuchact, withoutanyexcuseforincurringtheriskof causingdeathofabovesaidpersonsand therebydidcommitanoffenceofmurder punishableu/s302ofI.P .C.? Yes.

10

S.C.275/2012

4]Isitprovedbytheprosecutionthatonthe samedate,timeandplace,bydrivingthe abovesaidbusintheabovesaidmanner, withsuchintentionorknowledge,theaccused hadgivendashofthesaidS.T.bustoRohini RavindraJadhav,AkanshaSanjayJain,Ritu SanjayDodeja,DayaramShankarMore, ParmeshwarTolnure,DeepakSonuModak, IbrahimShaikh,GodabaiKisanLugade, MadhukarRandive,JainurAbdulAliShaikh, AffiyaSardarSayyad,PrafullaRammohan Nair,TanajiKale,NandkumarWaikar,AditiWaikar, ChandrajeetAher,BabuBasumiyaShaikh, MaheshGadhawe,DattatrayaMohite,Devendra Patil,PirsingHajare,KrushikKhandelwal, SurgeraoMastud,DattatrayaMahangre,Bhaurao Patil,ShaikhIrshadAli,VershaDamale, PradeepShankarMore,SureshVasant Powar,GaneshLaxmanGalande,Abhicharan Mishra,AjayShukla,DashrathBhise,Ganesh Bhise,DhanajiAwate,AditiKambleand SameerAdrilFurnandis,withsuchintention orknowledgethatactwassoimminently dangerousthatitmustinallprobability,cause deathorsuchbodilyinjury,asislikelytocause deathandcommittedsuchactwithoutany excuseforincurringtheriskofcausinginjuries totheabovesaidpersonsandundersuch circumstancesthatbythesaidact,ifthe accusedwouldhavecausedthedeathofthe saidwitnesses,wouldhavebeenguiltyoftheir murderandwithsuchintentionorknowledge causedinjuriestothesaidwitnessesand therebydidcommitanoffencepunishable u/s307ofI.P .C.? 5]Isitprovedbytheprosecutionthatonthe samedate,timeandplace,theabovesaidstolen buswasmovedbytheaccusedintentionallyor withknowledgethatheismovingthebusso imminentlydangerousthatitmustinall

Yes.

Yes.

11

S.C.275/2012

probability,causebodilyinjurytothepersons passingfromthespotsandwithsuchknowledge, bygivingdashtoRohiniJadhav,AkankshaJain, RituSanjayDodeja,PardeshwarTolnure, IbrahimShaikh,MadhukarRandive,Jainnur AliShaikh,PrafullaNair,TanajiKale, NandkumarWaikar,AditiWaikar,BabuBasumiya Shaikh,DevendraPatil,RushikKhandelwal, DattatrayaMahangare,ShaikhIrshadAli, PradeepMore,SureshPawar,GaneshGalande, AbhicharanMishra,AjayShukla,DashrathBhise, GaneshBhise,DhanajiAwate,AditiKamble, SameerFurnandis,voluntarilycausedthem injuriesintheabovesaidmannerbytheabove saidbusandtherebycommittedanoffence punishableu/s324ofI.P .C.? 6]Isitprovedbytheprosecutionthatonthe samedate,timeandplace,bydrivingtheabove saidstolenbusintheabovesaidmanner,on theabovesaidrouteandplaces,theaccused causedwrongfullossanddamagetothe2wheeler, 3wheelerand4wheelervehicles,tothetuneof Rs.7,28,000/andtherebydidcommitan offenceofmischiefpunishableu/s427ofI.P .C.? 7]Isitprovedbytheprosecutionthatonthe samedate,timeandplace,theaccusedbydriving theabovesaidbusintheabovesaidmanner,at theabovesaidplaces,committedmischiefby causingdamagetothepublicpropertyviz.to theroaddivider,tothebarricades,totherailing andtothePMPLBusno.MH12EQ5133,and S.T.BusNo.MH14BT1532tothetuneof Rs.50000/andRs.10,00,000/respectivelyand therebydidcommitanoffencepunishableu/s3(2) ofthePreventionofDamagetoPublicProperty Act,1984? 8]Whetherthecasefallswithintheambitof sec.84ofI.P .C.? Yes.

Yes.

No.

12

S.C.275/2012

9]Whatorder?

Accusedisconvictedas perthefinalorder. REASONS

21] witnesses:

In order to bring home the guilt of accused on all the

heads of charges, the prosecution had examined following 39 1]P .W.1SuryakantMore,wholosthiswifeShubhangiintheincident nearSwargateS.T.depothasdeposedatEx.81. 2] P .W.2 VijayanmandGulve,theconductorontheS.T.busNo.MH 14BT0717 plied by the accused on 23rd and 24th Jan.2012 from Swargate to Gangapur and vice a versa, as a gentleman and nice driver without inviting any problem by enjoying break fast, lunch, dinnerandsoundsleepthattoo,inS.T.itselfatGangapurandsafely moved the bus at Swargate bus standon 24.1.12at 6.30p.m.has deposedatEx.82. 3] P .W.3 Rajendra Gaikwad, the Asstt.TrafficInspectorofSwargate S.T.depot,whohadallottednightoutdutytotheaccusedon24.1.12 toplythebusfromSwargatetoWadusteandback,withoutbickering oftheaccusedatthattime,ofassignmentofsaidduty,hasdeposedat Ex.83. 4] P .W.4BalasahebSarode,otherAsstt.TrafficInspectorofS.T.Depot Swargate,whohasallotteddutyandforwardedleaveapplicationof theaccusedoftheleaveenjoyedinbetween19.2.2010to19.3.2010 withoutsupplyingmedicalcertificatealongwiththeapplication,which wassuppliedon19.3.10abouthehadenjoyedthesaidleaveashe

13

S.C.275/2012

hadsufferedfrom'viralhepatitis'andhasproducedtruecopyofleave applicationwithmedicalcertificateEx.85,hasdeposedatEx.84. 5] P .W.5 RohiniJadhav,theinjuredwhoseActivascooterwasdashed andgrievousinjurieswerecausedtoherandshewasindoorpatientin NobelhospitalofHadapsarabout10to15days,hasdeposedatEx.86. 6]P .W.6Ms.AditiKamble,theotherinjuredwhoseScootywasdashed bytheS.T.buspliedbytheaccusedandthereby,injuriescametobe causedtoher,hasdeposedatEx.93.OntheScootyofsaidwitness deceasedPujawaspillionrider,whodiedintheincident. 7] P .W.7 Mrs.VershaDhamale,eyewitnessandinjuredwhosePiyago sharerickshawwasdashedbybusoftheaccusedandwherein,shehad sustainedinjuries,hasdeposedatEx.94. 8]P .W.8TanajiKale,theinjuredautodriver,whoseautorickshawwas dashed by the above said S.T.bus driven by the accused at Jedhe chowkandthereby,grievousinjurieswerecausedtothesaidwitness andpassengers,hasdeposedatEx.95. 9]P .W.9BhauraoPatil,unfortunatefatherofPujaPatil,whometwith anaccidentandlostherlifeduetodrivingofthebusdrivenbythe accused,hasdeposedatEx.96. 10] P .W.10 Wasim Abdul Gani Bahadur,the other injured who has witnessed one bike along with rider thereof was dragged at the Mitramandalchowk,PatilPlaza,hasdeposedatEx.98. 11]P .W.11NishantPawaskar,theeyewitnessoftheincidentinrespect ofbikeofAkshayPisewasdraggedabout100ft.bythebusdrivenby the accused and thereby death of Akshay Pise did take place, has deposedatEx.99. 12] P .W.12 Mahesh Gadhawe, auto driver, who had witnessed the incident,occurredbymeansofthebusdrivenbytheaccusedatOut

14

S.C.275/2012

gateofSwargateS.T.depotandwhohadsustainedinjuryasdashwas giventohisautorickshawandotherrickshaw,hasdeposedatEx.100. 13]P .W.13DattatrayaMahangre,eyewitnessoftheincidentoccurred atMahatmaGandhibusstand,Camp,whenhehimself,withhiswife and minor daughter, by riding on bike were proceeding towards ArunkumarVaidyaStadiumformorningexercise,atthattime,thebus drivenbytheaccuseddashedtooneI10carandthen,tothebikeof this person and caused the injuries to him,to his wife and minor daughter,hasdeposedatEx.101. 14] P .W.14 DattatrayaMohite,otherinjuredeyewitness,whoseauto rickshaw No.MH12AR640wasdashedatoutgate ofSwrgate S.T. depotbythebusdrivenbytheaccusedandtherebygrievousinjuries werecausedtothesaidwitness,hasdeposedatEx.102. 15] P .W.15 Police Naik Deepak Kakade, attached to Lashkar police stationwhowasBitMartialalongwithPoliceNaikSandeepSutaron thebikeandtheyweredischargingdutyinthemorningoffatefulday ofincident,atthattime,saidwitnesswasarmedwith9mmcarbine with35roundsandwalkytalky,firedinitially4roundsontyresofST bussoastostopit,2roundsonwindscreenglassoftheSTbusand again4roundsonthebussoastostopit,butcouldnotsucceedinthe mission,hasdeposedatEx.103. 16]P .W.16DevendraPatil,injuredautodriverhasdeposedatEx.104. 17] P .W.17 Ajit Limaye, the traffic controller of S.T. bus depot Swargate,whosetthecriminallawinmotionbylodgingthereportat Ex.109hasdeposedatEx.108. 18]P .W.18AmarChavan,thefirststarwitnesswho was P .M.T. driver andwasproceedingwithhiscolleaguesShriChopade,Nanajkarand RokadewarfromSwargateS.T.depotafterwatchingtherouteofPMPL

15

S.C.275/2012

buses,as a part of their training,noticed the S.T. bus driven by the accusedhasgivendashtothepedestrians,fruitcarts,autos,bikesand4 wheelervehiclesandwhenitdashedtothebarricades,itsspeedwas reduced,hence,he entered in the driver's cabin,tried to apply hand brakesoastostopthebusbuthewasassaultedbytheaccusedand hence, he fell down fromthemovingbusendangeringhislife,has deposedatEx.111. 19] P .W.19 ShivajiTapare,Headconstable,whowasdriveronA.C.P . Yewale'sSumoJeepNo.MH12AH8890andhasdischargeddutyon the date of incident along with one Tathe, wireless operator, as wirelesssetwasinstalledinthesaidvehicle,receivedmessageabout massacreoccurredduetodrivingthebusNo.MH14BT1532driven bytheaccused,hence,madeanattempttochasethebustostopitat alltheplacesandnoticedtheotherstarwitnessBapuLonkarP .W.20 hadclimbedontheroofofthebusbyusingitsladderandenteredin thedriver'scabin,triedtomovethebusbysteering,then,accusedhad asaultedLonkarbymakingattempttopushhimfromthemovingbus, endangeringhislifeandthen,thebushasdashedtotheroaddivider, consequently,itsmovementwasstoppedandthereafter,accusedmade anattempttofleefromthespot,hasdeposedatEx.112. 20]P .W.20BapuLonkar,thesecondmoststarwitnessofthecasewho withoutcaringhislife,hadenteredinthebusbyladderandwindow inthedriver'scabin,instructedtheaccusedthathehaskilledmany morepersons,causedgrievousinjuriestomanymorepersonswithout therebeingfault,hence,toimmediatelystopthebus,stillthen,accused didnotstopthebusbutretortedtothesaidwitnessthathehasno businesstogiveinstructionsinnotcausingdeathofmanypersonsand injuriestothem,bysayingthathemaykillmanypersonsbutwitness

16

S.C.275/2012

has no business to say him thereto and lastly the said witness has apprehendedtheaccusedbycausingthebustostop,hasdeposedat Ex.115. 21]P .W.21SantoshHendre,theregularbusdriverofnonstopandnon conduct S.T. bus No.MH14BT1532 belonged to S.T. depot Satara, which was parked by him on 25.1.12 at 8 a.m.in front of the pan stall,situateinthepremisesofSwargateS.T.depotbylockingit,which wasstolenbytheaccusedbyusingduplicatekeyandusedthesaidbus incommittingabovesaidmassacreof9persons,causinginjuriesto manymorepersons,hasdeposedatEx.116. 22] P .W.22 Surgerao Mastud, the eye and injured witness,who had sustainedgrievousinjuriestohiswristandfracturetorightthigh,due todashgiventohisbikebytheabovesaidbusatShankarshethroad, andtherebyhewascompelledtohospitalizefor15days,hasdeposed atEx.117. 23]P .W.23ShashikantDamakale,Asstt.TrafficControllerofS.T.depot Swargate,whohadmadeanattempttostopthebusbygivingcallto theaccusedbyhisnamebeinghisseniorofficerbutaccuseddidnot payheedtohisinstructions.Moreover,towhom,accusedinbetween7 to7.30a.m.inallocationroom,hadmaderequesttochangehisnight out duty to single duty but it was not feasible due to paucity of drivers,hence,dutywasnotchangedandsoonthereafter,theaccused hadcommittedtheftoftheabovesaidS.T.bus,hasdeposedatEx.119. 24] P .W.24 VijayDiwate,theDepotManagerofSwargateDepotwho supervise work of S.T. workshop,store management, Asstt.Traffic Controllers,hasdeposedatEx.120.Hehasproducedservicerecordof the accused vide Ex.121,122 and 122/1 to 15 to prove the entire servicerecordofaccused,leaveenjoyedbyhim,penaltysaddledtohim

17

S.C.275/2012

duetorashandnegligentdrivingpriortotheincident,hasdeposedat Ex.120. 25] P .W.25 Govind Chavan, police constable attached to Swargate police station and when attended duty on peter mobile within the limits of Swargate along with P .S.I. Bajirao Patil and police Naik Khutwadonthedateofincident,receivedwirelessmessageaboutthe massacre committed by accused by driving the S.T.Bus, hence, followedthebusatMitramandalchowk,atNilayambridgeandnoticed theheroicactofBapuLonkarP .W.20ineffectingentryinthebus,and on crucial point that after accused was apprehended by Bapu Lonkar,hewasassaultedbypublic,hehassavedthelifeofaccused frompublicassaultbymovinghiminsixseaterautorickshawbutthe public caused damage to that rickshaw, hence, by other van, has deposedatEx.125. 26] P .W.26 Dr.Ajay Taware,attached to B.J. Medical college and SassoonhospitalwhodidconductautopsyondeadbodyofChangdev Bhandwalkaron14.2.12ashediedoutoftheinjuriessustainedatthe handsofaccusedindrivingthebusintheabovesaidmannerandhad issued the autopsy report vide Ex.48(admitted), has deposed at Ex.129. 27]P .W.27Dr.RahulTelang,(E.N.T.)whohadinitiallyprovidedmedical treatmenttoaccusedon25.1.12inA.C.P .officeCrimebranchPune andissuedreportEx.132,hasdeposedatEx.130. 28]P .W.28GeneralSurgeonDr.KirankumarJadhav,whohadprovided medicaltreatmenttotheaccusedinA.C.P .officeCrimebranch,Puneat about1.30to2p.m.onthefatefuldateofincident,andhadissued injuryreportvideEx.134,hasdeposedatEx.133. 29] P .W.29 Dr.Vishal Patil(Orthopedic),who had provided medical

18

S.C.275/2012

treatmenttotheaccusedandoninquiry,accuseddidnotmakeany grievanceabouthavinghadsufferedfromconvulsion,lossofmemory, ENT bleeding and his general condition was found normal and accordingly,hadissuedtheinjuryreportvideEx.136,hasdeposedat Ex.135. 30] P .W.30 DilipAgarwal,panchwitnessonthearrestandpersonal searchpanchanamaoftheaccused,wherein,cellphonehavingduel SIMofAirtelandVodaphonefoundwiththeaccusedalongwithhis batch,drivinglicence,cashofRs.100/hisphoto,photoofonewoman and his clothes,seized under panchanama Ex.138 ,has deposed at Ex.137. 31] P .W.31 Dr.Bhalchandra Donglikar, Superintendent of Mental Health hospital, Yerawada, Pune who himself along with team of Dr.Mrs.M.R.Bahale, Dr.S.B.Gadekar, Dr.H.U.Pendse, had observed accused for 10 days, from 28.1.12 to 6.2.12 and come to the unimpeachable conclusion that at the time of 10 days observation, accused was found in sound mind, he did not suffer from any abnormality or insanity and accordingly,hadissuedthe report vide Ex.147,148,hasdeposedatEx.146. 32]P .W.32ChetanMore,theNodalOfficerinAirtelforMaharashtra and Goa Zone,who has deposed that cell phone No.9766708633 belongedtotheaccusedanditwasinusefrom14.1.08tillthedateof incidentandhadissuedtheC.D.R.reportthereto,videEx.153to155, hasdeposedatEx.152. 33]P .W.33DattaAngre,theotherNodalofficerofIdeaCellularphone, who has deposed that cell phone No.9623069573 belonged to the accusedandonthesaidcellphone,on25.1.12, inthenoon,phone callwasmadefromthecellphoneNo.9766708633about144seconds

19

S.C.275/2012

and tower location was Shelgaon Tal.Barshi, Dist.Solapur, who has produced the C.D.R. thereof, vide Ex.157 to 160,has deposed at Ex.156. 34] P .W.34 P .I. Ramchandra Pathare who was attached to Swargate policestation,whohadinstructedP .S.I.Suryawanshi,inrecordingthe report lodgedbyP .W.17Limayeandhadcarriedtheinvestigationof thecrimeofthepresentcasebydelegatingpowerstoP .I.Suryawanshi, P .S.I.Patil,ladyP .S.I.Babar,APIKadam,A.P .I.Koliinpreparingcrime scenepanchanamasofrespectivespots,pursuancethereto,theyhave prepared the panchanamas. Then, they have conducted personal searchoftheaccused,arrestedhimandseizedpropertyfoundwith him,underpanchanama,videEx.138,hasdeposedatEx.162. 35]P .W.35A.P .I.KundlikKaigude,whowasattachedtotrafficdivision ofSwargateonthedateofincident,hasmadeanattempttostopthe busesinordertoavoidmishap.Thennoticedtheaccusedhadmoved hisbusaroundthetwoP .M.P .L.buses,beinginsoundstateofmind, Then,hehasnoticedP .W.20Lonkarhadbeenontheroofofthebus drivenbytheaccused,hehadgivenhiminstructionstositdownto savehislifefromoverheadelectricwires,hasdeposedatEx.164. 36]P .W.36A.S.I.VasantSuryawanshi,whohadpreparedcrimescene panchanama of Swargate vide Ex.27, had seized the clothes of the deceasedand4injuredunderpanchanamaEx.86,depositedthesaid propertywithmuddemalclerkofSwargatepolicestation,hasdeposed atEx.165. 37]P .W.37A.P .I.AnilKoliwhowasattachedtoSwargatepolicestation whohadcarriedtheinjuredinHarjheevanhospital,wherehenoticed fateful death of Milind Gaikwad, hence, prepared inquest panchanamnaofhisbodyvideEx.118,hadsentthebodyforautopsy

20

S.C.275/2012

toSassoonhospitalandhadsubmittedreportEx.176tohissuperior abouttheabovesaidact,hasdeposedatEx.175. 38] P .W.38 P .S.I.RavindraBabarwhowasattachedtoKhadakpolice station,whohadattendedthedutyonthedateofincident,admitted somepersonsinSahyadrihospitalandmoreparticularly,Shubhangi More,thewifeofP .W.1whosuccumbedtotheinjuries,hence,hehad prepared the inquest panchanama of the body of Shubhangi,vide Ex.19,sentthebodytoSassoonhospitalforautopsy,andhadsentthe reporttheretotohissuperiorvideEx.178,hasdeposedatEx.177. 39]P .W.39InvestigatingOfficerA.C.P .RejandraMohite,whoafterdue investigation,andseizedtheoffendingbusNo.MH14BT1532under panchanamaEx.179A,hadinstitutedthechargesheet,hasdeposedat Ex.179. 22] 23] Thereafter,prosecutionhasclosedtheoralevidence. Theaccusedwhilemakingstatementu/s313Cr.P .C.,has

madestatementthathewastoexaminehimselfonoath,buthasnot examinedhimselfonoath.However,inordertobringthecasewithin the ambit of sec.84 of I.P .C., he has examined defence witness psychiatristDr.DilipBurteofSolapurvideEx.196.Hehasproduced thedocumentaryevidenceofEx.197to199viz.prescription,casefile andhistorysheetoftheaccused.Thesaidwitnesshasdeposedthatfor thefirsttime,accusedwasexaminedbyhimon19.2.2010,atthat time, accused had suffered from disturbed sleep, less eating and palpitation.Hehasalsonarratedhistoryhavinghadsuspicion=ideas ofpersecution,hearvoicesinear,therewasmoodofsadness,with suicidalideaatatimes,hence,accordingly,tabletswereprescribedto

21

S.C.275/2012

him and thereafter, the accused was instructed to have follow up treatment but as per the bold statement made by the said defence witnessbeforethemediaaftertheincident,hadadmittedthatafter 19.2.2010,accusedneverturnedinhishospitalfortreatment.D.W.2 the Pharmacist ShivanandShetewhohailsfromSouthSolpurfrom whom,accusedreportedtohavepurchasedtabletsasprescribedby D.W. 1 Dr.Burte, under the receiptsof Ex.203to 209 on respective dates,hasdeposedatEx.202. 24] IntheevidenceofD.W.1,thexeroxcopyofthecasepaper

oftheaccusedofEx.197isproducedvideEx.211.Thexeroxcopyof originalprescriptioncardEx.198isproducedvideEx.210.However, theprescriptiongivenbythesaiddoctortotheaccusedon19.2.10 produced vide Ex.211 is silent about the said doctor having had provided medical treatment tothe accusedon 22.2.10,25.2.2010, 1.3.2010,4.3.2010,12.3.2010and22.4.2010. 25] Thedefencecounselvigilantlyhascausedtheprosecution

toplacerelianceonthemedicalexaminationreportoftheaccusedby the psychiatrists Dr.S.J.Mahamunj ,Dr.V .R.Bhailume, hence, he has admittedthesaidmedicalexaminationreportoftheaccusedbythe saidpsychiatrists,areproducedvideEx.140,141and142.Then,the defenceevidencecametobeclosed. 26] PointNo.1: Inordertosustainthechargeu/s381ofI.P .C..,itisthe first and foremost duty of the prosecution to prove that S.T. bus No.MH14BT1532belongingtoSataraS.T.depotwasinpossessionof

22

S.C.275/2012

P .W.21 SantoshHendre. On 25.01.2012,the saidnonstopandnon conductorbuswasparkedandlockedwithinthepremisesofSwargate S.T.depotat8a.m.,soonthereafter,thesaidbuswasdishonestlyand withoutconsent,movedbytheaccusedoutofthepossessionofits driverHendre. 27] SofarastheftofthesaidS.T.busisconcerned,thereisno

dispute,indeeditbelongedtoS.T.depotSatara,onthefatefuldateof incident,itwasmovedbytheP .W.21Hendre,itwasparkedbyduly lockinginthepremisesofS.T.depotSwargateat8.00a.m.Thereafter, said bus was moved by the accused from Swargate S.T. depot to Shankarsheth road, 7 loves chowk, Narsing chowk, Nepiar road Mahmma Devdi chowk, Solapur bazar chowk, Eastern road, Talera bunglwo chowk, Lashkarpolicestationchowk,easternroadchowk, Khanya Maruti chowk, old S.T. stand, Kasewadi chowk, 7 Loves chowk, Dias Plot chowk,Holga chowk, Mitramandal chowk, and Mahalaxmitemplechowk,bycommittingdeathofninepersonsand causinggrievousandsimpleinjuriesto37persons.Alltheinjuredwho fortunatelysurvived,includingP .W.5to10,P .W.12to14,16and22 along with informant Ajit Limaye, S.T.depot manager Shri Diwate, otherAstt.TrafficInspectorsandControllersofS.T.buses,policehead constableChavan,policeconstableBapuLonkarandmanyothershave witnessedtheaccusedhadpliedthesaidbusindiscriminatelyatthe abovesaidplaces.Hence,onthebasisofthisevidence,whichhasnot been shattered in any respect in their cross examination, I have to ascertain,whether it is qualifying all the ingredients to constitute offenceu/s381ofI.P .C.

23

S.C.275/2012

28]

In order to constitute offence on the above head, the

prosecutionhastoprovethataccusedwaspublicservant,whenhedid commit the offence. That the subject matter viz.the stolen property was movable, that it was in possession of Santosh Hendre,P .W.21, regulardriverofSataraS.T.depotofthesaidbus,itwasdishonestly movedbytheaccusedoutofpossessionofthesaidwitness,without hisconsent,withintenttotakeitawayfromthelawfulpossessionof thesaiddriverShriHendre.Thus,aftertakingintostocktheentire evidenceofalltheabovesaidwitnesses,itiscrystalclearthatthebus wasparkedbyP .W.21HendreintheSwargateS.T.depotnearpan stall situate therein. It was duly locked and when he had been to answernature'scallinthepubliclavatory,situateintheSwargateS.T. depot,thebuswasdishonestlymovedbytheaccusedandthisfact was witnessed by the above said witnesses. Therefore, I have to consider,whetherthesaidbushasbeenseizedfromtheaccused.In thisregard,theevidenceofP .W.39InvestigatingOfficerShriMohite coupled with the panchanama Ex.179A found tobe of paramount consideration.Theirevidencemakesitmanifestthataftertheincident, whenbusstoppedinfrontofSamadhanBhelshop,comingwithinthe limitsofSwargatepolicestation,itwasindamagedcondition,was seizedfromaccusedunderpanchanamaEx.179A. 29] Sofarasuseofthesaidbus,itiscrystalclearthatitwas

moved from Outgate of Swargate S.T. depot and moved towards Shankarshethroad,to7Loveschowk,Narsingchowk,Nepiarroad, Solapur chowk, Mahmadevde chowk, then Eastern road, Talera bunglowchowk,Lashkarpolicestationchowk,oldS.T.standchowk, Kasewadichowk,toDiasplot,Holgachowk,Mitramandalchowkand

24

S.C.275/2012

Mahalaxmichowk.Thus,itisclearthatthesaidbuswasstolenbythe accusedfromthelawfulcustodyofP .W.21Hendretheregulardriverof theS.T.busNo.MH14BT1532.Itisalsocrystalclearthatsaidbus hasbeenusedbytheaccusedforcommittingmassacreasdiscussedin theprosecutionstory.Thus,theprosecutionhassucceededinproving beyondreasonabledoubtthattheaccusedhaddishonestlycommitted theft of S.T. bus No.MH14BT1532 out of possession and without consentofSantoshHendrePW21,theregulardriverofthesaidS.T. bus belonged to Satara S.T. depot. Hence, the said S.T. bus after massacre of nine persons and causing injuries to 37 persons, came tobeseizedfromaccusedunderpanchanamaEx.179AdrawnbyP .W.39 inpresenceofpanchas.Hence,Iansweredthefindingonpointno.1in theaffirmative. 30] Pointno.2: Now, I have to deal with the vital aspect, to ascertain whetherdeathsofthefollowingpersonshadtakenplaceoutofthe homicidalinjuriesorotherwise: 1]PujaBhauraoPatil,age19, 2]RamLalitShuklaage25, 3]ShubhangiSuryakantMore,age35, 4]PinkeshLalchandKhandelkal,age32, 5]AnkushBabanTikone,age46, 6]AkshayPramodPise,age20, 7]MilindPurushottamGaikwad,age47, 8]ShwetaDhavalOswal,age28, 9]ChangdeoPandharinathBhandvalkar,age55.

25

S.C.275/2012

31]

In this regard, the defence has admitted the inquest

panchanamasofEx.17to25andtheautopsyreportsofEx.41to49of theabovesaidpersons.Hence,Ihavetofindout,whetherthedeathof the above said persons did take place due to driving of S.T. bus no.MH14BT1532,intentionallyandknowingthatitissoimminently dangerousthatitmustinallprobability,causedeathorsuchbodily injury,asislikelytocausedeathandcommittedsuchact,withoutany excuseforincurringtheriskofcausingdeathbydrivingthesaidbus indiscriminatelyonallthespotsofoffences,asdiscussedinpointno.1. 32] On the above background facts, at the outset, I find it

desirabletotakeintoaccountthedefinitionofmurderbytakinginto stockthemandateofsec.300ofI.P .C.Thus,accordingtotheclause4 of the said section, it is clear that if the person commits the act,knowing that it is so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability,causedeath orsuchbodilyinjury asislikelytocause deathandcommitssuchactwithoutanyexcuse,forincurringtherisk ofcausingdeathorsuchbodilyinjuryasaforesaid,resultingindeath, amountstomurder. 33] Sofarasdegreeofcriminalityineachcase,dependsupon

thementalityoftheaccusedandnotuponthenatureoreffectofthe act,deathiscausedineachcasebutthenatureofcriminalityineach case differs. Where there is sedate deliberation, law assumes it is murder. On this premise, I find it desirable to take into account distinctionbetweenclause(c)ofSec.299andclause4ofsection300 I.P .C.Accordingtoclause(c)ofSec.299,theactissodangerousthatit

26

S.C.275/2012

mustprobablycausedeath.Asagainstthis,accordingtoclause4of section 300, the act is so imminentlydangerousthat it must in all probability,causesdeath.Forthispurpose,thefollowingfactorsare necessary: 1]Thatactisimminentlydangerous, 2]Thatinallprobability,itwillcausedeathorsuchbodilyinjuryasis likelytocausedeathand 3]Thattheactisdonewithoutanyexcuseforincurringtherisk. 34] Thus, when intention of either kind exists with the

knowledgeasdescribed,theknowledgemergesintheintentionand higherdegreeofguiltisimputable. 35] Itiscrystalclearthattherewasintentiononthepartof

theaccusedincommittingculpablehomicide,withsuchintention,of causingsuchbodilyinjuryastheaccusedknewthatitwaslikelyto causethedeathofthepedestrians,autodriversandothers,towhom hehasdashedbytheS.T.busno.MH14BT1532orthesaidactwas donewiththeintentionofcausingbodilyinjuryintendedtobeinflicted beingsufficientinordinarycourseofnaturetocausethedeathsof abovesaidpersonsandmoreparticularly,whilecommittingtheabove saidactofdrivingthebus,intheabovesaidmanner,accusedknew thatthesaidactwassoimminentlydangerousthatitmustinallthe probability,causedeathofthepedestriansorbodilyinjuryaslikelyto causedeathandcommittedsuchactwithoutanyexcuseforincurring theriskofcausingdeathorsuchinjuriestotheabovesaidpersons, likelytocausedeath.

27

S.C.275/2012

36]

Thus,onthisplight,Ihavetoascertainwhetherthedeath

ofabovesaidninepersons,didtakeplaceduetothehomicidalinjuries causedbytheaccusedbydrivingtheabovesaidbusintheabovesaid manner,ontheabovesaidroute.Inthiscontext,thepanchanamaand map of the spots furnished vide Ex.113 has been admitted by the defence.Likewise,thecrimescenepanchanamasofEx.26to40. 37] It is also pertinent to note that homicidal death of the

abovesaidpersonshasnotbeendisputedbythedefence.Therefore,I finditdesirabletobankontheevidenceofP .W.26Dr.AjayTaware,who hadconductedautopsyonthedeadbodyofChangdevBhandvalkaron 14.2.2012 and had issuedthe autopsy report ofEx.49.It hasbeen admittedbythedefenceandtherebythedeathofthesaidpersondid takeplaceoutofthehomicidalinjuries. 38] Further,Ihavetoconsideradmittedinquestpanchanamas

and autopsy reports of other 8 deceased. The admitted inquest panchanamasareatEx.17to25,andautopsyreportsofEx.41to49. ThesaidadmitteddocumentaryevidencespeaksthatdeathofAkshay Piseand MilindGaikwad,asperautopsyreportsEx.41and42has taken place due to multiple fracture injuries, coupled with other injuries. The autopsy report Ex.43 in respect of Shubhangi More speaks that she had suffered multiple injuries as eloquent from col.no.17anddeathhastakenplaceduetocomplicationofmultiple injuries.TheautopsyreportEx.44ofAnkushTikonespeaksthathe hadsufferedinjuriesonhisleg,leftankle,shoulder,overface,chest, forearm, right eye, and fracture of wrist and mandible and due to

28

S.C.275/2012

complicationofthesaidinjuries,hehasbreathedhislast.Theautopsy report Ex.45 of Puja Bhaurao Patil speaks that she had suffered laceratedwoundonforehead,herbrainwasexposedduetofracture ofskull and due tosaid injuries,shehaslost herlife.Theautopsy report of Ex.46 of Ram Lalit Shukla speaks that he had suffered fractureofleftfemur,rightwrist,coupledwithotherinjuriesanddue tocomplicationthereof,hehaslosthislife.TheautopsyreportEx.47 in respect of Pinkesh Khandelwal speaks that he had also suffered grievous injuries,including fracture of Maxilla,mandible, right wrist, rightkneeandhehassuccumbedtothesaidinjuries.Autopsyreport of Shweta Oswal of Ex.48 speaks that she had suffered nearly 15 injuriesandduetotheimpactofthesaidhomicidalinjuries,shehas lost her life. The autopsy report Ex.49 of Changdeo Bhandvalkar speaks that his death has taken place due to complication of head injury.Thus,thereisnoroomofdoubttocometotheconclusionthat thedeathsofabovesaidninepersonshadtakenplaceduetoabove said homicidal injuries having been caused by the accused with intentionofcausingdeathorwiththeintentionofcausingsuchbodily injurytobelikelytocausethedeathofthepersontowhomtheharm hasbeencaused orithasbeendonewiththeintentionofcausing bodily injury,intended to be inflicted was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death of the above said persons, or the accused had committed the above said act knowing that it is so imminentlydangerousthatitmustinallprobabilitycausedeathor suchbodilyinjuryasislikelytocausedeathandcommittedsuchact withoutanyexcuseforincurringtheriskofcausingdeathoftheabove saidpersons.Hence,Ihaveansweredthefindingsonpointno.2inthe affirmative.

29

S.C.275/2012

39]

PointNo.3: Inordertosustainthechargeu/s302ofI.P .C.,Ihaveto

ascertainwhetherthedeathoftheabovesaidninepersonshasbeen causedbytheaccusedbydrivingtheabovesaidbuswithintentionor committedtheactknowingthatitissoimminentlydangerousthatit mustinallprobability,causedeathorsuchbodilyinjuryasislikelyto causedeathandcommittedsaidactwithoutanyexcuse,forincurring theriskofcausingdeathoftheabovesaidninepersons.Therefore, intention/motive/mensereaplayspivotalroleinthecommissionof offenceofmurder. 40] Lawiswellsettledthatifthereisdirectevidenceastothe

offence of murder, then ,intention /motive/mense rea need not be provedasit hastobe gatheredbycourt bytakingintostockentire direct,circumstantial evidence and conduct of the culprit while committingthecrime. 41] Inthisregard,Ifinditdesirabletobankontheratioof

Hon'bleApexCourtinthecaseofStateofU.P .Vs.NaharSingA.I.R. 1998S.C.1328,wherein,ithasbeenheldthatwhentheparticipation oftheaccusedisfullyestablishedincommittingmurder,onlyabsence ofmotiveintheoffenceisofnoimportance,hence,onthatground, accusedcannotbeacquitted. 42] Onthebasisoftheabovesaidsettledpropositionoflaw,I

havetoascertain,whethertheaccusedhascommittedmurderofthe abovesaidninepersons,withtheabovesaidintentionorknowledge

30

S.C.275/2012

that his act was so imminently dangerous,that it must in all the probability,causedeathoftheabovesaidninepersonsorsuchbodily injuries as likely to cause their death and did commit the said act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death as contemplatedunderclause1to4ofsec.300ofI.P .C.Therefore,Ifind it desirable to take into account the conduct of the accused at the outset. 43] ThattheaccusedhasbeenappointedasS.T.driverwith

SwargateS.T.depotsince8.8.99.Itiseloquentfromhisservicerecord furnishedvideEx.122and122/1to15thatthriceonthepremiseof rashandnegligentdrivingoftheS.T.buses,andtwiceabsentingfrom duty without getting the leave sanctioned in advance and causing damagetotheS.T.bus,penaltywassaddledtohim.Therefore,nowI havetodealwiththeconductoftheaccusedinthecapacityofbus driver, immediately before the incident, which did take place on 25.1.2012. 44] Inthiscontext,Ifinditdesirabletotakeintoaccountthe

mostvaluableevidenceofP .W.2.ThereisnodisputethatP .W.2Gulve haddischargeddutyasconductorontheS.T.busNo.MH14BT0717 which was moved by the accused from Swargate to Gangapur on 23.1.12andagainthesamebuswasdrivenbyhimfromGangapurto Swargateon24.1.12whichhasreachedtothedestinationat6.30p.m. Itiseloquentfromtheevidenceofthiswitness,duringthesaidjourney, onboththedays,thebuswaspliedbytheaccusedabout20to22 hours.Itiseloquentfromhisevidencethatbuswasstoppedatallthe stops, wherein, tea, refreshment,lunch and dinner was enjoyed by

31

S.C.275/2012

them. It is eloquent that when the bus was on back journey on 24.1.12,theGangapurpolicehadinformedtotheaccusedandP .W.2 GulvethatatAfzalpur,farmershaveobservedstrike,hence,instructed thesaidteamtomovethebusattheearliestfromGangapur,soasto cross Afzalpur before 10 a.m. Accordingly, bus was moved by the accused before the said time, which has reached at Afzalpur and Dudhani at 8 a.m. and 8.30 a.m. respectively. Hence, at Dudhani, breakfastwasenjoyedbyaccusedandtheconductor.Itisalsoclear thatthesaidbusreachedatAkkalkotat9.30,then,atIndapurat2 p.m.,wheretheyenjoyedlunchinhotel.Itisalsomanifestthatwhen buswastobemovedfromIndapur,accusednoticeditsonetyrehad puncture,buswasmovedtoS.Tdepot,puncturewasremovedandbus wasmovedbytheaccusedwhichreachedSwargateS.T.depot,at6.30 p.m.Itisalsoeloquentthatinthenightof23rdand24thJan.2012,at Gangapur,theaccusedandthesaidwitnesshadenjoyedsoundsleep inthebusitself.Thus,fromthesaidevidence,itiscrystalclearthattill 6.30p.m.of24.1.12,theconductoftheaccusedwasofnormalbus driverandjustlikeamanofordinaryprudence.Therefore,itisclear thatonallthestops,wherethebuswasstopped,accusedhasbehaved justlikeagentlemanandgentledriver,withoutinvitinganycomplaint ofpassengerandpublic. 45] AfterscanningtheevidenceofP .W.2,Ihavetoconsiderthe

evidence of P .W.3 Rajendra Gaikwad who had allotted duty to the accused on 24.1.12, to ply the bus from Swargate to Waduste by dischargingnightoutduty.Thesaidbuswasscheduledon25.1.12.It is eloquent from the evidence of this witness, when said duty was allottedtotheaccused,nogrievancewhatsoeverwasraisedbyhim

32

S.C.275/2012

thereto. 46] BesidestheevidenceofP .W.3,Ifinditdesirabletotake

into account the evidence of P .W.23 Shashikant Damkale, the Asstt.Traffic Controller of Swargate Depot. He has categorically deposedthatheallotsdutytoS.T.driversandconductors.Accordingly, on 24.1.12 at about 11.30 p.m. Swargate to Solapur bus was to proceedbutitsdriverdidnotturn,hence,hehadbeenintherestroom and inquired with one Birajdar and Shinde driver,whether they are willing to discharge duty as driver, but they refused. Further,he deposedthatthen,hehadmadesearchoftheaccusedoncotno.3in therestroombuttheaccusedwasfoundabsentfromhisbed. 47] Hehascategoricallydeposedthaton25.1.12,whenhewas

inallocationroom,atabout7to7.30a.m.,theaccusedarrivedinhis room,requestedtochangehisnightoutdutyintosingleduty,butdue toshortageofdrivers,saidrequestwasnotconsideredbythesaid witness and thereafter, he had noticed, the accused had left the allocationroomcalmlyandquietlyatabout7.45a.m. 48] Now, I have to deal with the general conduct of the

accused as the bus driver of Swargate S.T. depot. In this context, evidence of P .W.24 Vijay Diwate, Depot manager found tobe of paramount consideration. He has deposed that the accused has dischargeddutyasbusdriverexcellentlybeforetheincident.Hence, now,questioncropsin,whatcircumstancehaspromptedtheaccused in committing theft of Bus No.MH14BT1532 out of possession of SantoshHendreP .W.21andcommittingmassacreof9personsand

33

S.C.275/2012

causinggrievousandsimpleinjuriesto37personsbyindiscriminately movingthebus. 49] It is crystal clear from the prosecution and defence

evidencethatbeforetheincident,theaccusedhasnot availedleave for medical treatment on the premise,having had suffered from disturbedsleep,lesseating,hearingvoices,havingpersecutoryideas andsufferedfromhallucinations.Therefore,Ihavetofallbacktothe evidence of P .W.4 Balasaheb Sarode, the Asstt.Traffic Inspector of SwargateS.T.Depot.Hehasdeposedthataccusedhadenjoyedleave from19.2.10to19.3.10underapplicationofEx.85submitted on 3.3.10 without medical certificate,though leave was applied on the ground of sickness and treatment,tobe taken thereto. He has also deposedthatthecertificatedt.17.3.10insupportofthemedicalleave applicationwasproducedon19.3.10.Thesaiddocumentsareduly provedintheevidenceofsaidwitness.Thus,themedicalcertificate dt.17.3.10speaksthatinbetweentheabovesaidleaveperiod,accused hadsufferedfromviralhepatitisandtherefore,hehadabsented. 50] Hence,onthisbackground,Ihavetoconsiderthedefence

evidenceofD.W.1Dr.Burte.Hehasdeposedthaton19.2.10,accused had been in his hospital .He had made complaint about having disturbedsleep,lesseating,palpitations,hearingvoicesinear,having ideasofpersecution,hismoodwasofsadnesswithideasofsuicideat thetime,sincelast15daysofthevisit.Hehasdeposedthatonthe saiddate,andon22.2.10,24.2.10,13.3.10,31.5.10,23.8.10,24.6.11 and2.8.11,accusedhadtakentreatmentfromhishospitalasperthe prescriptionofEx.197,whichpertainstoconsumingtablets.Further,

34

S.C.275/2012

hehasmadeboldstatementthaton19.2.10,22.2.10,25.2.101.3.10, 4.3.10, 12.3.10, accused was subjected to electro convulsive therapy/test(E.C.T.).Buthehasbeencompelledtoadmitthatthereis nomentiontheretoin Exs.197,198and199. Therefore,Ihaveto relate back the above said leave period of the accused with the evidenceofthisdefencewitness. 51] Aftertakingintostocktheleaveenjoyedbytheaccused,in

between19.2.10to19.3.10,itisclearthathehadsufferedfromviral hepatitis. Consequently, there was no reason to D.W.1 Dr.Burte to providemedicaltreatmenttotheaccusedbyapplyingE.C.T.teston the above said dates. On this background, I have to consider the evidence of eye witnesses to ascertain intentional and imminently dangerous act of the accused in driving the above said bus in the abovesaidmanner. 52] For this purpose, I find it desirable to deal with the

evidenceofeyewitnessesPoliceNaikDeepakKakade(P .W.15),P .M.T. bus drivers Amar Chavan(P .W.18), Shivaji Tapare, head constable(P .W.19) and star witness Bapu Lonkar, police constable(P .W.20). 53] It iseloquent from the evidenceofP .W.15that healong

withPoliceNaikSandeepSutar,havedischargeddutyasBitMartialby themotorbikeonthedateofincident.Hence,hewasarmedwith9 mm carbine with 35 rounds and walky talky. When they received messageabouttheabovesaidbusdrivenbytheaccused,committed massacreandcausedinjuriestomanypersons,theyhavechasedthe

35

S.C.275/2012

busonallthespotssoastostopit,openedfourfireroundsonrear tyre,2roundsonfrontwindscreenglassandagain4roundsonthe tyres with urge to the accused to stop the bus and thereby stop massacreofinnocentpersonsbuttheaccuseddidnotpayheedand movedthebusknowingthathisactwassoimminentlydangerousthat itmust,inallprobability,causedeathorsuchbodilyinjuryasislikely to cause death of pedestrians and others. It is also eloquent that simultaneouslyhehascauseddamagetothemanymorevehicles. 54] After the evidence of P .W.15, I have to consider the

evidenceofP .W.18AmarChavan.Hehascategoricallydeposedthat whenthebusaftercrossingtheOutgateofSwargateS.T.depotwas movedtoShankarshethroad,ithasdashedtotheautorickshawsand other4wheelervehicles,consequently,speedwasreduced,hence,by takingadvantagethereof,hasenteredinthedriver'scabinofthebus, triedtoapplyhandbrakebuttheaccusedhadassaultedhim,used criminal force by one hand and pushed him near the tyre of the bus,endangeringhislife.Thus,theaboveconductoftheaccusedin the above regard depictsthat hewasknowingthe consequencesof imminentlydangerousactofdrivingthebus,indiscriminatelythatit mustinallprobability,causedeathorsuchbodilyinjuriesasislikely to cause death and committed such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death of innocent persons and pedestrians. 55] In addition, Ihave todeal withthe evidence of P .W.19

Tapare.Thesaidwitnesshasalsocategoricallydeposedthathehad alsomadeutmostattempttostopthebusbutitwasnotstoppedby

36

S.C.275/2012

theaccused. 56] So far as evidence of Bapu Lonkar(P .W.20), it is crystal

clearthathehadeffectedentryonthetopofthebusbyitsladder, then,through window No.8 in the driver's cabin, informed to the accused ek.kls

dk; ekjrksl\ cl Fkkaco

why you are killinginnocent

persons,stopthebus,thereon,accusedretortedtothesaidwitness that he has no business to say anything in this regard. It is also eloquentthatwhenhetriedtomovesteeringofthebus,theaccused byhishand,assaultedthesaidwitness,triedtopushhimdown,soasto endangerhislifebutfortunately,hehascaughtholdthecoverofthe engine of the bus and saved himself. Thus, from the tenor of the evidenceofaboveeyewitnesses,itisclearthattheactofdrivingthe busbytheaccusedwas intentionalandso imminentlydangerous whichinallprobabilities,wastocausedeathorsuchbodilyinjuriesas islikelytocausedeathandcommittedthesaidact,withoutanyexcuse forincurringtheriskofcausingdeath,hisknowledgeindrivingthe bus in the above said manner, merged in prominent intention in causing death of pedestrians, passengers, riders, pillion riders of bikes,scooters,autodrivers,passengers,driversof4wheelerincluding occupiers. 57] Now, I have to deal with the defence about accused by

reasonofunsoundnessofmindwasincapableofknowingthenature oftheactorthatheisdoingwhatiseitherwrongorcontrarytolaw. Hadtheaccusedsufferedfrominstantattackoflunacy,orfitandin thatevent,hewouldhavelostcontroloverhismind,then,definitely,

37

S.C.275/2012

hewouldnothavepliedthebushourstogetheronthefatefuldayof incident.Atthemost,hewouldhavedashedthebustomanymore buildings,soonafteritwassetoutfromtheoutgateandinthatevent, livesofninepersonscouldhavebeensaved.However,suchisnotthe matteroffact.Therefore,theveryfactofaccusedhavinghadpliedthe busbytherouteandthrough'noentry',withoutcausingdamageto anyofthe building, speaksin volumethat hewaswellaware that givingdashtothebuildingbythebus,willcauseittostopandthereby it will arrest further menace and deaths. Therefore, no man of ordinaryprudencecansaythataccusedwasinsanewhiledrivingthe bus. On this plight also, his intention and knowledge appears prominentincommittingthecrime. 58] So far as sanity is concerned,lawalways presumesthat

everypersonissane,unlesscontraryisproved.Inthecaseathand,the defenceevidenceinviewofmydiscussionsupra,foundtobebasedon afterthought.TheD.W.1hasmadecategoricalstatementbeforethe media on next day of the incident that only once on 19.2.2010, accusedhadbeeninhishospitalfortreatment,atthattime,hehad complaintofdisturbedsleep,lesseating,andpersecutoryideasonly. Thus,hehascategoricallyadmittedthatcaseoftheaccusedwasnot within the ambit of Sec.20 of Mental Health Act,1987 in securing reception order by providing medical treatment as to the ailment sufferedbytheaccused.Therefore,itisclearthatfalsedefencecame tobe built by taking undue advantage of sick leave of the accused w.e.f.19.2.2010to19.3.2010.Duringthesaidperiod,accordingtothe accused,hehadsufferedfromviralhepatitisandnotfromdisturbed sleep,lesseating,persecutoryideas,hallucinationsandideascoupled

38

S.C.275/2012

withsuicidalmood.Therefore,defencehasbeentotallyfalsifiedbythe evidence of P .W.4 and documentary evidence of Ex.85,medical certificateissuedbySubodhClinicwhichhasbeen relied byaccused himselfinavailingleave. 59] Besidestheabovesaidevidence,Ihavetofallbacktothe

evidence of P .W.17Limaye, Amar ChavanP .W.18P .W.20Bapu Lonkar DamkaleP .W.23,abouttheyhavinghadmadeurgetoaccusedtostop thebusonalltherespectivespotsinordertoarrestfurthermassacre and menace but accused did not pay heed thereto. Thus, the knowledge of the accused in driving the bus in so imminently dangerousmannerthatitmustinallprobabilitiescausedeathorsuch bodily injury, as is likely to cause death and committed such act withoutanyexcuseforincurringtheriskofcausingdeath,merged into prominentintention in committing the crime with intention andknowledge,ascontemplatedunderclause1to4ofSec.300of I.P .C. 60] FromtheevidenceofP .W.20BapuLonkar,itiscrystalclear

that when he entered in the driver's cabin and tried to move the steeringofthebusbyhishand,accusedpushedhimbyhishandand then,thiswitnesscameincontactwiththecoveroftheengineandat thattime,theaccusedlostcontroloverthebus.Consequently,ithas dashed to the road divider and other vehicles and then, it was stopped.Thus,consideringtheabovesaiddemonicactoftheaccused, onecannotventuretosaythathewasnotknowingtheconsequences oftheactdonebyhim,whiledrivingthebus.Moreover,onecannot venturetosaythathewasnotawarethathisactwaswrong,immoral

39

S.C.275/2012

or in contra to the law. Thus, it is clear that he was not having unsoundmindwhiledrivingthebus,hence,hecoulddrivethebusby assaulting Chavan and Lonkar ,when they tried to stop the bus by actuallyeffectingentryinthedriver'scabin.Theveryactofthesaid accused in pushing down Chavan from the moving busandhe fell neartothe front wheelofthe busdriven bytheaccused,speaksin volume,he was well aware of his illegal act,which was imminently dangeroustothelifeoftheabovesaidwitness,equallytothelifeof Lonkarandotherpedestrians. 61] Lastly, so far as conduct of accused is concerned, it is

eloquentfromtheevidencethatwhenhewasapprehendedbyLonkar, when bus was stopped,public had assaulted the accused in driver's cabin,then,he was moved in six seater rickshaw, again he was assaultedbypublicbycausingdamagetothewindscreenglassofauto rickshaw,thenaccusedwasmovedbyothervantosafeplace,inorder to save his life and at that time,he had made an attempt to flee. Therefore,thiscircumstancealsospeaksinvolumethataccusedhad intention and knowledge ofthe actsdone byhim,hence, he could move the bus in the above said manner, without stopping the bus despitetheurgeofhissuperiorsLimaye,Damkale,andothers.Thus, fromthe overallconductofthe accused,whiledrivingthe bus,itis crystal clear that he had intention and knowledge in committing murderoftheabovesaidpersonsbydrivingthebusintheabovesaid manner.Moreover,itiscrystalclearthatinitially,hehadknowledge that his act was so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability,causedeathorsuchbodilyinjuryasislikelytocausedeath andcommittedsuchactwithoutanyexcuseforincurringtheriskof

40

S.C.275/2012

causing death or such injury . Hence,he foundtohave committed murder of the above said nine persons, as his knowledge has mergedinprominentintentionsoonafterhehasshowndefiance totheinstructionsofhissuperiorsandabove saideyewitnessesto stopthebus. 62] Inviewofmydiscussionsupra,itisclearthathomicidal

deathofalltheninepersonshasnotbeendisputed.Therefore,Ifindit desirable to consider the ratios relied by the prosecution and the defence. 63] Inthiscontext,thelearnedPublicProsecutorhasinvited

myattentioninthefollowingcaselaws: 1]SurendraMishraVs.StateofJharkhandA.I.R.2011S.C.627. 2]Bapu@GajrajSinghVs.StateofRajasthan2007DGLS(Soft) 1312. 3]SheralliWaliMahammedVs.StateofMaharashtra1972 Cri.L.J.1523(V78C395)(1). 4]SudhakaranVs.StateofKeralaA.I.R.2011S.C.265. 5]StateofM.P .Vs.AhmadullaA.I.R.1961S.C.998. 64] The ratio inthecaseof Bapu@GajrajSingh speaks

about the ambit of sec.84 of I.P .C. wherein, it has been held that benefitunderthesaidsectioncanbeavailedafteritisprovedthatat thetimeofcommittingtheact,theaccusedwaslabouringundersuch defectofreason,fromdiseaseofthemindasnottoknow,thenature andqualityoftheacthewasdoingorthatevenifhedidnotknowit,

41

S.C.275/2012

it was either wrong or contrary to law. Thus,it has been held that crucialpointoftimefordecidingwhetherthebenefitshouldbegiven ornot,isthematerialtime,whentheoffencetakesplace. 65] The ratio laid down in the case of Sudhakaran cited

supra, speaksthatwhentherecorddidnotindicatethatthepatient wassufferingfromsuchmentaldisability,whichincapacitatedhimto knownatureoftheactthathehadcommittedatthetimeofincident, hence,benefitofsec.84cannotbeextended. 66] TheratioincaseofStateofM.P .citedsupra,speaksthat

burden of proof is on the accused to prove that at the time of commission of offence, by reason of unsoundness of mind,he was incapableofknowingthenatureoftheactorthatwhatheisdoingis eitherwrongorcontrarytothelaw.Thus,theentireconductofthe accusedfromthetimeofcommissionoftheoffenceuptothetimeof Sessions proceedings commenced, is relevant for the purpose of ascertaining,theabovesaidpleaoftheaccused,isinconsonancewith sec.84ofI.P .C.ornot.Thus,hehastodischargeburdeninthisregard accordingtosec.105ofIndianEvidenceAct.Thesaidburdenislighter justliketobedischargedincivilcases,onthebasisofpreponderance ofprobabilities. 67] Hence, while taking into account the conduct of the

accused,onthebasisofabovediscussedevidenceandonthebasisof theratioslaiddownintheabovesaidcases,itiscrystalclearthat accusedhasnotmadeouthisdefence.

42

S.C.275/2012

68]

Moreover, from the above said ratios, it is clear that

conductoftheaccusedatthetimeoftheincident,likewisebeforeand aftertheincident,needstobeconsideredinascertaining,whetherthe actwasintentional,knowingtheconsequencesthereofortheactbeing contrarytothelawandagainstthemoral.Inthecaseathand,inview ofmydiscussionsupra,itisclearthataccusedwashavingintention andknowledgeoftheactandconsequencesinviewoftheclause1to 4ofsec.300ofI.P .C..Ifreally,hewouldnothavebeenawareofthe consequencesoftheact,then,hecouldnothavereactedinrespectof witnessesChavanandBapuLonkar,byassaultingthem,whentheyhave made positive attempt to stop the bus in order to save lives of pedestriansandfurthermassacre. 69] Sofarasintentionisconcerned,lawiswellsettledthatit

dependsonthemindsetofaparticularperson.Therefore,therecannot bedirectevidenceastotheintentionandknowledge,whichhastobe gatheredfromentireevidenceandconductoftheculprit.Therefore, considering the said legal proposition of law, if the conduct of the accusedistakenintostock,itdepictsthathehascommittedmurderof the above said nine persons,by intentionally moving the bus indiscriminately and knowingly that said act was so imminently dangerousthatitmustinallprobability,causedeathorsuchbodily injury,asislikelytocausedeathandcommittedsuchactwithoutany excuse, for incurring the risk of causing death of the above said innocentpersons. 70] Thus,fromtheevidenceofalltheprosecutionwitnesses,

moreparticularly,thestarwitnessesP .W.15,17,1819,20,23,24that

43

S.C.275/2012

thoughtheyhaveurgedtheaccusedtostopthebustoarrestfurther massacre and mishap, he did not stop the same.Therefore, guilty mindoftheaccusedfoundmanifest,incommittingtheabovesaidact by driving the bus in the above said manner. Hence, only one conclusioncanbedrawnthattheaccusedhadcommittedmurderof the above said nine persons with intention and more particularly, havingknowledge that hisact in drivingthe businthe above said manner was so imminently dangerous that it must in all the probabilitiescausethedeathofpedestrians,passengers,ridersoftwo wheeler, drivers of three and four wheeler vehicles or such bodily injuryaswaslikelytocausedeathofsuchpersons,bygivingdashto themandcommittedthesaidactwithoutanyexcuseforincurringthe riskofcausingdeathorsuchinjurytothepersons. Onthisplight,I finditdesirabletoconsidertheevidenceoffollowingeyewitnesses. 71] TheP .Ws.5to14,16and22aretheinjuredeyewitnesses.

Fromthetenoroftheirevidence,itisclearthatthebuswasmovedby the accused dangerously, knowing the consequences of the act in driving the bus in such manner without paying heed to the instructionsofLonkar,Chavan,Limaye,andDamkale.Itiseloquent from their evidence that their two wheeler, three wheeler vehicles weredashedandthereby,injurieswerecausedtothem.Itiseloquent fromtheevidenceofP .W.6AditiKamblethatonthedateofincident, shewasriderofherScooty,onwhich,Pujawasthepillionriderand whentheScootycameatSolapurbazarchowkyandthenatGolibar maidan, the bus driven by the accused had dashed to the Scooty, resultant upon they were thrown on the road, she suffered from unconsciousness, Puja suffered grievous injuries and succumbed to

44

S.C.275/2012

those on the way to hospital. Same is the position in respect of evidenceofMrs.VershaDhamaleP .W.7.Shehasdeposedthatshealong withotherswasproceedingbyPiyagorickshaw.Whenitreachednear Samadhan Bhel shop, from opposite direction, S.T. bus driven by accusedcameanddashedtotherickshaw,itturnedturtle,therebyshe had suffered grievous injuries and was compelled to remain in the hospitalforfortnight.P .W.8TanajiKalehasdeposedthatonthedateof incident,hehadbeenatSwargateat8a.m.andatthattime,bushad dashed34autorickshaw,whichwereparkedintheparkinglotand therefore,he had sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalized. P .W.9hasalsodeposedaboutthefatalinjuriessustainedtoPujaand injuries to Aditi KambleP .W.6. Wasim BahadurP .W.10 has deposed abouttheincidentoccurredatPatilPlaza,andMitramandalchowk.He hasdeposedthatonebikealongwiththeboywasdraggedabout100 ft.bythebus,resultantupon,riderofthebikewascrushed. 72] FromthetenoroftheevidenceofP .W.12to14,itisclear that their auto rickshaws and bikes were dashed by the S.T. bus No.MH14BT1532 driven by the accused at Swargate Outgate, at MahatmaGandhibusstop,atSolapurbazarandPulgatechowk.The saidevidencehasnotbeenshatteredinanyrespect.Hence,Idonot find any hitch to act upon it and come to the unimpeachable conclusionthatdeathoftheabovesaidninepersonshasbeencaused byaccused,whichamountstomurderaccordingtoclause1to4of sec.300ofI.P .C. 73] I find it desirable to consider the evidence of P .W.11

Nishant Pawaskar, who has deposed about pitiable condition of his

45

S.C.275/2012

friendAkshayPise,whobyridingonhisbikewasproceedingtowards Mitramandal chowk and Patil Plaza chowk, the bus driven by the accused dashed to the bike of Akshay, he was dragged about 100 ft.awaywithhisbikeandthereby,wascrushed.Akshaywasstudentof engineering college. Same is the position of Aditi Kamble,who is studentofDentalCollege.LikewisePujawasstudentofDentalcollege. Hence,consideringthemannerofmovingthebusonthepersonofthe abovesaidpersons,Ifinditdesirabletotakeintoaccounttheconcept ofruralIndianpeople. 74] So far as causing death by vehicles in Maharashtra, the

drivers have ideas to take wicket of person,under tyre of vehicle. However,bycausingdeathinsuchmanner,colourofaccidentisbeing giventosuchincidents.Likewise,futileattemptsarebeingmadeto bring cases within the exceptions provided in Chapter IV of I.P .C. Hence,onthispremise,Ihavetotakeintoaccountthemindsetofthe accusedincommittingthecrime. 75] Onthispoint,Ifinditdesirabletotakeintoaccountthe

evidence of Dr.Rahul Telang, Dr.Kirankumar Jadhav, Dr.Vishal Patil, P .Ws.27to29.Fromtheirtenorofevidence,itisclearthatwhenthey haveexaminedtheaccusedforthefirsttimeon25.1.12atabout1.30 to 2 p.m. in crime office of A.C.P Crimes Pune, the accused had narratedhistoryofroadtrafficaccident.Itisalsoclearthatatthat time, accused was found normal. Therefore, I have to gather intentionandknowledgeoftheaccusedaboutcausingdeathofabove said nine persons, on the basis of history of road traffic accident,voluntarily narratedbyhimtotheabove saiddoctors,soon

46

S.C.275/2012

aftertheincidentandmoreparticularly,after4to5hours.Hence,on thispremisealso,theintentionandknowledgeasdiscussedsupraof theaccusedincommittingmurder,foundmanifest. 76] Fromthetenorof evidence ofP .W.3RajendraGaikwad,

P .W.17 Limaye, P .W.23 Damakale andP .W.24Diwate,it appears that grievance of the accused was with the management and administration of Swargate S.T.Depot. Therefore, the accused had requestedthemtochangehisnightoutdutytosingledutybutthesaid witnesses turned down the said request of the accused. On this premise,accusedappearstohaveselfenragedwithextremefuryand with that motive and intention, proceeded to move the bus by committingitstheftandfurthermenace. 77] On the above plight, I have to take into account the

situationfacedbytheaccusedandtheP .W.23Damakaleon25.01.2012 inbetween7to7.30a.m.Admittedly,atthesaidtime,accusedhad beentowardsP .W.23,requestedhimtochangehisnightoutdutyto single duty but P .W.23 refused to do so, thereby, accused self got enragedwithextremefurywithintentionandmotivetoteachlesson toallhissuperiorsofS.T.andthroughthem,tothepublicatlarge, committedtheftoftheoffendingbusNo.MH14BT1532,movedit indiscriminately by guarding him alone, by breaking all the traffic rules,inhighdisregardofthecircumstancesoftheroad,pedestrians, vehicles passing therefrom, dashed many pedestrians, fruit carts, bikes,scooters,autorickshaws,tempos,4wheelervehicles,intending andknowingthatsaidactwassoimminentlydangerousthatitmust inallprobabilities,willcausedeathorsuchbodilyinjuryasislikelyto

47

S.C.275/2012

causedeathofabovesaidpersonsandcommittedsuchactwithoutany excuseforincurringtheriskofcausingdeathorsuchbodilyinjuries, thereby has committed the murder of above said nine persons in ghastlymanner. 78] Thus,onthebasisofabovediscussedevidence,Icometo

the unimpeachable conclusion that the murder of the above said personsascontemplatedunderclause1to4ofsec.300ofI.P .C.has beencommittedbytheaccusedbydrivingthebusintheabovesaid mannerandmoreparticularly,intendingandknowingthattheactin drivingthebuswassoimminentlydangerous,thatitmustinallthe probability, cause deathorsuchbodilyinjury,aswaslikelytocause deathandhadcommittedthesaidact,withoutanyexcuseforincurring theriskofcausingdeathoftheabovesaidpersons.Hence,Ianswered thefindingonthesaidpointintheaffirmative. 79] PointNo.4: In order to sustain the charge u/s 307 of I.P .C. , the prosecution hastoprove that the accusedhaddriven theS.T.bus no.MH14BT1532withintention andwiththeknowledgethatitis soimminentlydangerousthatitmustinalltheprobabilitiescausethe deathorsuchbodilyinjuries,asislikelytocausedeathandcommitted thesaidact,withoutanyexcuseforincurringtheriskofcausingdeath or injuries to passengers, pedestrians, rider,pillion rider of bikes, scooters,autodrivers,passengers,driversandoccupiersof4wheeler vehicles. 80] Thus,theprosecutionhastoestablishthattheaccusedhas

48

S.C.275/2012

made an attempt to commit murder by causing injuries to Rohini Jadhav, Akanksha Jain, Ritu Dodeja, Dayaram Shankar More, ParmeshwarTolnure,DeepakSonuModak,IbrahimShaikh,Godabai Kisan Lugade, Madhukar Randive, Jainur Abdul Ali Shaikh, Afia Sardar Sayyad, Prafulla Rammohan Nair, Tanaji Kale, Nandkumar Waikar, Aditi Waikar, Chandrajeet Aher, Babu Basumiya Shaikh, MaheshGadhaweDattatrayaMohite,DevendraPatil,PirsingHajare, KrushikKhandelwal,SurgeraoMastud,DattatrayaMahangre,Bhaurao Patil, Shaikh Irshad Ali, Versha Damale, Pradeep Shankar More, Suresh Vasant Pawar, Ganesh Laxman Galande, Abhicharan Mishra, Ajay Shukla, Dashrath Bhise, Ganesh Bhise, Dhanaji Awate, Aditi Kamble and Sameer Adrill Furnandis,with such intention or knowledgeandundersuchcircumstances,thatifbytheactofdriving thebusintheabovesaidmanner,hewouldhavecausedthedeathof abovesaidpersons,inthatevent,hewouldhavebeenguiltyofmurder ofthesaidwitnesses. 81] Sofarasintentionandknowledgeincausinginjuriesto

theabovesaidpersons,itiscrystalclearthattheaccuseddespitethe instructions given by Ajit Limaye, Damakale, P .M.T. driver Chavan, PoliceNaikDeepakKakade,HeadconstableShivajiTapare,Constable BapuLonkar,andotherstostoptheS.T.bus,toarrestfurthermassacre and injuries to the pedestrians, riders and pillion riders of bikes, scooter, auto drivers, passengers and persons who had travelled by their4wheelervehicles,didnotstopthebus.Hadtheaccusedpaid heedtotheinstructionsofP .M.T.driverChavaninthebeginning,then, definitely, further menace would have been arrestedandthe above saidpersonswouldnothavesufferedgrievousinjuriesandtheywould

49

S.C.275/2012

nothavebeencompelledtosuffer agonyinhospital.Thereby, they would not suffer permanent disabilities. Therefore, intention of the accusedfoundmanifestincommittingtheabovesaidcrime. 82] Inaddition,theevidenceofsaidwitnessspeaksthatwhen

thebuswasindiscriminatelymovedbytheaccused,fromOutgate,it hasdashed4wheelerfruitcarts,autorickshaw,thereby,fruitswere thrownonroad,rickshawswereturtleonthepersonofoneChopade, then, bus was entangled with Mini bus, where barricades were arranged,hence,intellectually,accusedhadappliedreversedgearof the bus and reversed the same and has moved it by wrong side, dashedtoTataMagic,then,oneXyllojeep,therebybuswasstopped foramoment.Therefore,thesaidwitnesshadeffectedentryinthe cabinofthebus,triedtoapplyitshandbrakebut thatattemptwas madefutilebyaccusedbyassaultingthesaidwitnessbypushinghim downfromthemovingbus,resultantupon,thesaidwitnessfelldown nearthefrontwheelofbusandthereby,hislifewasendangered.In counter action, the said witness has assaulted the accused on his shoulderbydamagedwoodenplank,stillthen,hedidnotstopthe bus. Thesaidactspeaksthataccusedwasinsoundstateofmind, havinggood judgment,therebymadefutile the attempt ofthesaid witness to stop the bus in order to arrest further massacre and menace. 83] Thefollowinginjuryreportsofsaidinjuredareadmitted

bythedefence.ThoseareatEx.50to52,54,56to58,61to63.

50 Exh.No. 50 51 52 54 Name of injured Rohoni R.Jadhav Akanksha Jain Dayawan S.More Deepak Sonu Modak Injuries

S.C.275/2012

Multiple contusions all over body. Head injury. Multiple contusions with abrasions with flexion injuries clavicle spine. Crush injury to great toe, contusion over right shoulder. 1] 1 x 0.5 cm.CLW over left occipital area. 2] 5 cm. CLW over left palm. 3] Loss of upper two incisor. 1] 5 x 1 x 1 cm. CLW over left forehead. 2] 2 x 2 cm. abrasion over right knee. 3] Fracture clavicle left side, at lateral end. 4] Mild pericadical effusion . 5] mediannal emphyoema 1] 3 x 0.2 cm.CLW on forehead on left side. 2] 3 x 0.2 cm. CLW over just over forehead in midline. 3] 2 x 0.2 cm. CLW over under-surface of tongue. Undisplaced fracture of the nasal bone. Fracture right shaft femur, fracture right tibia and fracture right wrist. Right leg tenderness over shin,abrasion 2 x 2 cm. 2] Tenderness over pariscrotal 3] Scrotal tenderness. 4] Right focal capsular rupture of testis on usg. Fracture over superior pubic rhimi undisplaced and undisplaced fracture of 4th, 5th rib right side. CLW over right frontal head. 5 cm. x 2 x 1 cm.

56

Godabai Kisan Lugade

57

Jainul A.A.Shaikh

58 61 62

Affiya Sayyad Surgerao Govind Mastud Bhaurao Patil

63

Versha Dhamale

84]

Besidestheinjuriessustainedtotheabovesaidwitnesses,

one Mahesh Gadhawe (P .W.12), Dattatraya Mohite, Devendra Patil (P .W.16), Pirsing Hajare, had sustained grievous injuries in the incident.Thosearenotdisputedbythedefence.

51

S.C.275/2012

85]

Thus, from the evidence of above eye witnesses,

documentaryevidenceoftheirabovesaidinjuryreports,itiscrystal clearthataccusedistheauthorofabovesaidgrievousinjuriescaused tothem.Further,hehasadmittedthattheabovesaidotherwitnesses had sustained injuries in the incident. It is proved on the basis of evidenceofeyewitnessesthattheinjuriestotheabovesaidpersons havebeencausedbytheaccusedwithintentionandknowledgethat movingthebusinsoimminentlydangerousmannerthatitmustinall probabilities cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death andcommittedsuchactwithoutanyexcuseforincurringthe riskofcausingdeathorsuchinjuriestotheabovesaidpersons. 86] Theintentionandknowledgeoftheaccusedincommitting

the offence in the above said manner, in respect of the above said persons to whom, he has caused grievous injuries appears to be manifest in enraging fury on refusal of P .W.23 Damakalethe Asstt.Traffic Inspectortochangenightout dutyofthe accusedinto singledutyaspertherequestmadebytheaccusedon25.1.2012in between7to7.30a.m.inallocationroomofP .W.23.Thus,inorderto make grievance against the management and administration of SwargateS.T.DepotatthehandsofP .W.3,4,23and24,andothers, whodidnotpayheedtotherequestoftheaccusedtochangehisnight outdutytosingleduty,hefoundtohavecommittedtheftofthebus, moveditindiscriminatelywithintentionandknowledgethattheact was so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause deathorsuchbodilyinjuryasislikelytocausedeathandcommitted suchactwithoutanyexcuseforincurringtheriskofcausingdeathand injuries to the above said persons. Moreover, his intention in

52

S.C.275/2012

committingtheoffenceintheabovesaidmannerappearsininviting attentionofthepublicabouthisrequestwasturneddown,hence,his superiorsandpublicshalltakelessonthereto. 87] Insuchmanner,intentionandknowledgeoftheaccusedin

causinginjuriestotheabovesaidpersonsfoundmanifest.However, they could survive due to early treatment.Hence,the case in their respectrestedatthestageofattemptingtocommittheirmurder. 88] It is crystal clear thatnolittle attemptwhatsoeverwas

madebytheaccusedtosavehumanlifeandtosavepedestrians,riders of2wheelervehicles,autorickshawdrivers,passangersanddriversof 4wheelervehicles,alongwithoccupiers, bystoppingthebus,when therewasearnesturgefromP .M.T.driverChavan,fromLonkar,from HeadconstableTapareandmanyothers.Therefore,itiscrystalclear thattheintentionandknowledgeoftheaccusedwasincommitting murderofthesaidpersons,butduetograceofGod,theycouldsurvive buttheyremainedhandicappedandimpairedandtheyhavetosuffer thisagony,throughouttheirlife.Hence,consideringthemagnitudeof the incident and its ever lasting effect on all the injured and their families,itiscrystalclearthatthesaidacthasbeencommittedbythe accusedascontemplatedunderclause1to4ofsec.300ofI.P .C.Hence, thereisnoexcusetotheaccusedtoescapefromtheconsequencesof theoffencepunishableu/s307ofI.P .C. 89] Thus, in view of the above said evidence of the eye

witnesses, injured, police officers, P .M.T. driver and admitted injury reports,ofEx.50to52,54,56to58,61to63,itisclearthataccused

53

S.C.275/2012

didcausetheinjuriestotheabovesaidwitnesseslikelytoinvitetheir deathbutfortunatelytheycouldsavefromtheinjuriesastheywere immediatelyadmittedbygenerouspeople,policeandothersinnearest hospital and therefore, their life could be saved. Hence, this issue requiresnomorediscussion.Thus,insuchmanner,theprosecution has succeeded in proving the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable u/s 307 of I.P .C. beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, I answeredthefindingonthesaidpointintheaffirmative. 90] Pointno.5: Inordertosustainthechargeu/s324ofI.P .C.,itisthefirst andforemostdutyoftheprosecutiontoprovethattheaccusedhad voluntarily caused injuries to Rohini Jadhav, Akansha Jain, Ritu Dodeja,Parmeshwar Tolnure, Ibrahim Shaikh, Madhukar Randive, JainurAliShaikh,PrafullaNair,TanajiKale,NandkumarWaikar,Babu BasumiyaShaikh,DevendraPatil,RushikKhandelwal,ShaikhIrshad Ali, Pradeep More, Suresh Powar, Ganesh Galande ,Abhicharan Mishra, Ajay Shukla, Dashrath Bhise, Ganesh Bhise, Dhanaji Awate andSameerFurnandis,bygivingthedashofthebusNo.MH14BT 1532withtheintentionandknowledgethatbygivingthedash,hewas likely to endanger life ofabove saidpersons,whowere pedestrians, ridersandpillionridersof2wheelervehiclesand driversofauto rickshawandpassengers.Likewise,driversandoccupiersof4wheeler vehicles. 91] In this context, the injury reports of the injured

ParmeshwarTolnur,IbrahimShaikh,TanajiKale,BabuShaikh,Vasant PawarandGaneshGalandeofEx.53,55,59,60,64and65areadmitted

54

S.C.275/2012

by the defence. In addition, defence has admitted that the other persons as indicated in the above paragraph had also sustained injuries. 92] Now,Ihavetoascertain,whethertheactincausinginjury

totheabovesaidpersons,isvoluntaryorotherwise.Inviewofmy discussion, on the above points, it is clear that with intention and knowledge,theaccusedhaspliedtheabovesaidS.T.busknowingthat itisgoingtoimminentlyendangerhumanlifewithallprobabilities, likelytocausedeathorsuchbodilyinjuriesandcommittedsaidact withoutanyexcuseforincurringtheriskofcausingsuchinjuriesto the above said persons. Therefore, intention of the accused in voluntarilycausinginjuriestotheabovesaidinjured,foundmanifest. In this regard, the injury reports of Ex.53,55,59,60,64 and 65 are admittedbythedefence.Thus,veryadmissionoftheinjuryreports speaksthatsaidinjurieswerecausedtothesaidpersons,outofthe use of S.T. bus No.MH14BT1532 indiscriminately driven by the accusedknowingthatitissoimminentlydangerousthatitmustinall probability, cause bodily injuries as is likely to cause death and committed such act, without any excuse, for incurring the risk of causing such injuries to the above said persons. In such manner, prosecutionhasprovedbeyondreasonabledoubtthattheaccusedhas voluntarilycausedinjuriestotheabovesaidwitnessesbydrivingthe abovesaidbusintheabovesaidmannerandtherebycommittedan offencepunishableu/s324ofI.P .C.Hence,Iansweredthefindingon thepointintheaffirmative.

55

S.C.275/2012

93]

Pointno.6: In order to sustain the charge u/s 427 of I.P .Code, the

prosecution has to prove that by driving the busin the above said manner by the accused, he had committed mischief by causing wrongfullossanddamagetothebikes,Scooters,autorickshaws,4 wheelervehiclestothetuneofRs.7,28,000/.Inthiscontext,thereis nodisputethattheaccusedbydrivingthebus,hadgivendashtothe bikesandautorickshawsofP .W.5,6,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,16and22and therebycauseddamagetotheirvehicles.Itisalsocrystalclearthat damage to the tune of Rs.10 lacs has been caused to the S.T.bus No.MH14BT1532whichwasstolenbytheaccusedandusedinthe commissionofthecrime.Besidesthat,barricadesinstalledatvarious placesweredamagedbytheaccusedbygivingdashbytheabovesaid bus.Therefore,themischiefoftheaccusedincausingdamageto2 wheeler,3wheelerand4wheelervehiclesismanifest,onthebasisof evidenceofP .Ws.5to10,11,12to14,16and22.Itiseloquentfrom theevidenceofthewitnessesthattheirScootysandbikesweretotally damaged.ItiseloquentthatmotorbikeofAkshayPisewasdragged about 100 ft. along with him and thereby,it was crushed in toto. Hence, on this plight, when all the crime scene panchanamas and panchanamaofthedamagecausedtothesaidvehiclesofExs.26to40 areadmittedbythedefence,Ihavetoascertaindamagecausedtothe saidvehiclesonthebasisofthefollowinglistthereof:

Name&No.ofvehicle Name of owner/ Estimateddamage holder Autorickshaw No.MH12DG1115 TanajiKale(PW8) Rs.10000/

56

S.C.275/2012

IndicacarNo. MH14BA4056 Autorickshaw No.MH12AR640 Autorickshaw No.MH12R3999 TataTempo No.MH12GT912 RickshawNo. MH12F6591 Pulsorbike No.MH12FB1473 RickshawNo. MH12EQ4157 XyllojeepNo. MH04ES2372 AutorickshawNo. MH12AU5803 Activascooter No.MH12FE7250 BajajBikeNo. GT1317 DattatrayaMohite (P .W.14)

Rs.20000/ Rs.10000/ Rs.7000/ Rs.25000/ Rs.8000/ Rs.12000/ Rs.5000/ Rs.90000/ Rs.10000/ Rs.1000/ Rs.1000/ Rs.10000/ Rs.10000/ Rs.10000/ Rs.40000/ Rs.25000/ Rs.2000/ Rs.30000/

ScootyNo. MH12DD825 Scooty No.MH12CY 4697 Rickshaw No.MH12 QA4402 AccessScooterNo. MH12GG1960 HeroHondaBike No.MVA2170 RickshawNo. MH12QA5787 I10 car No.MH12

57

S.C.275/2012

HN1562

Dnyaneshwar Mahangre (PW13) Rs.1000/ Rs.5000/ Rs.40000/ Rs.100000/ Rs.30000/ Rs.25000/ Rs.10000/. Rs.1,00,000/ Devendra Patil (PW Rs.1,00,000/ 16) Rs.70,000/ Rs.25000/ Rs.3000/ Rs.40000/ Rs.10000/

Suzukibike No.MH12HJ3565 Mini bus No.MH12 DG3076 Activa Scooter No. MH12HP9138 Car No. MH12FF 5469 Motorbike No.MH12 FE1910 Karisma motorcycle No.MH12GC5718 Maruti Zen No.MH 12GF2796 FordFigocarNo.MH 12FY3310 Autorickshaw No.MH12FC1552 Maruti car MH12BP 7023 Honda Tuster Bike No.MH12GD385 I10 car No.MH14 CS2905 Alto car No.MH14 AE0103 Hero Honda Bike No.MH12FH3300 94]

Inadditiontotheabovesaidevidence,photographsofthe

damaged vehicles are produced on record. All the photographs are admitted by the defence. The said 88 and 29 photographs are

58

S.C.275/2012

collectivelyatEx.166andEx.166/1to29. 95] Thus, in such manner, prosecution has succeeded in

proving that above said property viz. 2 wheeler 3 wheeler and 4 wheelervehiclesandS.T.bushasbeendamagedbytheaccusedby committing mischief thereto, by driving the bus in the above said manner.Hence,Iansweredthefindingonthepointintheaffirmative. 96] PointNo.7 : Now,Ihavetodealwiththeoffencepunishableu/s3(2)of thePreventionofDamagetothePublicPropertyAct,1984.Thesection 3thereofspeaksthatwhoevercommitsmischiefbydoinganyactin respect of any public property, other than property of the nature referred to in subsec.2 shall be punished with imprisonment for a termwhichmayextendto5yearsandwithfine.Subsec.2speaksthat whoevercommitsmischiefbydoinganactinrespectofanypublic property,being any building, installation or other property used in connectionwiththeproduction,distributionorsupplyofwater,light, power or energy , any installation, any severage work, any mine factory,anymeansofpublictransportoroftelecommunication,any building,installationorpropertyusedinconnectiontherewith,shall betreatedtobepublicproperty.Inthecaseathand,itismanifest from the evidence of P .Ws.1 to 26 and 38,39 that public property viz.barricades,P .M.T.busesweredamagedbytheaccusedbygiving dash to the said public property by the bus No.MH14BT1532 by drivingitintheabovesaidmanner,bycausingdamageofittothe tuneofRs.10,00,000/,knowingthathewastherebygoingtocommit mischiefinrespectofthesaidpublicproperty,bycausingdamagetoit.

59

S.C.275/2012

At the same time damage was caused to PMPL bus No.MH12EQ 5133tothetuneofRs.50,000/. 97] Itiseloquentfromtheevidenceofallthesuperiorofficers

oftheofficeoftheaccusedviz.P .W.4,17,23,24andallthepolicewho have deposed in the capacity of eye witnesses, that at all places, barricadesweredamagedbyaccusedbygivingdashestothembythe abovesaidbusbydrivingitintheabovesaidmanner.Thus,fromthe saidevidence,itisconspicuousthataccusedhasmischievouslycaused damage to the public property,therefore, he found liable thereto in viewofmandateofsec.3(2)ofthePreventionofDamagetoPublic PropertyAct,1984.Hence,Iansweredthefindingonthesaidpointin theaffirmative. 98] PointNo.8: Now, I have to consider whether the act of the accused discussedsupra,comeswithintheambitofsec.84ofI.P .C.Therefore,I finditdesirabletoreproducethesaidsection,whichreadsasunder: Nothingisanoffencewhichisdonebyapersonwho,at thetimeofdoingit,byreasonofunsoundnessofmindisincapableof knowingthenatureoftheact,orthatheisdoingwhatiseitherwrong orcontrarytolaw. 99] Thus, according to sec.105 of Evidence Act, burden to

bringthecaseundersaidexceptionliesontheaccused.However,said burdenislighterjustlikeincivilcasesinprovingthecaseonthebasis ofpreponderanceofprobabilities.Itissettledpropositionoflawthat firstprosecutionhastoprovetheguiltoftheaccusedinrespectofthe

60

S.C.275/2012

offencespunishableu/ss302,307,324,427ofI.P .C.andu/s3(2)of Prevention of Damage to Public Properties Act, then, only question comes in for determination to ascertain whether the case has been broughtwithintheambitofsec.84ofI.P .C..Therefore,firstofall,I find it desirable to take into account, whether the prosecution has dischargedburdeninbringinghometheguiltoftheaccusedonallthe above heads of charges, beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of direct,circumstantialandmedicalevidence. 100] In view of my finding on point nos.1 to 7 in the

affirmative, it is crystal clear that accused by driving the S.T.bus No.MH14BT1532,withintentionandknowledgethattheactwasso imminently dangerous in driving the bus that it must in all probabilities, cause the death of pedestrians, riders of 2wheeler vehicles, 3wheeler auto rickshaw and 4wheeler drivers and occupiers, or such bodily injuries as is likely to cause death of the abovesaidpersonsandhascommittedsaidactwithoutanyexcusefor incurringtheriskofcausingdeathorsuchbodilyinjuriesasaforesaid. Therefore,Ihavebankedonclausenos.1to4ofsec.300ofI.P .C.in gatheringintentionandknowledgeoftheaccusedincommittingthe abovesaidcrime,intheabovesaidmanner.Thus,itisclearthatin viewofmyfindingonpointnos.1to7intheaffirmative,prosecution has discharged burden in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonabledoubtonalltheheadsofcharges. 101] Suchbeingthefact,theLd.defenceAdvocatehasmadean

attempttopointoutthateyewitnessSharifIbrahimKuttiwhohad witnessed the entire incident , pointed out all the crime scenes as

61

S.C.275/2012

indicated in the map Ex.113 to the police, hence, panchanamas thereofwereprepared butsaidwitness hasnotbeenexaminedin ordertosuppresstruth.However,asallthecrimescenepanchanamas Ex.26to40areadmittedbythedefence,Idonotfindanyforceinthe abovesaidsubmission. 102] In this regard, sec.134 of Evidence Act speaks that

evidence has to be weighedandnot tobe counted.Hence,on this scorealso,thesubmissioncannotstandinordertocreatedoubtabout theevidenceofprosecutionwitnesses,astheirevidence foundtobe quitenatural,spontaneousandtrustworthy. 103] Inthiscontext,evidenceofalltheeyewitnesses,viz.P .W.5

to14,22alongwithpolicewitnesses,whohaveactuallywitnessedthe incident, speaks that the accused had intentionally and knowingly driven the bus indiscriminately knowing that it is so imminently dangerousthatitmustinallprobability,causedeathorsuchbodily injuryasislikelytocausedeathandcommittedsuchactwithoutany excuseforincurringtheriskofcausingdeathorsuchinjuriestothe abovesaidpersonsandtothedeceased. 104] Inordertoascertain,whethercasecomeswithintheambit

ofSec.84ofI.P .C.,Ifinditdesirabletotakeintostockthemandateof ratio in the case of SurendraMishraVs.StateofJharkhandA.I.R. 2011S.C.627wherein,ithasbeenheldthatexpressionunsoundnessof mindhasnotbeendefinedinI.P .C.Whenaccusedseeksexoneration from criminal liability of an act u/s 84 IPC, should prove legal insanityandnotmedicalinsanity.Hence,ithasbeenheldthatevery

62

S.C.275/2012

person,whoissufferingfrommentaldisease,isnotipsofactoexempted fromcriminalliability.Themerefactthattheaccusedisconceitedodd, irascibleandhisbrainisnotquietallrightorthatthephysicaland mental ailments,from which,he suffered,had rendered his intellect weakandaffectedhisemotionorindulgesincertainunusualacts,or hadfitsofinsanity,atshortintervalsorthathewassubjecttoepileptic fitsandtherewasabnormalbehaviourorthebehaviourisqueerare notsufficienttoattracttheapplicationofsec.84ofI.P .C.Thefactsin thesaidratioandthefactsofthepresentcasearesimilar astothe defencesetupbytheaccusedu/s84ofI.P .C. 105] TheratiointhecaseofBhikariVs.StateofU.P .A.I.R.1966

S.C.1 speaks that sec.84 I.P .C can be invoked by the accused for nullifyingtheevidenceproducedbytheprosecution.However,hehas toestablishthathewasattherelevanttimeincapableofknowingthe nature of the act or that what he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law. Further, it has been held that every person is presumed to know natural consequencesofhisact.Similarly,every personisalsopresumedtoknowthelaw.Therefore,accusedhasto dischargeburdenaccordingtosec.105ofEvidenceAct,tobringthe case within the ambit of Section 84 of I.P .C. However, in the case, accusedhasfailedtodischargeburdenaccordingly. 106] InthecaseofJaiLalVs.DelhiAdministrationA.I.R.1969

S.C.15,ithasbeenheldthatthequestionwhethertheaccusedwas sufferingfromsuchincapacityatthetimeofcommissionoftheact, beforeandaftertheact,hastobeconsidered.However,whenaccused foundnormalandhadgivenintellectualanswersonthesamedate,he

63

S.C.275/2012

wasproducedbeforetheMagistrate,inpresenceofhisrelative,and Magistratewasnotinformedthataccusedwasinsane,then,lateron,if the defence of insanity is taken, it can be said to be just an afterthought.Similaristhepositioninthecaseathand,aswhenon 26.1.2012,theaccusedwasproducedbeforetheMagistrate,hehas not raised the plea of his insanity and having had committed the act,whenhehadsufferedattackofinsanity.Inaddition,whenhewas examinedbydoctorsP .W.27to29,hehasnarratedthehistoryofroad traffic accident, by driving the S.T. bus No.MH14BT1532. In addition,hehasdisclosedhisname,addressandoccupation.Hence, theabovesaidevidencehasbeliedthedefence. 107] In the case of Meh Ram Vs.State of Rajasthan 1994

Cri.L.J.1897,ithasbeenheldthatwhenpleaofinsanitywasraisedby theaccusedinconsonancewithsection84ofI.P .C.,itwasdesirableto takeintoaccountconductoftheaccusedatthetimeoftheincident, aftertheincident.Suchexemptionisallowedonlywheretheinsane person is incapable ofknowingthenature ofthe act,orthathe is doingwhatiseitherwrongorcontrarytolaw.Thissectionlaysdown thelegaltestofresponsibilityincasesofallegedunsoundnessofmind. It will suffice to mention that every type of insanity is not legal insanity,thecognitymustbesodestroyed,astorenderhimincapable ofknowingthenatureoftheactorthatwhatheisdoingiswrongor contrary to law. The Court shall presume the absence of such insanity,however,thepresumptionisrebuttable.Hence,courtmust consider,whethertheaccusedsufferedlegalinsanityatthetimewhen offence was committed and in reaching such a conclusion, the circumstanceswhichpreceded,attendedorfollowedbythecrime,are

64

S.C.275/2012

relevant considerations. When the prosecution in discharging its burdeninthefaceofthepleaofthelegalinsanity,hasmerelytoprove the basic fact and rely upon the normal presumptions of law that everyoneknowsthelawandnaturalconsequencesofhisact.Hence,it has been concluded in the said ratio that to establish defence of insanity,itmustbeclearlyprovedthatatthetimeofcommittingthe act, the accused was labouring under such defect of reason from diseaseofthemindasnottoknowthenatureandqualityoftheact,he wasdoingorifhedidknowit,thathedidnotknowhewasdoing whatwaswrongorcontrarytolaw. Thus,consideringtheconduct andactoftheaccused,hehasfailedtobringthecasewithintheambit ofSection84oftheI.P .C. 108] On the above background, I have to consider defence

evidenceofD.W.1Dr.Burte. From the tenor of the evidence of this witness,itiscrystalclearthaton19.2.2010,whentheaccusedhad beenathisclinic,hehadnoticedthataccusedhaddisturbedsleep, habitofeatingless,palpitations,hehadideasofpersecution,ashe hadheardvoicesinear,hewasinmoodofsadnesswithsuicidalideas atatimes,hencewasinstructedtovisitagainafterfortnight.Inthe cross examination, when he wasconfrontedwiththe documentsof Ex.197to199withthedocumentssuppliedbyhimtothepolice,of Ex.210 and 211, he has been compelled to admit that only once,accused had been in his clinic on 19.2.10 and thereafter, the accusedneverhadvisitedhishospitalfortreatmentorforanyother purpose. 109] Inthisregard,thedocumentaryevidenceofEx.197to199,

65

S.C.275/2012

ifcomparedwiththeadmitteddocumentaryevidenceofEx.210and 211, it speaks that Ex.198came tobe preparedlateron tosuit the defence.TheEx.197ifcomparedwithitscopyEx.211,itspeaksthat the reverse page thereof is blank but the reverse page of Ex.197 speaksthatthesaideminentpsychiatristhadexaminedtheaccusedon 19.2.10,22.2.10,25.2.10,1.3.10,4.3.10,12.3.10and22.4.10.Thus, on the basis of this documentary evidence, the evidence of D.W.1 Dr.Burte came tobe falsified in toto. If really, he would have an occasion to examine the accused, except on 19.2.2010, then, definitely,hewouldnothavemadestatementbeforethemediathat accused was only once medically examinedby himin his clinic on 19.2.2010andthereafter,despitethemedicaladvice,accusednever hadbeeninhisclinic. 110] Thefalsityofthedefenceevidencecanalsobecheckedon

the basis of Ex.85 ,which is the leave application and medical certificatesubmittedbytheaccusedforclaimingmedicalleaveofone monthfrom19.2.10to19.3.10.Insupportofthesaidapplication,he has relied on the medical certificate issued by Subodh Clinic of Dr.Vikas Gavli. It speaks that during the said period, accused had suffered from viral hepatitis and therefore,he could not attend the dutybuthewasreportedfittoattenddutyw.e.f.18.3.10.Thus,itis crystal clear from the documentary evidence that by taking undue advantage of the above said medical leave availed by accused, by using intelligent brain, defence evidence about the further medical examinationoftheaccusedbarringon19.2.10cametobecreatedonly withobliquemotivetobringthecasewithintheambitofsec.84of I.P .C. Thus, the above said documentary evidence has falsified the

66

S.C.275/2012

defenceintoto. 111] Now,Ihavetodealwiththeadmissionsgivenbythesaid

psychiatristDr.Burte.Hehasdeposedthatelectroconvulsiontestin respectoftheaccusedwasconductedon19.2.10,22.2.10,25.2.10, 1.3.10,4.3.10,and12.3.10asindicatedintheEx.197.Keenperusalof Ex.197 speaks that it is totally silent about above said test was conductedontheabovesaiddates.Sofarasconsentofthepatientor hisrelativefortheabovesaidtest,Ex.199hasbeenrelied.Itbearsthe date19.2.10butthereisnospecificmentionontheabovesaiddate E.C.T.therapywasappliedinrespectoftheaccusedwiththeconsent oftheaccusedhimselforhisfamilymembers.Thusitiseloquentfrom Ex.199thatemptyformalitiesarecompletedtomakepompousshow thatconsentofthepatientorhisrelativewassoughtforE.C.T.Indeed, theabovesaidadmissionofD.W.1thatonlyonce,accusedwastreated by him in his clinic on 19.2.10, falsifies his evidence about E.C.T therapywasappliedtotheaccusedontheabovesaiddates. 112] Fromtheconductofthesaidpsychiatrist,itisclearthathe

hasnolittleregardoftruthandlaw.Evenheappearstohaveshown ignorance about the basic provisions of Mental Health Act 1987. Likewise, he appears to have not followed the due procedure in conductingpsychiatrictest,psychiatricevaluationtestoftheaccused and maintaining record thereof. Therefore, non maintaining record speaks in volume that the said defence witness had intention to suppressmaterialfactsfromthecourt.Pursuancethereto,heappears to have developed the defence evidence afterthought as per the suggestionofaccused.Pursuancetothesaidobligation,heappearsto

67

S.C.275/2012

havesteppedinthewitnessboxto deposefalsehood.Consequently, hecametobeexposedaslieteller. 113] Sofarastheregistermaintainedbythepsychiatrist,itis

clearthatpagesoftheregisterarenotinorder.Therefore,itisclear thatentriesintheregisteraremadelaterononlytosuitthedefenceof theaccused.Duetothesaidreason,thepagingoftheregisterfound tobeindisorder.Thesaidwitnesscouldnotovercomethissituation, havingknowledgethatregisterhasbeenmanipulatedbyhim.Thus, from his own evidence and more particularly, on the basis of documentaryevidenceofEx.197to199comparedwithEx.210and 211, it is clear that he had created false record about having had providedmedicaltreatmenttoaccusedafter19.2.10.Onthisplight,I finditdesirableto calltheexplanationofsaidwitnessastowhyhe shouldnotbeprosecutedforcreatingandleadingfalseevidence,in ordertomisleadandtherebypracticefraudonCourt. 114] Now,IhavetoturntotheotherdefencewitnessShivanand

Shete.Thesaidwitnessalsofoundtobesailinginthesameboatlike D.W.1.HehasproducedmedicalbillsvideEx.203to209abouttablets asprescribedbyD.W.1totheaccused,werepurchasedbytheaccused fromhisshopviz.TabTividol5,Phendy2,Tikoprex500,Tab.Olanete 10,Orimet25,Nitease10,andPolybioninjection.Onclosescrutinyof thesaidreceiptsandmoreparticularly,Ex.205,itisrevealedthatTab OriprowasneverprescribedbyD.W.1andtherewasnoreasontothis witnesstosellthesaiddrugtotheaccusedwithoutprescription.Same isthepositionaboutthebillEx.207asthereisnoprescriptionthereto issued by D.W.1. Likewise,same is the position about medicine sold

68

S.C.275/2012

videreceiptEx.209.Therefore,theevidenceofD.W.2coupledwith theabovesaidreceiptsaboutsaleofabovesaidmedicinesfoundtobe ofnohelptosubstantiatethedefence. 115] Now, Ihavetotakeintostockconductoftheaccusedby

consideringtheremandreportsoftheaccusedwhenhewasfirsttime produced before the concerned Magistrate. First remand report dt.26.1.12 speaks that accused has not made any complaint of ill treatment at the hands of police. It is clear that on the said date, accusedwasnotrepresentedbyadvocate.HewasremandedtoP .C.R. till 3.2.2012. Second remand report dt.28.01.12speaksthat onthe premiseofmentalsicknessclaimedbytheaccusedbeforeonedoctor ofSassoonhospital,P .C.R.wascurtailedandhewastakentojudicial custody and was sent to 10 days observation in Mental Health hospital,Yerawada and accordingly, w.e.f. 28.1.12 to 6.2.12, he was under observation for 10 days. Thiscircumstancespeaksinvolume that prosecution did not hide anything and therefore, preferred to sendtheaccusedfor10day'sobservation. 116] About10daysobservationoftheaccusedinMentalHealth

Hospital,Yerawada,evidenceofP .W.31MedicalSuperintendentofthe saidhospital,thepsychiatristDr.Donglikarfoundtobeofparamount consideration.Itiseloquentfromtheevidenceofthiswitnessthathe himself and other team of doctors Mrs.M.R.Bahale, Dr.S.B.Gadekar, Dr.H.U.Pendsehadobservedconductoftheaccused,hadmaintained daily chart and finally, came to the conclusion that there was no symptomofinsanityintheaccusedduringthe10daysobservation. Thus,thesaidpsychiatristwhoisinthefieldsincetheyear1994,has

69

S.C.275/2012

categorically deposed that noabnormality hasbeen found withthe accused. The report Ex.147,148 speaks that the accused has maintained eye to eye contact, he was anxious but guarded, appropriate, reaction time increased, speech was non spontaneous, relevant, coherent, mostly answering in single word, was guarded manytimeswhiletalking.Hisanswerswerenonconsistentandnon elaborate. 117] Sofarasthinking,ithasobservedthatnoformalthought

disorderwasfound.Hehasdeniedaboutpersecutoryideas.Sofaras perception,ithasbeenobservedthatpatientwasreportedonandoff hearingofvoicesbuthisresponseswerenonconsistent.Therewasno manicfeatures.Ithasbeenobservedthat judgmentwasintactand sightwaspartial.Thus,saidpaneldoctorshadobservedthatintheir opinion , the findings were not sufficient to diagnosis a major psychiatricillnessintheaccusedatthattime.Thus,thefinalreport speaksthattherewasnomajorpsychiatricillnessintheaccused.The saiddoctorhasdeposedthataccusedspokeaboutpersecutoryideasby sayingthatsomebodyhadplayedblackmagic(karni)butitdoesnot fallwithinthecategoryofdelusionandhallucinations.Hehasdeposed that such persecutory ideas always based on cultural belief of the concern.Thus,thesaiddoctorandotherpaneldoctorshaveopined thattheaccusedwasnothavinganypsychiatricailmentsoastoclaim benefitofsec.84ofI.P .C. 118] Thus,balancingtheprosecutionanddefenceevidence,it

iscrystalclearthatevidenceoftheprosecutionspeaksaboutprevious conductoftheaccused,conductonthedateofincidentandconduct

70

S.C.275/2012

aftertheincident.Therefore,Ihavetofallbacktothelandmarkratio of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of T.N.Lakshmaiah Vs.State of Karnataka2001DGLS(Soft)1292whichspeaksthatentireconduct oftheaccusedfromtimeofthecommissionofoffenceuptothetime the Sessions proceeding commenced is relevant for the purpose of ascertainingastowhethertheplearaisedofinsanitywasgenuineor afterthought.AgaininthelandmarkratiointhecaseofBapu@Gajraj Singh Vs.StateofRajasthan2007DGLS(Soft)1312,the Hon'ble ApexCourthasheldthatmereabnormalityofmindorpartialdelusion irresistible impulse or compulsive behaviuor of psychopath affords cannotextendprotectionofsec.84.Consequently,accusedcannotbe permitted to take benefit of sec.84. Hence, considering the said landmarkratiosandconductoftheaccusedpriortotheincident,on the date of incident and after the incident, it is crystal clear that defenceofinsanityhasbeenfalselytakeninordertobringthecase within the ambit of sec.84 of I.P .C. On this premise, the defence witnessDr.Burtecametobeexposedincrossexamination,hence,he hasadmittedthatonlyonceon19.2.10accusedwastreatedbyhimin hisclinicsituateatSolapur.Thus,fromtheentireevidenceandoverall conductoftheaccused,itiscrystalclearthathehasfailedtobringthe casewithintheambitofSec.84. 119] Such being the fact, the Ld.defence Adv.has invited my

attentiononthefollowingoldpronouncements: 1]GeronAliVs.Emperor42Cri.L.J.379(1941). 2]UnniriKannanVs.StateA.I.R.1960Kerala24. 3]BaluGanpatKoshireVs.StateofMaharashtra1983Cri.L.J.1769

71

S.C.275/2012

(Bombay) 4]Shriram Vs.StateofMaharashtra1991Cri.L.J.1631(Bombay) 5]PrakashVs.StateofMaharashtra1985Cr.L.J.196(Bombay) 6] Motiram s/o Maroti Dhule Vs.State of Maharashtra(2002)2 B.Cr.C.917(Bombay) 7] Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale Vs.State of Maharashtra 2003(1) B.Cr.C.242(S.C.) 120] The first ratio speaks that the accused was having

persecutory ideas about he having disciple of Pir and under that persecutoryideascommittedmurderanddevotedtheheadtothePir and therefore, he was held tobe of unsound mind at the time of commissionofthecrime,andtherebybenefitofsec.84I.P .C.cametbe giventotheaccusedintheabovecase.Thesecondratiospeaksabout chronicepilepticattacksofinsanitysufferedbytheaccusedandunder thatattack,murderofmotherhasbeencommittedbytheappellant, without running away from the spot and remaining in stubborn conditionbypossessingthearmusedinthecommissionofmurderof hismother. 121] Thethirdratiospeaksthattherewasprevioushistoryof

the accused of his unsound mind, therefore,there was defence evidence of 7 defence witnesses, including psychiatrist and more particularly relative of accused,who spoke about accused was of unsound mind and in that state of mind,he having had committed murderofhiswifeandsonwhohadreturnedfromtherelativesofthe appellant,hardlyonemonthagoduetodifferenceofopinion,hence,it has been held that under such circumstances, case was within the

72

S.C.275/2012

ambitofsec.84,hence,benefitthereofwasgiventoappellant/accused. 122] From the ratio of SriramVs.StateofMaharashtra cited

supra,itiscrystalclearthattheinsanitywassosevere,therefore,the appellant does not know the consequence of the act, therefore, Hon'ble High court has held that there was no mensne rea in committing crime,when it was committed and therefore,benefit of sec.84cametobeextended. 123] In the case of Prakash Vs.State of Maharashtra cited

supra,theappellantwasseverelysufferingfromchronicschizophrenia andtherefore,hehadcommittedtheactundermentaldisorder,hence,it hasbeenheldtobewithintheambitofsec.84ofI.P .C.. 124] However, the facts of the above said cases found tobe

differentfromthefactsofthepresentcase.Inthecaseathand,noiota of evidence that prior to the incident,which did take place on 25.1.2012, accused had suffered from any attack of insanity, thereby,he was incapable to know the consequences of his act, therefore,hewastreatedbythepsychiatristandtherewasadvicenot todriveanyvehicle. 125] Unfortunatelydefencehasnotexaminedfamilymembers

oftheaccusedwhocouldhavespokenmuchaboutailmentsufferedby accused and more particularly about attacks of insanity or hallucinationsanddelusionssufferedbytheaccused,thereby,hewas notknowingtheconsequencesoftheactdonebyhimatthetimeof commissionofthecrime.Inthisregard,thedefenceevidencefound

73

S.C.275/2012

tobetaintedwithinterest,basedonafterthought,untrustworthyand false. Consequently,theratiosreliedbythedefencebeingbasedon differentfacts,foundtobeofnohelptotheaccused. 126] On this plight, I have to fall back to the evidence of

Ex.85,whichspeaksthatfrom19.2.10to19.3.10,accusedhadavailed medicalleaveashehadsufferedfromviralhepatitis.Therefore,no evidencehasbeenplacedonrecordaboutpreviousmentaldisorderof theaccusedandtreatmenttheretowasprovidedbyD.W.1Dr.Burte.In addition,thereisnoevidencethatonthedateofincident,byreason ofunsoundnessofmind,theaccusedwasincapableofknowingthe natureofactorthathewasdoing,whatwaseitherwrongorcontrary tolaw.Thus,itisclearthatthereisnolegalevidencetobringthecase withintheambitofSec.84ofI.P .C. 127] Thelastratiointhecaseof ShrikantAnandraoBhosale

Vs.State of Maharashtra,cited supra of Hon'ble Apex Court speaks thattheaccusedwaspoliceconstable,hithiswifewithgrindingstone butdidnotrunawayfromthespotofoffence,therewasfamilyhistory ofpsychiatricillnessoftheaccused,hewastreated2yearsbeforethe incident for paranoid schizophrenia. He was hospitalised on 25 occasionsbuttherewasnoimprovementinhisailment,hence,ithas beenheldthathehascaseu/s84andtherefore,benefitthereofcame tobegiven.Hence,now,questioncropsbeforeme,whetherthecaseof theaccusedonthebasisofsaidratio,fallsintheexceptioncarvedout u/s 84. In the case at hand, it is proved fact that only once on 19.2.2010,accused was treated by Dr.Burte. Besides the above evidence,there is no evidence whatsoever to prove that after

74

S.C.275/2012

19.2.2010,accusedhadtakenmedicaltreatmentashewassuffering from hallucinations and persecutory ideas by hearing voices of somebodyinear.Thus, itisclearthatthefactsofthesaidratioare altogetherdifferentfromthefactsofthepresentcase.Hence,thesaid ratioalsofoundtobeofnohelptotheaccused. 128] Onthisbackground,Ifinditdesirabletoconsidertheratio

inthecaseofStateofMaharashtraVs.Sindhi@Ramans/oDalwai (1987 ) 89 BOMLR 423 relied by the prosecution. In the said landmarkratio,ithasbeenheldthatapersonmaybesufferingfrom someformofinsanity,recognizedbydoctorsassuch,butthatformof insanity may not necessarily be the unsoundness of mind as contemplated by sec.84 of I.P .C.. If despite the insanity, which the doctormayfind,inaparticularperson,thatpersonisabletorecognize thenatureandthequalityoftheactforwhich,heistriedorifheis capableofknowingthatwhathewasdoingwaseitherwrongorwas contrarytolaw,then,thebenefitofsec.84I.P .C.naturallywouldnot beavailabletohim. 129] Said ratio found tobe at par with the conduct of the

accused,factsandevidence producedonrecordbytheprosecution andthedefence.Thus,itisclearthatpersonmaysufferfromattackof insanity, in intervals but after that interval,he behaves like a sane personandifundersuchcircumstances,hecommitsanyact,knowing theactbeingwrongorcontrarytolaworagainstthemorality,then definitely,suchactcannotfallwithintheambitofsec.84ofI.P .C.In thisregard,consideringtheMcnaughtenRulesalso,itiscrystalclear thatsimplecaseofsicknessonthepremise,accusedhavingpersecutory

75

S.C.275/2012

ideas,suffering from hallucinations, hearing voice in ear ,does not necessarilytantamounttolegalinsanity,thoughitmaybetemporary insanityintheviewofpsychiatrist.Thecaseoftheaccusedfoundtobe notfollowinganyofthecategories,apartfromhehavinghadsuffered anyattackofinsanityinpastandmoreparticularly,onthedateof incident. 130] Inconsonancewiththerequirementofsection84I.P .C.,if

overall conduct of theaccusedindrivingthebusjust like agentle drivertillthe7.30a.m.of25.1.12isconsidered,itdepictsthathehas not invited any complaint in driving the bus,nor he has picked up quarrel with anypassengersoranydriverorpublic.Therefore,the veryfactspeaksthathehasdischargednightoutdutyon23rdand 24th Jan.2012 by driving the bus from Swargate to Gangapur and backwithoutanydisturbanceandwithoutgivingscopetoanybodyto makegrievanceaboutdrivingthebusonanyofthegrounds.Itisalso eloquentthatonthesaiddates,theaccusedandP .W.2conductorhad enjoyedrefreshment,lunch,dinnerandsoundsleepinthebusNo.MH 14BT0717atGangapur. 131] Intheaboveregard,theconductoftheaccusedneedstobe

assessed on the basis of evidence of P .W.3 Rajendra Gaikwad Asstt.Traffic controller, P .W.4 Balasaheb Sarode, P .W.23 Shashikant Damkale.ItiseloquentfromtheevidenceofP .W.3thatnightoutduty fromSwargatetoWadustewasassignedtotheaccusedintheevening of24.1.12whentheaccusedandtheP .W.2returnedbackbythebus No.MH14BT0717fromGangapur.Thus,on25.1.12,accusedwasto drivebusfromSwargatetoWadusteandtodischargenightoutduty.

76

S.C.275/2012

Inthiscontext,theevidenceofPW23Damkale,thetrafficcontrollerof S.T. Depot, speaks that on 25.1.12in the morning,when he was in allocation room of S.T. depot Swargate, at about 7 to 7.30 a.m. accusedcameinhiscabin,requestedtochangehisnightoutdutyinto singledutybutduetononavailabilityofdrivers,thesaidnightout duty of accused was not changed and thereafter, accused has withdrawnfromthecabincalmlyandquietly.Thus,itisclearthattill8 a.m.of25.1.12,accusedwasofsoundmindgentledrivertodriveS.T. bus. Therefore, I haveto take intoaccountwhichcircumstance did prompt the accused in committing theft of the bus and moving it indiscriminately. 132] Itiseloquentfromtheservicerecordoftheaccused,that

hehasdischargednightoutduty,sometimespenaltywassaddledto him about rash and negligent driving, about absenting from duty withoutgettingleavesanctionedwellinadvanceanddamagebeing causedtoS.T.bus.Butfactremainsthatinhisentireservicerecord, i.e.from8.8.99till24.1.2012,therewasnooccasiontotheaccusedto suffer from any psycho ailment, mania, mental disorder, hallucinationsandhavingpersecutoryideas.Therefore,hisintention andknowledgeincommittingthecrimefoundmanifestinteaching lessontotheP .W.17AjitLimaye,P .W.23Damkale,P .W.24DiwateDepot Manager,P .W.3RajendraGaikwad,Asstt.Trafficcontrollerandothers, astheydidnotaccepttherequestofaccusedtochangehisnightout dutytosingleduty.Thus,after8a.m.,whenhehasdepartedfromthe cabin of Damkale, there was no abnormality, till the accused had committedtheabovediscussedactandtillhewasexaminedbythe P .Ws.27 to 29, the doctors of Sassoon hospital in the A.C.P . crime

77

S.C.275/2012

office,Pune.Onthecontrary,theaccusedhadnarratedhistoryofroad trafficaccidenttothesaiddoctorsP .W.27to29.Therefore,itisclear that for the first time, when accused was in police custody on 28.1.2012,thedefenceofmentalsicknesscametobesetupatthe instance of psychiatrist of Sassoon hospital, requiring 10 days observationoftheaccusedinMentalHealthhospital.Accordingly,he wassent for 10daysobservation from28.1.12to6.2.12inMental healthhospital,Yerawada,Pune.TherehewastreatedbyP .W.31and abovesaidpaneldoctorsThus,accordingtothem,nosignofinsanity wasfoundinaccused,duringtheperiodof10daysobservationand therefore,therewasnocasetoprovidefurthermedicaltreatmentto accusedabouthisselfclaimedailment.Duetothesaidreasonbest knowntotheaccused,hehasnotsetupanypleaofhavingunsound mindatthetimeoftheincidentandalsobeforeandaftertheincident before any Court. On this plight, he has not prayed for resorting provisionsofMentalHealthAct,1987andofChapterXXVofCr.P .C. 133] It is also eloquent fromthe evidence ofallprosecution

witnessesthatnosuggestionhasbeengiventothemthatatthetime ofincident,theaccusedwasofunsoundmindandinthesaidstateof mind,hedidtheactofdrivingthebusandatthetimeofdoingthe said act, by reason of unsoundness of mind, he was incapable of knowingthenatureoftheactorthatheisdoingwhatiseitherwrong orcontrarytolaw.Therefore,nocaseexiststotheaccusedtoclaim benefitofsec.84ofI.P .C. 134] Per contra,on the basis of recent pronouncement of

Hon'bleApexcourtinthecaseof BapuSinghVs.StateofRajasthan

78

S.C.275/2012

hasalsodisentitledtheaccusedinclaimingbenefitofsec.84ofI.P .C. 135] Much has been said by the defence about Investigating

Officer as usual had committed flaws by taking signature of the witnessesontheirhandwrittenstatementsrecordedu/s161Cr.P .C. No doubt, some of the witnesses have admitted this fact, hence, attempt was made to point out that handwritten statements of witnessescametobewithheldandinitsplace,beneficialcomputerized statementsofwitnessescametobeincludedinthechargesheet.Inthis regard, no material has been extracted from the mouth of Investigating Officer, to support said defence, hence, it cannot be sustained.Sofarassigningthestatementrecordedu/s161ofCr.P .C., itisclearthatitismereirregularity,whichcannotextendanybenefit totheaccused. 136] In this regard, law is well settled that if Investigating

Officerdidcommitanyflaw,incarryinginvestigationintheoffence, then,benefit thereof cannot be extended to the accused. On this premise,nodoubtcanberaisedincaseofevidenceofallprosecution witnessesandmoreparticularly,InvestigatingOfficer.Consequently,I amnotswayedwiththesubmissionmadebyLd.defenceAdvocate. 137] Lastly, I have to deal with the documentary evidence of

Ex.140,141and142,admittedbythedefence.Thesaiddocumentsare thecasepapersoftheexaminationofaccusedon25.1.12at2p.m. andon27.1.12.Ex.140speaksthataccusedhadnarratedthehistory that since last 12 years, he has taken treatment for abnormal experiences,likewarisgoingon,worldisgoingtoend,peopleare

79

S.C.275/2012

goingtokillhimandhearsomevoices,notabletotellaboutthem. Further,hehasreportedthathehadomittedmedicationsincelasttwo years as he was normal. He reported that since six days, he had disturbedsleep,feelingofwargoingonandthatallaregoingtobe killed.Hehasalsoreportedthatyesterday,hehadexperienceofblack magic,therefore,hefeltthatpeopleintheworldarejustlikedead persons ( HkwrkVdhps

vuqHko ;sr gksr] s txkrys lxGs esY;klkj[ks okVr gksrs

).

Further,he reported that he had listened sounds of instruments Mrudungandchinchinsound.Hehadalsoreportedthathedoesnot understand anything when he drove and above said accident. It is observedthathewaswellorientedtotime,placeandperson,reported occasionallyhadconsumedalcohol,nodetailhistoryofmedicalillness was narrated. So far as examination conducted on 27.1.2012, it is reported that he was conscious,cooperative, communicative, maintained eye to eye contact ,his psychomoter was normal, mood waseuthymic(normalrangeofmood),hehadthoughtsofdelusion andofpersecution,delusionaboutblackmagic(

dks.khrjh Hkkukerh dsyh

vkgs

),auditoryhallucinations,withfeelingthatsomebodyisassaulting

tohisfamilymembersandhehaslistenedsoundofit.Thus,ithasbeen observedthattheaccusedhasnarratedhistoryabouthehasenjoying goodsleep,hisappetitewasdisturbed.Hehasalsoreportedthathe hadsufferedfrompsychiatricillnesssince3to4years.Further,hehas narratedthatonthedateofincident,thebuswasmovedinairbut duetoblackmagic.Itisobservedthathisjudgmentandinsightwas poor.Hence,onthebasisofsaidobservation,thedefencehasmadean attemptinbringingthecasewithintheambitofsec.84.However,itis crystal clear from the evidence of P .Ws.27 to 29 that accused had

80

S.C.275/2012

narrated history of road traffic accident. At that time, he was well orientedastotime,placeandperson.Therefore,Ihavetofindout, why the above said history came tobe narrated by the accused afterward.Inthisregard,IhavetofallbacktotheevidenceofNodal officerChetanMoreP .W.32andDattaAngreP .W.33. 138] From the tenor of the evidence of these witnesses, it is

clearthatcellphoneno.9766708633havingduelSIM,oneofAirtel and other of Vodaphone and the cell phone No.9623069573 were possessedbytheaccusedandonthedateofincidentat12.27noon, therewasconversationinbetweentheholdersofthesaidtwophones about 144 seconds and the tower location of cell phone No.9623069573wasfromShelgaon,Barshi,Solapur.Itisalsoeloquent fromtheevidenceofP .W.39thatcellphonefoundwiththeaccused washavingduelSIMcardofAirtelandVodaphone,whichhasbeen seized from accused,when he was arrested and his personal search wasconductedvideEx.138drawninpresenceofP .W.30DilipAgrawal andotherpanchwitness.Therefore,thepossibilityofaccusedhaving haddialogue with the help of abovesaidcellphonesandthereby developingthecase,cannotberuledout,soastobringitwithinthe ambitofsec.84.Otherwise,therewasnocaseorpleaoftheaccusedof insanity when he was first time, examined by the P .W.27 to 29 in between 1.30 to 2 p.m. in the office of A.C.P . crime Branch Pune. Therewasnodefenceofinsanity,whenaccusedwasproducedbefore J.M.F.C.forthefirstremandon26.01.2012. 139] Hence,againIhavetofallbacktotheratiosinthecasesof

1] T.N.LakshmaiahVs.Stateof Karnataka2001 DGLS(Soft)1292

81

S.C.275/2012

and 2] AmritBhushanGuptaVs.UnionofIndia1976DGLS(Soft) 458(S.C.),wherein,ithasbeenheldthattoclaimbenefitu/s84,at thetimeoftheincidentordoingtheact,byreasonofunsoundnessof mind,accusedshouldbeincapableofknowingthenatureoftheact orthathewasdoingthatactwaseitherwrongorcontrarytolaw.In thecaseathand,itiscrystalclearthatwhentheaccusedhaddriven theabovesaidS.T.busNo.MH14BT1532,fromSwargateOutgateto Shankarsheth road, 7 Loves chowk, Solapur chowk, Mahma Devde chowk, Eastern road, Talerabunglowchowk,Lashkar police station chowk,thenKhanyaMarutichowk,oldbusstand,Kasewadiandthen, Shankarshethroad,Swargate,Volgachowk,Mitramandalchowkand Mahalaxmi Mandir chowk, he did not suffer from any ailment of unsoundnessofmindascontemplatedu/s84ofI.P .C. 140] Onthecontrary,fromtheevidenceofeyewitnessesP .Ws.

5to10,12to14,15,16,P .W.17,18,19,20,2223,24,itisclearthat thebuswasdrivenbytheaccusedwithintentiontocausedeathof pedestrians,passengers,bikers,autodrivers,andmoreparticularly,it was moved by the accused knowing that it was so imminently dangerous to the pedestrians, passengers that it must in all the probabilities,causedeathorsuchbodilyinjuryasislikelytocause death of the said persons and he committed such act without any excuseforincurringtheriskofcausingdeathorsuchinjury.Itisalso crystalclearthatbydrivingthebusinsuchmanner,hehastakenlives ofninepersons,causedsimpleandgrievousinjuriesto37personsand madetheirlifemiserable.Therefore,onthebasisofobservationsas appeared in Ex.140,141 and 142, no benefit can be given to the accusedofsec.84asatthetimeofactualcommissionoftheincident,

82

S.C.275/2012

hewasofsoundstateofmindandhaddriventhebusintheabove saidmanner.Moreover,itissettledpropositionoflawthatmerelyon the plea of having experience of hallucinations, persecutory ideas, hearingsound,havingfeelingthatwarisgoingon,everybodygoingto die,nobenefitofsec.84canbegivenasthesaiddefencefoundtobe nothing but an afterthought. The afterthought of the said defence stands duly proved on the basis of evidence of D.W.1Dr.Burte and D.W.2PharmacistShete.Dr.Burtehasadmittedthatonlyonce,hehad examined the accused on 19.2.2010, thereafter, accused had never seenhisfaceforanypurposeandapartfrommedicaltreatment,inthe capacityofpsychiatrist.Thus,thedefencehasbeentotallyfalsifiedon thebasisofdocumentsEx.197to199andparallelxeroxcopiesthereof ofEx.210and211. 141] ItiseloquentfromthetenorofevidenceofDr.Burtethat

he had no opportunity in applying electro convulsive therapy in respect of accused at anypoint oftime,asheadmittedthatforthe aboveendafter19.2.10,accusedneverhadbeeninhishospital.Dueto thesaidreason,Ex.197,198and199foundsilent.Eventheconsent columnbarringtheconsentsoughton19.2.2010,eitherofaccusedor hisrelative,issilent,aseloquentfromEx.199.Itisprovedfactthat Ex.211and210arethexeroxcopiesoforiginalexhibits197and198. Thosespeakthatafter19.2.2010,accusedneverhadbeentoDr.Burte fortreatmentandtherefore,therewasnoscopetoDr.Burtetotreat theaccused.Hence,onthisbackground,onlyoneconclusioncanbe drawn, only to come out from the clutches of punishment, false defenceofunsoundmindandunderstateofunsoundmindbusdriven bytheaccused,cametobetaken.

83

S.C.275/2012

142]

I had taken caution in recording defence statement of

accused u/s 313 Cr.P .C. While answering question No.1 to 66, on 24.1.2013, when defence Adv.had absented, he had given rational answerstoalmostallthequestions.Therefore,inordertocheckhis conduct,inviewofthelandmarkratiooftheHon'bleApexcourtto ascertain overall conduct of the accused throughout the trial , 4 questionswereputtohim. Que.SincewhenyoujoineddutyasbusdriverinState RoadTransportCorporation? Ans.Sincelast11to12years. Que.Howmanytimes,whiledrivingbusbyyou,accident didtakeplace? Ans.Onlyonce,accidentdidtakeplacebythebuspliedby me. Que.Whetheryouhadtensionorfrustrationatanypoint oftimeindrivingtheSTbusasbusdriverbeforethis incident? Ans.No. Que.Whetheratanypointoftime,youfindyourself insecureorincapableindrivingSTbus,duetothe reasonsknowntoyou? Ans.Never. 143] But on the next date, when further defence statement came tobe recorded, he has replied answers to almost all the questions 'I do not know'. However, surprisingly enough, the said person,who claims benefit u/s 84, while answering the question Que.No.173,hasmadestatementthathewantedtoexaminehimself

84

S.C.275/2012

on oath. While answering question no.174, he hasmade statement thathewantedtoexamineDr.DilipBurteofSolapurandproprietorof Amrut Medical and General Stores Solapur D.W.2. Hence, on this plight,onecanimagineinwhichmanner,mentalfacultyofaccused did work. Thus,from the entire circumstance,itiscrystalclearthat defence about unsound mind on the premise,accused had suffered frompersecutoryideas,hallucinations,hearingsounds,blackmagic playedbysomebody,warisgoingonorallaregoingtobekilled,found tobebasedonafterthought.Thus,thedefencefoundtobenothingbut outcomeofafterthoughtandconcoctionaseloquentfromevidenceof D.W.1Dr.Burte. 144] Thus, it is crystal clear that this is the unique and

uncommoncase.Thus,consideringthedirectevidenceofP .W.5to10, 12to14,22coupledwithevidenceofP .W.3,15,18,20,23,24,itisclear thataccusedwasnotofunsoundmindwhiledrivingthebusashehas taken utmost care not to stop the bus despite urge made by P .W.15,P .W.17,18,19,20 and 23. On the contrary, it is eloquent that whenP .W.18AmarChavan,P .M.T.busdriverandP .W.20BapuLonkar, byeffectingentryinthecabinofthebusdrivenbytheaccused,made anattempttostopthebusbyapplyinghandbrake,accusedassaulted them,pushedP .W.18byassaulting,therefore,hefelldownonroad,in proximity of front wheel of the bus driven by the accused and therefore,hislifewasendangered,butduetograceofGod,hislifehas beensaved.ItiseloquentthatP .W.20hadeffectedentryinthecabinof busdrivenbyaccused,urgedhimtostopthebusbytryingtomove steeringofthebus,butaccusedhadassaultedhim,triedtopushhim downfrommovingbussoastoendangerhislife,burfortunately,he

85

S.C.275/2012

caughtholdcoveroftheengineofthebusandmeanwhile,accused lost balance in driving the bus,it dashed to the road divider and vehiclesandthen,itwasstopped.Itisalsoeloquentfromtheevidence ofthewitnessesthataftertheincident,anattemptwasmadebythe accused to flee away but it was arrested by Lonkar and by head constable Tapare and other police,who were present. Hence, under such circumstances, nobenefit ofthe above said pleataken bythe accusedinEx.140,141and142canbegiventohim,asitfoundtobe mereafterthoughtsaying,withoutanypsychometrictest conducted accordingtoforensicpsychiatrybyfollowingdueprocesslaiddown thereto.Itisalsoadmittedfactthatnopsychologicalevaluationtest hasbeencarriedbyD.W.1orbythedoctors,towhom,theaccusedhad narrated the history of above said afterthought saying about his experienceastopersecutoryideas,hallucinations,hearingnoiseand someblackmagicbeingplayedandthereby,warisgoingonandallare goingtobekilled,alongwithhisfamilymembers.Hence,suchsaying cannot take place of evidence unless those are tested on the touchstone of psychiatric test andpsychological evaluation test and chart thereof. Said evidence has been falsified by evidence of Dr.Donglikar P .W.31 and reports produced by him Ex.147 1to 149 whichspeaksthatnoabnormalitywasfoundwithaccused,duringthe course of 10 days observation in Mental Health hospital,Yerwada. Thus,duetothesaidreason,theaccusedappearstohavenotpressed into service any provisions of Mental Health Act, 1987. It is an admittedfactthattherewasnooccasiontoresortsec.20ofthesaid Act, for claiming reception order of accused,on the premise of his ailment.Thus,nonresorttothesaidprovisionspeaksinvolumethat accusedneversufferedfromunsoundnessofmindoranypsychiatric

86

S.C.275/2012

ailment, therefore, there was no occasion to resort any of the provisionsofMentalHealthAct,1987. 145] SofarasobservationsmadebyD.W.1Dr.Burte,itisclear

that it was very casual on one solitary date of 19.2.2010 and thereafter,hehadnooccasiontoexaminetheaccusedtoascertainhis ailmentandtoprovidemedicaltreatmenttheretoasadmittedbyhim inhiscrossexamination.Hence,atnorate,thecasecanbesaidtobe fallingwithintheambitofsec.84.Therefore,theprosecutionevidence is found sufficient to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubtinrespectoftheoffencespunishableu/ss381,302,307,324, 427 of the I.P .C. and u/s 3(2) of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act,1984. Accordingly, I held the accused guilty of the chargeslevelledagainsthim. 146] However, in view of the ratio laid down in the case of

Allauddin Mian and others Vs.State of Bihar, reported in 1989 S.C.C. (Cri.)490, the requirement of hearing of the accused is intended to satisfy the rule of natural justice. It is a fundamental requirement of fair play that the accused who has hitherto concentrating on the prosecutionevidence,on the question ofguilt should,onbeingfoundguilty,beaskedifhehasanythingtosayor anyevidencetorenderonthequestionofsentence. On this premise, the Judgment is deferred to hear the accusedandtheprosecutiononthepointofsentence. Dt.03.04.2013 (V .K.Shewale) Addl.SessionJudge,Pune.

87

S.C.275/2012

147]

HeardlearneddefencecounselandthePublicProsecutor

onthepointofsentence. 148] ThelearnedPublicProsecutorhashighlyplacedreliancein

thecaseof MachhiSinghandothersVs.StateofPunjabAIR1983 S.C.957(1), in the case of Munwar Shah Vs.State of Maharashtra 1983S.C.585,inthecaseof BachanSinghVs.StateofPunjabAIR 1982SC1325(1). Thus,onthebasisoftheratioslaiddowninthe said landmark cases, the learned Public prosecutor has prayed for treatingthecasetoberarestoftherarecases,consideringaggravated circumstancesareoutweighingmitigatingcircumstances. 149] Now, I have to ascertain mandate of sec.354(3) of

Cri.Pro.Code whichspeaksthatdeathsentencecannot beawarded save in the rarest of rare cases, when alternative option is unquestionably foreclosed. Wording of the said section reflects legislative command and the condition which needs to be satisfied priortoawardingthedeathsentence.Whileawardingsuchsentence, the Court is required to weigh the mitigating and aggravating circumstances and principle of proportionality of sentence, is also requiredtobekeptinmind.Whethercasefallswithintherarestof rarecaseornot,hastobeexaminedwithreferencetothefactsand circumstancesofeachcaseandonfindingthecasetoberarestofrare, theCourtisjustifiedinawardingdeathpenaltywhichisontheStatute Book. As back as in the year 1974, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Ediga Anamma Vs.State of A.P . A.I.R.1974 S.C.799 has observedthus:

88

S.C.275/2012

Deterrencethroughthreatofdeathmaystillbea promisingstrategyinsomefrightfulareasofmurderous crime Further,ithasbeenobservedthat Horrendousfeaturesofthecrimeandthehaplessand helplessstateofvictim,steeltheheartoflawforthe sternerscheme 150] Whatistherarestoftherarecaseisaconceptdifficultto

defineandnostraightjacketformulacanbeappliedforenumeration ofrarestofrarecase.However,theHon'bleApexCourtinthematter of BachanSinghVs.StateofPunjabA.I.R.1980S.C.898 ,haslaid downtheguidelinesonthisaspectwhichcanbesummarisedasunder: a]Theextremepenaltyofdeathmaybeinflictedingravest casesofextremeculpability, b] While imposing death sentence, the circumstances of the offender are also required to be taken into consideration along withthecircumstancesofthecrime. c]Deathsentencebeimposedonlywhenlifeimprisonment appearstobeanaltogetherinadequatepunishmenthavingregardto therelevantcircumstancesofthecrime,and, d] Extreme penalty can be imposed after striking the balancebetweenaggravatingandmitigatingcircumstancesfoundin thecase.

89

S.C.275/2012

Aggravatedcircumstancesinclude: a] If the murder has been committed after previous planningandinvolvesextremebrutality,or b]Ifthemurderinvolvesexceptionaldepravity. Mitigatingcircumstancesinclude a]Thattheoffencewascommittedundertheinfluenceof extremementaloremotionaldisturbance b]Theageoftheaccused.Iftheaccusedisyoungorold, heshallnotbesentencedtodeath. c] The probability that the accused would not commit criminalacts ofviolenceaswouldconstituteacontinuingthreatto society. d]Theprobabilitythattheaccusedcanbereformedand rehabilitated.TheStateshallbyevidenceprovethattheaccuseddoes notsatisfytheconditions(c)and(d)above. e] That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the accusedbelievedthathewasmorejustifiedincommittingtheoffence. f]Thattheaccusedactedundertheduressordomination ofanotherperson. g]Thattheconditionoftheaccusedshowedthathewas mentallydefectiveandthatthesaiddefectimpairedhiscapacityto appreciatethecriminalityofhisconduct. 151] Theaboveguidelineswerefollowedin MacchiSinghand

90

S.C.275/2012

Others Vs.State of Punjab, 1983 S.C. 957 by holding that death sentence could be imposed only in rarest of rare cases. When the collectiveconscienceofthesocietyissoshockedthatitwouldexpect theholdersofjudicialpowertoinflictthedeathpenalty,irrespectiveof their personal opinion, as regards the desirability or otherwise of retainingdeathpenaltyasasentencingoption.Thefollowingarethe circumstances given by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Macchi Singhinwhichthecasecanbetreatedasrarestofrare,forimposing capitalpunishmentbyentertainingsuchsentimentofthecommunity. 1] When the murder is committed in extremely brutal, grotesque,diabolical,revoltingordastardlymannersoastoarouse intenseanextremeindignationofthecommunity. 2]Whenmurderiscommittedforamotivewhichevinces totaldepravityandmeanness,e.g.murderbyhiredassassinformoney orrewardorcoldbloodedmurderforgainsofapersonvisaviswhom themurdererisinadominatingpositionorinapositionoftrust,or murderiscommittedinthecourseforbetrayalofthemotherland. 3]Whenthecrimeisenormousinproportion.Forinstance, when multiple murders, say of all or almost all the members of a familyorlargernumberofpersonsofaparticularcaste,communityor localityarecommitted. 4]Whenthevictimofamurderisaninnocentchildora helplesswomanoroldorinfirmpersonorapersonvisaviswhomthe murdererisinadominatingpositionorapublicfigure,generallyloved andrespectedbythecommunity. 152] TheHon'bleSupremeCourthashowevercautionedthat

91

S.C.275/2012

fullweightagemustbeaccordedtothemitigatingcircumstancesina case and a just balance had to be struck between aggravating and mitigatingcircumstances. 153] TheHon'bleApexCourtinthecaseof DevenderPalSingh

Vs.StateofN.T.C.ofDelhi,A.I.R2002,S.C.1661andAtbirVs.Govt.of N.T.C.ofDelhiA.I.R2010S.C.3477 hasheldthatdeathsentence may be warranted, when the murder is committed in an extreme brutal manner or for a motive,which evinces total depravity and meanness.Further,ithasbeenheldthatdeathsentencecanalsobe justifiedwhenthecrimeisenormousinproportionorwhenthevictim ofmurderisaninnocentchildorahelplesswomanoraoldandinfirm personorapersonwhomthemurdererisinadominatingposition. Thus, the Court is required to follow the rule of proportionality considering the circumstances of the case in providing punishment accordingtotheculpabilityofeachkindofcriminalconductkeeping inmindtheeffectofinadequatepunishmentonthesociety.Inthecase ofAqueelAhmedVs.StateofU.P .A.I.R.2009S.C.1272,Hon'bleApex Court has ruled out that even in the case of single victim, death sentencecanbeawardedtakingintoconsiderationthecircumstanceof thecase. 154] Onthispremise,itisapttoquoteobservationsofHon'ble

Apex Court in the case of Shivaji @ Dadya Alhat Vs.State of MaharashtraA.I.R.2009,S.C.56,wherein,itisheldinpara.25,26,30 and31that Thelawregulatessocialinterestsarbitratesconflicting claimsanddemand.Securityofpersonsandpropertyof

92

S.C.275/2012

thepeopleisanessentialfunctionoftheState.Itcouldbe achievedthroughinstrumentalityofcriminallaw. Undoubtedly,thereisacrossculturalconflict,whereliving lawmustfindanswertothenewchallengesandthecourts arerequiredtomoldthesentencingsystemtomeetthe challenges.Thecontagionoflawlessnesswouldundermine thesocialorderandlayitinruins.Protectionofsociety andstampingoutcriminalproclivitymustbetheobjectof lawwhichmustbeachievedbyimposingappropriate sentence.Therefore,lawasacornerstoneoftheedificeof ordershouldmeetthechallengesconfrontingthesociety. Fridmaninhis'lawinchangingsociety'statedthatStateof CriminalLawcontinuestobeasitshouldbeadecisive reflectionofsocialconsciousnessofsociety.Therefore,in operatingthesentencingsystem,lawshouldadoptthe correctivemachineryorthedeterrencebasedonfactual matrix.Bydeftmodulation,sentencingprocessbestern whereitshouldbe,andtamperedwithmercy,whereit warrantstobe.Thefactsandgivencircumstancesineach case,thenatureofthecrime,themannerinwhichitwas plannedandcommitted,themotiveforcommissionofthe crime,theconductoftheaccused,thenatureofweapons usedandalltheattendingcircumstancesarerelevantfacts whichwouldenterintotheareaofconsideration.If murderiscommittedduetodeepseatedmutualand personalrivalrymaynotcallforpenaltyofdeathbutan organizedcrimeormassmurdersofinnocentpeople wouldcallforimpositionofdeathsentenceas

93

S.C.275/2012

deterrence. 155] On this plight, in the case of Mahesh Vs.State of M.P .

(1987)2S.C.R.710,theHon'bleApexCourthasrefusedtoreducethe deathsentencebyobservingthat: Itwillbemockeryofjusticetopermittheaccusedto escapetheextremepenaltyoflaw,whenfacedwithsuch evidenceandsuchcruelacts.Togivethelessor punishmentsfortheaccusedwouldbetorenderthe justicingsystemofthecountrysuspect.Thecommonman willloosefaithinCourts.Insuchcases,heunderstands andappreciatesthelanguageofdeterrencemorethan reformativejargaon. Therefore,unduesympathytoimposeinadequatesentence woulddomoreharmtothejusticesystemtoundermine thepublicconfidenceintheefficacyoflawandsociety wouldnotlongendureundersuchseriousthreats.Itis therefore,thedutyofeveryCourttoawardproper sentencehavingregardtothenatureoftheoffenceandthe mannerinwhichitwasexecutedorcommitted. 156] In the case of Jashubha Bharatsinh Gohil Vs.State of

Gujarat(1994)(4)S.C.C.353,ithasbeenheldthat: Inthematterofdeathsentence,theCourtsarerequiredto answernewchallengesandmoldthesentencingsystemto meetthesechallenges.Theobjectshouldbetoprotectthe societyandtodeterthecriminalinachievingtheavowed

94

S.C.275/2012

objectoflawbyimposingappropriatesentence.Itis expectedthattheCourtswouldoperatethesentencing systemsoastoimposesuchsentence,whichreflectsthe conscienceofthesocietyandthesentencingprocesshas tobesternwhereitshouldbe. 157] Thus,itisclearthatdutyiscastuponthecourttorespect

to the society's cry for justice, against the criminals by imposing punishmentbefittingthecrimesothatcourtsreflectpublicabhorrence ofthecrime. 158] Now,letusexaminewhetherthecaseathandfallsunder

the category of rarest of the rare case and if the answer is in the affirmative,whatarethespecialreasonsforawardingdeathsentence. Thepassingofthesentenceofdeathmustelicitthegreatestconcern andsolicitudeoftheJudgebecausethatisonesentencewhichcannot be recalled. It is already held that the accused had committed the offences punishable u/ss 381,302,307,324,427 of the Indian Penal Codebycommittingmurderofninepersonsandcausinggrievousand simple injuries to 37 persons, by driving the ST bus No.MH14BT 1532 indiscriminately, intentionally and knowingly that it is so imminentlydangerousthatitmustinallprobability,causedeathor suchbodilyinjuryasislikelytocausedeathandcommittedsuchact withoutanyexcuseforincurringtheriskofcausingdeathandsuch bodilyinjuriesasislikelytocausedeathoftheabovesaid37persons. 159] Further,itisheldthatwhenthebuswasstolenandmoved

outoftheoutgateofSwargateS.T.Depotandthereafter,onallthe spotsofoffences,thesuperioroftheaccusedAjitLimaye(P .W.17),the

95

S.C.275/2012

witnessAmarChavan(P .W.18),PMTbusdriver,P .W.19ShivajiTapare Headconstable,P .W.20BapuLonkarandP .W.23ShashikantDamkale, had requested the accused in the beginning , in the middle of the incidentandbeforethelastincident,tostopthebusasithascaused death of many more persons, caused injuries to many passengers, pedestrians, riders, pillion riders of bikes, scooters, auto drivers, passengerstravelledbytheautos,driversof4wheelervehiclesand occupiers.However,theaccuseddidnotstopthebusbutexpressed furyagainstthesaidwitnessesbypushingdownAmarChavanfrom themovingbuswhenhetriedtostopthebusbyapplyinghandbrake, accusedhadassaultedhimandpushedhimfromthemovingbusand therebyendangeredhislife,ashefelldownintheproximityofthe frontwheelofthemovingbus.Itisalsoheldthatthen,otherwitness ShivajiTaparethroughpubliccallmadesuchattemptbutitwasalso madefutilebytheaccused.ItisheldthatthestarwitnessBapuLonkar had entered in the driver's cabin of the bus by using ladder and effectingentrythroughwindowNo.8,caughtholdsteeringwheelof thebus,requestedtheaccusedtostopthebussayingthat, 'whyare you killing many persons?, thereon, accused retorted that this witnesshasnobusinesstosayanythingthereto,therebytriedto pushLonkarfromthemovingbusbygivinghimassaultbyhisone handbyendangeringhislifealso.Fortunately,hehadcaughtholdthe coveroftheengineofthebusandcouldsavehislifefromviolentact oftheaccused. 160] Further,itisheldthataccordingtoclause4ofSec.300

I.P .C.,initiallytheaccusedhascommittedtheactbyindiscriminately driving the bus knowing that it is so imminently dangerous that it

96

S.C.275/2012

mustinallprobability,causedeathorsuchbodilyinjuryasislikelyto causedeathandcommittedsaidactwithoutanyexcuseforincurring the risk of causing death of nine persons and such injuries to 37 persons, as is likely to cause their death, by making an attempt to committheirmurder.Hence,itisheldthatwhentheaccusedwas instructedbythesaidwitnessesatallthestagesfromtheinitialstage inarrestingmassacreandmenace,bystoppingthebus,buthedidnot stopit,onthecontrary,hadassaultedP .W.18and20bymakingan attempttoendangertheirlives,bypushingthemfromthemovingbus, resultantupon,P .W.18felldownfromthemovingbusinproximityof itsfrontwheel,butduetograceofGod,couldsavehislife.Thus,at the initial stage, the above said knowledge as contemplated under clause 4 of Sec.300, had worked which afterwords merged in prominentintentionincommittingcrimeintheabovesaidmannerin sheerdisregardoftheinstructionsgivenbytheabovesaidwitnessesto arrestfurthermenaceandmassacre.Thus,itisheldthatonthebasis ofsuchevidence,casesquarelyfallsunderclauses1to4ofSec.300of I.P .C. 161] Ontheabovebackground,Ihavetodrawbalancesheetof

aggravatingandmitigatingcircumstancesofthecrime. AGGRAVATINGCIRCUMSTANCES ConductoftheAccused: 1] Theaccusedispublicservantbeingbusdriverattachedto S.T.Depot,SwargatePunesince1999.Consequently,heiswellaware aboutprovisionsofMotorVehiclesActandtrafficrules.Hewasalso

97

S.C.275/2012

awareaboutevilconsequencesofdrivingthebusinsheerbreachof trafficrules.Thathehasdischargeddutyasbusdriverbydischarging nightoutdutytill24.01.2012till6.30p.m.Thus,tillthesaidtime, there was no grievance of the accused about he is suffering from disturbed sleep, less eating, persecutory ideas. Hence, he has no justificationtoclaimsingledutyfromnightoutduty. 2] That on 24th and 25th Jan.2012, night out duty was

allottedtotheaccusedbyP .W.3RajendraGaikwadtomovethebus fromSwargatetoWadusteandback.Thaton25.01.2012inbetween 7to7.30a.m.,theaccusedhadbeeninthecabinofShriDamakale, thetrafficcontroller(P .W.23)andrequestedhimtochangehisabove saidnightoutdutyfromSwargatetoWadustebuthisrequestwasnot consideredduetoadministrativeproblem. Motiveandknowledge: 1] After the accused derived knowledge that his night out

dutyhasnotbeenchangedbyhissuperiorP .W.23atabout8.05a.m., theaccusedhadcommittedtheftoftheS.T.busNo.MH14BT1532out ofthepossessionofitsregulardriverSantoshHendreandbymoving thesaidbusindiscriminatelyinsheerbreachofallthetrafficrules, dashed to pedestrians and passengers in front of the Swargate Outgate,hence,hewasinstructedbyhisSuperiorP .W.17AjitLimaye, nottodosobutaccuseddidnotpayheedthereto. 2] Thatthereafter,P .W.18AmarChavanPMTdriverenteredin

thecabinofthebusdrivenbytheaccused,urgedhimtostopthebus

98

S.C.275/2012

buttheaccuseddidnotpayheed,hence,saidwitnesstriedtostopit by applying hand brake, but the accused had assaulted him and pushedhimfromthemovingbusandtherebyendangeredhislifeas hefelldownintheproximityofthefrontwheelofthemovingbus. Mannerofcommissionofcrimewithintentionandknowledge. (Accordingtoclauses1to4ofSec.300I.P .C.) 1] Thattheknowledgeoftheaccusedascontemplatedunder

clause4ofSec.300I.P .C.hasmergedinprominentintentionofthe accusedincommittingmurderascontemplatedunderclauses1to4of thesaidsection.Thereafter,witnessno.19headconstableTaparehad alsoinstructedtheaccusedwiththehelpofpublic,tostopthebusto arrestfurthermenaceandmassacrebuthedidnotpayheed. 2] Lastly,theP .W.20BapuLonkaratthecostofhislife,had

enteredinthecabinofthebusdrivenbytheaccused,informedhim thathehaskilledmanypersonsandkillingothers,hence,askedhimto stopthebusbuttheaccusedretortedhim,hehasnobusinesstosay anythingtheretotohim,stillthen,thewitnesscaughtholdsteeringof thebus,thentheaccusedbyonehandassaultedhimandmadean attempttopushhimfromthemovingbus.Fortunately,hehascaught holdthecoverofengineofthebusandduetothesaidreason,the accusedhaslostcontroloverthesteeringofthebus,ithasdashedto roaddividerandthentoothervehiclesandthen,ultimatelystopped. 3] Thesaidevidencespeaksinvolumethattheaccusedhad

committed murder of above said nine persons in extremely brutal,

99

S.C.275/2012

revoltinganddastardlymannersoastoarouseintenseandextreme indignationofthecommunityandsociety. 4]Personalityofvictims: 1] That death of Puja, age 19 years, has been caused by

givingdashtotheScootywithintentionandknowledgethatthereby deathwasinevitable.ThesaidPujawasstudentofDentalcollege. 2] SofarasdeathofAkshayPise,age20years,itisclearthat

hisbikewasdashedbythebusdrivenbytheaccusedanddragged from Mitramandal chowk to Patil Plaza, about 100 ft. along with AkshayPise,therebyhealongwithhisbikewascrushed. 3] ThatunfortunateShubhangiMore,age35years,thewife

ofP .W.1,inthemorningofthefatefuldayofincident,hadbeenat Swargate S.T.Depot, she wasdashedby the buswithintention and knowledgeascontemplatedunderclauses1to4ofSec.300ofI.P .C. therebyshewascrushed,hence,lostherlifeonthewaytohospital. 4] Inthesamemanner,deathofShwetaDhavalOswal,age

28years,hasbeencausedbygivingdashtoherActivaScooter. 5] Death of Ramlal Shukla, age 25 years, has also been

causedbygivingdashtohismotorbike. 6] ThemotorbikeNo.MVA2170ofPinkeshKhandelwal,age

32 years, was dashed in the above said manner and he died in

100

S.C.275/2012

Sassoonhospitalat9.30a.m.onthedateofincidentitself. 7] The pedestrians Changdev Bhandvalkar, age 61 years,

Ankush Tikone age 46 years, were also dashed by the above said S.T.busdrivenbytheaccusedandtheirdeathoccurredon14.2.2012 andonthesamedayrespectively. 8] The passenger Milind Gaikwad was travelling by auto

rickshaw No.MH12FC1552, it wasdashedandhisdeathdidtake placeonthesameday. 9] Themurderofthesaidninepersonshasbeencommitted

withoutanyprovocation.Theywereharmless,defencelesspedestrians, passengers, riders, pillion riders of scooters, bikes, auto drivers, passengers. 10] Noattemptwhatsoeverhasbeenmadebytheaccusedto

savelifeofanyoftheabovesaidpersons,whenhewasinstructedby his Superior Ajit Limaye,(P .W.17), P .W.23 Damakale, Asstt.traffic controller, toimmediatelystopthebustoarrestmishap,deathand injuriestotheabovesaidpersons.Ifhewouldhavepaidheedtothe instructionsoftheabovesaidwitnesses,afterthedeathofShubhangi More, the wife of P .W.1, further murders of the above said persons couldhavebeenarrested. RuthlessandCriminalconductoftheaccused . 1] The most aggravating circumstance lies in most

101

S.C.275/2012

recalcitrant,obstinate,ruthlessconductoftheaccusedinassaulting P .W.18P .M.T.driverChavanandP .W.20constableBapuLonkar,when after the death of Shubhangi More, the P .W.18 has instructed the accused to stop the bus, by making actual attempt to stop it by applyinghandbrakebuttheaccusedhasassaultedhimbyonehand, pushedhimfromthemovingbuswithoutstoppingitinordertoarrest furthermassacrebythebusdrivenbyhim. 2] Thattherewasnoreasonfortheaccusedtotakelawin

hand in committing above said act, when there was no slightest influenceofmentaloremotionaldisturbance. 3] Thus, the knowledge ascontemplated under clause 4 of

Sec.300ofI.P .C.thattheactofindiscriminatedrivingofthebuswasso imminently dangerous that it must in all probability,cause death or suchbodilyinjury,asislikelytocausedeathandcommittedsuchact withoutanyexcuseforincurringtheriskofcausingthedeathorsuch bodilyinjury, mergedinprominentintention incommittingmurder oftheabovesaidninepersons,byendangeringlifeof37persons,by making an attempt tocommit their murder,by causing injuries,by drivingthebusintheabovesaidmanner. Subsequentconductoftheaccused. 1] Evenaftercommissionofthecrimeinquestioninbrutal

manner,theaccusedhasnotshowedremorse. 2] Onthecontrary,accusedhasmadeanattempttofleeafter

102

S.C.275/2012

thecommissionofthecrime. Falsedefence . 1] That on 19.2.2010, the accused had taken medical

treatmentfromDr.DilipBurte,(D.W.1)inrespectofpersecutoryideas, moodofsadnesswithsuicidalideasatatime,disturbedsleep,less eatingandpalpitation. 2] After 19.2.2010, the accused has not taken any sort of

medicaltreatment,fromthesaiddefencewitnessDr.Burte,stillthen, attheinstanceofaccused,thesaidwitnesshadledfalseevidencethat on 22.2.2010, 25.2.10, 13.3.10, 31.5.10 , 23.8.10, 24.6.11 and on 2.8.11, he hadprovided treatment totheaccusedin respect ofthe abovesaidailment. 3] Thefurtherpalpablefalsedefenceastoelectroconvulsive

test/therapy was applied by Dr.Burte to the accused on 22.2.10, 25.2.2010, 1.3.10, 4.3.10, and 12.3.10, though no such test was applied. 4] Anattempttopracticefraudoncourtonthebasisoffalse

defenceevidencetobringthecasewithintheambitofsec.84ofI.P .C.

Impactofthecrimeoncommunity/society. 1] Theaccusedhascommittedmurderoftheabovesaidnine

103

S.C.275/2012

innocent, helpless persons, out of which, Shubhangi More age 35 years, andShwetaOswal,age28yearshaveleftbacktheirhusband andchildrentosuffertheagonyoftheincident.AkshayPise,Age20, Puja Patil, age 19 years were students of engineering and Dental collegehavebeenmurdered,theimpactthereofonthesocietyandin case of their family cannot be penned down. One Ankush Tikone, PinkeshKhandelwal,MilindGaikwad,RamLalitShuklaandChangdeo Bhandwalkar also came tobe murdered in the above said manner. Therefore, panic wascreatedbythemurderofallthesaidpersons whichhaseverlastingeffectonthesocietyandtheirfamilymembers. 2] The37personshadsustainedgrievousandsimpleinjuries

intheincident.Thepersonswhohavesufferedgrievousinjuries,are stillailing,therebytheyareimpaired,somearehandicappedtosuffer theagonyoftheincident,throughouttheirlife,therebytheirfamily members and society has been caused to suffer their agony and sacrificetheirmeagerearningforcostlymedicaltreatmenttosurvive fromtheagonyoftheinjuriescausedbytheaccusedtothem. Safety of Pedestrians, passengers from public and private transport. 1] Fromtheentireevidence,itisprovedthattheaccusedself

had enraged fury against P .W.3, 4, 17,23, and 24, on their turning downrequestoftheaccusedtochangenightoutdutytosingleduty, theaccusedhascommittedtheabovesaidmassacreandmenace.Due totheimpactoftheincident,aboutthreedays,therewaschaosinthe entirePunecity.

104

S.C.275/2012

2]

The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation's

service was totallyparalisedthroughoutthe dayoffatefulincident, occurred due to above said ghastly, dastardly act of the accused. Consequently,pedestriansandpassengerswereundertraumaandfear to set out from the house and undertake journey for their daily pursuits. 3] Thus,theconscienceofgeneralpublicandpassengershas

been shocked due to the incident of committing murder of nine persons and causing simple and grievous injuries to 37 persons by drivingthebusbytheaccusedintheabovesaidmanner.

MITIGATINGCIRCUMSTANCES 1] It is argued by the learned counsel of the accused that

accusedis40yearssoleearningmemberofhisfamily,havingliability ofhissecondwifeSou.Sonali,threechildrenviz.Anjali,Adityaand Ajinkya,andwidowmother.Thus,theaccusedbeing40yearsoldin thefactualmatrixofthematterunderconsiderationbesaidtobea mitigatingfactor. 2] Probability of the accused would be reformed and

rehabilitated. 3] 4] Nopreviouscriminalantecedentsoftheaccused. Hiscleantrackrecordasthebusdriver.

105

S.C.275/2012

5] 6] 7]

Nopremeditationandpreplanningincommittingcrime. Offencehasnotbeencommittedinrevolting,grotesque Accusedhasnoanimosityagainstthedeceasedincausing

andbrutalmanner. theirdeath. 162] Insupportoftheabovesaidmitigatingcircumstances,he

hasinvitedmyattentiononthefollowingratios: 1]StateofHimachalPradeshVs.ManoharSinghThakurA.I.R.1998 S.C.2941. 2]PanchhiandothersVs.StateofU.P .AIR1998S.C.2726. 3]Ronny@RonaldJamesAlwarisVs.StateofMaharashtraA.I.R. 1998S.C.1251. 4]SheikhAbdulHamidandAnotherVs.StateofM.P .A.I.R.1998 S.C.942. 163] The first ratio speaks that when the accused and the

deceasedwerelastseentogether,anddeadbodyofthedeceasedwas foundatcanalindirectioninwhich,accusedanddeceasedwerelast seen,injuriesinflectedbytheaccusedonheadofwifeofdeceased weresimilartotheinjuriesfoundonthedeadbodyofthedeceased,as per medical evidence. An axe was discovered by the accused in consonancewithsec.27ofEvidenceAct.Therefore,theHon'bleApex Courthasheldthatthemurderwasnotcommitted inmostbrutal, gruesome and diabolical manner but it was found to have been committedsimplytogratifygreedoftheaccusedincausingdeathof

106

S.C.275/2012

oneoldpersonandattemptedtomurderanother.Thecasewasbased solely on circumstantial evidence. Consequently, the facts thereof beingincontratothefactsofthecaseathand,thesaidratiocannot besaidtobeofanyhelpinordertobringthecaseoutoftheswiftof rarestoftherarecases. 164] Thesecondratio speaksthatduetorivalrybetweentwo

families,fourmembersofonefamilyweremurderedbytheaccused andbeforethemurder,oftenlycounterattacksweremadebyaccused and family of the victims. Thus, the murder was outcome of deep seatedanimosity,hence,thecasewasnotasoneoftherarestofrare casesinordertoawarddeathsentence.Thus,innutshell,attempthas beenmadetopointoutthatcasecannotbebroughtwithintheheadof rarestofrarecases,onthebasisofmanymoremurderscommittedby accused.Inthecaseathand,admittedly,therewasnoanimosityofthe accusedandthedeceasedwhatsoever.Therefore,thesaidratioalso cannot be said to be of any help to the accused in order to call sentenceofimprisonmentforlife. 165] Inthethirdratio,3personswerekilledandoutofthem,

onewasraped,therefore,theHon'bleApexCourthasheldthatthere waspossibilityofreformandrehabilitationoftheaccused,hence,the Hon'bleApexCourthasheldthatonthisbackground,thecasedidnot fallwithintherarestoftherarecasesinordertoawarddeathpenalty. Itisclearthatsaidcasewasalsobasedoncircumstantialevidence.In our case, indeed, there was scope to the accused to mend his behaviour,whenhewasinstructedbyhissuperiorAjitLimayewhen death of Shubhangi More was caused in front of the Outgate of

107

S.C.275/2012

SwargateSTdepot,tostopthebusandtoarrestfurthermenace.But accuseddidnotmendhisbehaviourbutpreferredtocausedeathof other eight persons and injuries to the 37 persons. Thus, after committingheinouscrime,onecannotbeallowedtosaythathehas chancetoreformandrehabilitateatthecostofagony,sufferedbythe familymembersofthedeceasedandagoniesoftheinjuries,dayin anddayout,are beingsufferedbytheinjuredwhohavesustained injuriesintheincident.Hence,onthispremisealso,itcannotbesaid thatthesaidcaseisofanyhelptotheaccused. 166] InthecaseofShaikhAbdulHamid,therewasnoevidence

astohowmurdertookplace,northerewasevidencetoprovethatit wascoldbloodedmurder,therefor,theHon'bleApexCourthasheld thatthecasedidnotfallinthecategoryofrarestofrarecases,soasto inflictextremepenaltyofdeath.Sucharenotthefactsinrespectof thecaseathand.Hence,saidratioalsohasnoapplicationtothecase. 167] SofarasrecentpronouncementofHon'bleApexCourtin

thecaseof SangeetandAnr.Vs.StateofHaryana,2012DGLS(Soft) 567,itisclearthatitspeaksaboutremissionofsentencebyHon'ble ApexCourt.Nodoubt,inthesaidcase,ratiointhecaseof Machhi SingandBachanSingastoaggravatingandmitigatingcircumstances has been relied. Further, it has been held that in the sentencing process,boththecrimeandthecriminalareequallyimportant.We haveunfortunatelynottakenthesentencingprocessasseriously,asit shouldbewiththeresultthatincapitaloffences,ithasbecomejudge centricsentencingratherthanprincipledsentencing.Therefore,death penaltywasconvertedintosentenceoflifeimprisonment.Hence,the

108

S.C.275/2012

said ratio also found to be of no help to the defence to prove the mitigatingcircumstances. 168] Inthecaseof BachanSing,ithasbeenheldthatdeath

penalty can be imposed only in the absence of any mitigating circumstancesinfavouroftheaccused. 169] Ontheaboveplight,Ihavetoconsiderwhetherthereis

really any mitigating circumstance in order to outweigh the aggravatingcircumstances. 170] As a matter of fact, aggravating factors are aplenty and

galorewithoutanymitigatingcircumstanceasdiscussedabove.The ageoftheaccused,hisliabilitytowardshisfamilymembers,chances of reformation and rehabilitation revealed to be not the mitigating circumstancesinviewofthegraveaggravatingcircumstances.Hence, accusedhasfailedtooutweightheaggravatingcircumstances.Indeed, thereisnomitigatingcircumstance. 171] Ifthestockofaggravatingandmitigatingcircumstancesis

takenandtheoryofproportionalityiskeptinmind,thecaseathand needstobeheldasrarestoftherarecases.Thebalanceofmitigating circumstancesisnottiltinginfavourofaccused.Thecrimehasbeen committedandexecutedbycommittingmurderofninepersonsand injuries to 37 persons by driving the bus indiscriminately with intention and knowledge that the said act was so imminently dangerousthatitmustinallprobabilitycausedeathorsuchbodily injuryasislikelytocausedeathandcommittedsuchactwithoutany

109

S.C.275/2012

excuseforincurringtheriskofcausingdeathorsuchbodilyinjuries likelytocausedeathoftheabovesaid37persons,bytransforming knowledgeintoprominentintentionincommittingthecrimeinthe above said manner, in sheer disregard of the instructions of P .W.17,18,19,20tostopthebusinordertoarrestfurthermenaceand massacre. 172] The said incident had sent shock waves throughout the

Pune City and particularly, to the passengers using the public conveyanceofMaharashtraRoadTransportCorporation. 173] Thus,thecasefallsinthecategoryofuniquerarestofthe

rare cases, invited death penalty. Hence, I proceed to pass the followingorder: ORDER 1] The accused Santosh Maruti Mane, Age 40 years,

Occ.Service,R/oAtpostKavthaleTal.UttarSolapur,Dist.Solapur,is herebyconvicted u/s235(2)oftheCode ofCriminalProcedure,of theoffencespunishableundersections381,302,307,324,427ofthe IndianPenalCodeandfortheoffencepunishableundersection3(2) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and sentencedtosufferinthefollowingmanner: i]Fortheoffencepunishableunderu/s381oftheIndian PenalCode,heissentencedtosufferrigorousimprisonmentforfive yearsandtopayfineofRs.500/i.d.tosufferR.I.foronemonth.

110

S.C.275/2012

ii]Fortheoffencepunishableu/s302oftheIndianPenal Code,heissentencedto death andtopayfineofRs.5000/i.d.to undergoR.I.foroneyear.Hebehangedbynecktillheisdead. iii]Fortheoffencepunishableu/s307oftheIndianPenal Code,heissentencedtosufferrigorousimprisonmentfortenyears andtopayfineofRs.5000/i.d.tosufferR.I.fortwomonths. iv]Fortheoffencepunishableu/s324oftheIndianPenal Code,heissentencedtosufferrigorousimprisonmentforthreeyears andtopayfineofRs.5000/i.d.tosufferfurtherR.I.foronemonth. v]Fortheoffencepunishableu/s427oftheIndianPenal Code,heissentencedtosufferrigorousimprisonmentfortwoyears andtopayfineofRs.500/i.d.tosufferR.I.for15days. vi]Fortheoffencepunishableu/s3(2)ofthePreventionof DamagetoPublicPropertyAct,1984,heissentencedtosufferrigorous imprisonmentforfiveyearsandtopayfineofRs.5000/i.d.tosuffer R.I.fortwomonths. 2] The above said substantive sentences for the offences

punishableu/ss381,307,324,427oftheIndianPenalCodeandfor theoffencepunishableu/s3(2)ofthePreventionofDamagetoPublic PropertyAct,1984,shallrunconcurrently. 3] Themuddemalpropertyclothesofallthedeceased,all

111

S.C.275/2012

theinjuredandoftheaccused,beingtotallyworthless,bedestroyed aftertheperiodofappealisover. 4] ThemuddemalpropertycellphoneGT505ofDuelSIMof

Airtel and Vodaphone, bearing IMEI No.911111750204037 and 911111750254032 and one Idea mobile SIM card No.8991220400027779628areherebyconfiscatedtotheState.Itbe sold in public auction and sale proceeds be credited to the Government,aftertheappealperiodisover. 5] Themuddemalpropertydrivinglicence,batchbereturned

totheP .W.24ShriVijayDiwate,DepotManagerofSwargateS.T.depot after the appeal period is over, for disposal according to rules of M.S.R.T.C. 6] ThemuddemalpropertycashamountofRs.100/seized

fromaccusedisherebyforfeitedtotheState.ItbecreditedtotheState aftertheappealperiodisover. 7] The muddemal property Gun9 mm CarbineIAIREC

No.160, 17409SAF 1994 with Magazine and three empties, being policeproperty,bereturnedtotheCommissionerofPolice,Pune,after theappealperiodisover,fordisposalaccordingtolaw. 8] Themuddemalpropertyphotooftheaccused,photoof

female,S.T.pass,histwopocketdiaries,19payslips,receiptofbonus issuedbyS.T.CooperativeCreditsociety,bereturnedtotheaccused, aftertheperiodofappealisover.

112

S.C.275/2012

9]

The muddemal property S.T.Bus No.MH14BT1532 has

already been returned to the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporationonbond.Ithastoretainthesameandthebondtheretois herebycancelled. 10] Restofthemuddemalpropertystones,brokenglasspieces,

controlsample,bloodmixedearth,plainearth,bedestroyedafterthe appealperiodisover. 11] The proceeding shall be submitted to the Hon'ble High

Court,Mumbaiandsentenceofdeathshallnotbeexecuteduntilitis confirmedbytheHon'bleHighCourt.

Date:08.04.2013

(V .K.Shewale) Addl.SessionJudge,Pune.

"IaffirmthatthecontentsofthisP .D.F.fileJudgmentaresameword forwordasperoriginalJudgment." NameofSteno NameofCourt Date Judgmentsignedby PresidingOfficeron Judgmentuploadedon :Sau.S.V .Sane. :ShriV .K.Shewale,Addl.Session Judge,Pune(DistrictJudge5,Pune) :09.04.2013 :08.04.2013 :09.04.2013

113

S.C.275/2012