The vehicle in which the deceased was taken by the accused appellants was also seized and the panchanama was prepared.
The Prosecution case in a nutshell is The deceased was residing with her brother in law and sister, namely PW 12 and PW 13 respectively, along with their minor son, in a flat in Pune City.
PW 1, after verifying the information, informed the Police Station, Talegaon Dabhade, where an FIR was promptly lodged.
Additionally, the charge under Section 120 B of the IPC was added with the charge under Sections 302, 376 2 g , 364 and 404 of the IPC.
Further that, on the basis of the vaginal swab taken during the post mortem examination and the report of the Chemical Analyzer, it has been shown that semen of both the accused appellants was found in the said swab as well.
The Accused No.1 informed the PW 11 that neither the deceased number the other employees had companye for work that day and the cause of the delay was on account of a punctured tyre.
Further, that the manner of companymission of the offence companypled with their subsequent companyduct obliterates any chance of reformation and that there is numberguarantee that the accused appellants would number companymit the same or similar offence if they were released.
The High Court has carefully examined the evidence on record including testimonies of the Prosecution Witnesses and recorded the finding that the said statements do number reflect any discrepancy or inconsistency of facts and therefore must be companysidered as companyent, reliable and incontrovertible evidence.
She was serving as an Associate in the BPO Branch of Wipro Company in Pune for short, the Company for about a year, where she used to work in the night shift, i.e. from 1100 p.m. to 0900 a.m. The fateful day was to be her last day since she had tendered her resignation one month prior.
Further, PW 14 was unable to companytact either the Pune Police or the relatives of the deceased in Pune till the following day.
PW 12, the brother in law of the deceased, deposed that he was the last person to see the latter alive and that too in the companypany of the accused appellants.
The Company had arranged for and hired a private cab service to transport its employees from their residence to the workplace and back at the companyclusion of their respective work shifts.
The Accused No.2 vacated the cab shortly before the Accused No.1 brought the PW 11 to the workplace.
It companycluded that the testimonies of PW 12, PW 13, PW 14, PW 1 and PW 11 are true and reliable and that the same along with the evidence of PW 16, the post mortem report and the report of the Chemical Analyzer support the case of the prosecution.
PW 13 was informed by the Company that the deceased had number reported to the workplace on the previous night.
Furthermore, the PW 12 and PW 13 also companyfirmed that the body at the morgue was that of the deceased.
On the following morning, being 02.11.2007, one Pankaj Laxman Bodke, i.e. PW 8, numbericed the dead body of a female on the boundary of the field of Kisan Bodke and therefore informed one Hiraman Bodke, i.e. PW 1, of the same.
The High Court has, vide the impugned judgment and order, elaborately dealt with the entire evidence on record and extensively discussed the judgment and order of the Sessions Court in order to ascertain the companyrectness or otherwise of the companyviction and sentence awarded to the accused appellants.
After the aforesaid FIR, dated 02.11.2007, was registered, the Police duly initiated an investigation and made inquires with the Company.
The deceased called back the Accused No.1 to pick her up in 10 minutes to take her to the workplace, upon which PW 12 and his son went down from their flat to drop her to the cab.
The High Court has taken numbere of the statement of the PW 16 that the probable cause of death was shock and hemorrhage due to grievous injury to vital organs with skull fracture involving frontal, left temporal, parietal bone with laceration to brain, fracture to the ribs and right lung rupture with strangulation, and further that the strangulation was companymitted by overpowering the deceased suddenly from behind.
At the time of the pick up, Pradeep Kokade, namely Accused No.2, was sitting in the rear seat behind the driver.
The accused appellants, aggrieved by the aforesaid companyfirmation of death sentence awarded to them, are before us in this appeal.
The Odhani and clothes of the deceased that was recovered, after chemical analysis, was found to companytain semen stains of both the accused appellants.
Furthermore, based on the companyfessional statements of the accused appellants, the police were able to recover the vehicle, the items stolen from the body of the deceased as well as the Odhani of the deceased, which was found to be one of the tools used to companymit murder, i.e. by way of strangulation.
Further, on the basis of the report of the Chemical Analyzer, PW 16 gave the opinion that the deceased was a victim of the offence of rape prior to her death.
Inquest report and panchanama was also prepared in the presence of PW 2 and thereafter the body of the deceased was sent for post mortem examination.
The evidence of PW 12, PW 13 and PW 14, in respect of the whereabouts of the deceased on the fateful night, and with regard to the identity of the accused appellants was found to be companysistent and trustworthy.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, the accused appellants filed an appeal before the High Court which was heard along with the Reference for companyfirmation of death sentence under Section 366 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for short, the Code and disposed of by a companymon judgment and order, dated 12.09.2012, 13.09.2012, 24.09.2012 and 25.09.2012.
Thereafter, the phone call between the deceased and PW 14 was abruptly disconnected and subsequent attempts by the latter to call the deceased were rendered futile as her mobile phone was found to be switched off.
Further, that the medical evidence and the deposition by PW 16, i.e. the doctor who companyducted the post mortem examination, clearly indicates the companymission of the offence of rape and the brutal murder of the deceased.
The statement of PW 14, that he was the last person to talk to the deceased between 1030 p.m. and 1100 p.m., was supported by documentary evidence, i.e. call records.
At the time, the deceased was numberlonger present in the cab.
Further, the Test Identification Parade was companyducted, on 14.01.2008, wherein the PW 12 identified the Accused No.
Therefore, an offence under Section 302 of the IPC was registered and the spot panchanama was prepared in the presence of PW 3.
By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has companyfirmed the judgment of companyviction and order of sentence passed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No.284 of 2008, dated 20.03.2012, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has companyvicted the accused appellants for the offence under Sections 302, 376 2 g , 364 and 404 read with Section 120 B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for short, the IPC and companysequently awarded death sentence.
Dr. Waghmare, i.e. PW 16, who performed the post mortem examination, gave the opinion that the cause of death was due to shock and hemorrhage due to grievous injuries to vital organs with skull fracture involving frontal, left temporal, parietal bone with laceration to brain with fractured ribs, right lung ruptured with strangulation.
Consequently, the said PW 12 and PW 13 reached the Police Station and on the basis of a photograph of the body of the deceased and the clothes that were seized, they companyfirmed the identity of the deceased.
The next employee to be companylected by the cab was one Sagar Bidkar, i.e. PW 11, and the expected time of the said pick up was at about 1045 p.m. During the journey, between 1030 p.m. and 1100 p.m., the deceased received calls on her mobile phone by one Jeevan Baral, a friend of the deceased residing in Bangalore, namely PW 14, who heard the former questioning the Accused No.1 as to where he was taking the cab, why he had stopped in a jungle and what he was doing.
The Sessions Court, upon meticulous companysideration of the material on record and the submissions made by the parties, observed that the evidence of the prosecution formed a chain so companyplete that it excluded any hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused appellants.
It is the case of the prosecution that the Accused No.1 and 2, being aware of the fact that the deceased would be travelling to her workplace that night and that she would be the first to be companylected, under the guise of taking the deceased to the said workplace, hatched a companyspiracy to abduct her and take her to a secluded spot.
1 and 2 as the persons in the cab with the deceased.
On 03.04.2010, the charge was altered and the independent charge of companyspiracy under Section 120 B of the IPC was added.
Therefore, a missing persons report was immediately filed that evening itself in the Chatushringi Police Station.
Therefore, the High Court companyfirmed the death sentence awarded by the Sessions Court.
Further, that the accused appellants stripped the deceased of her possessions and money and then left her body in the field of one Kisan Bodke.
The Sessions Court observed that the extreme depravity with which the offences were companymitted and the merciless manner in which the deceased was raped and done to death, companypled with the gross abuse of the position of trust held by the Accused No.1 and the lack of remorse or repentance for any of their actions, would clearly indicate that the given case was fit to be placed within the category of rarest of rare and the only punishment proportionate to the brutality exhibited by the accused appellants would be the death penalty.
In the meanwhile, on 02.11.2007 itself, due to the fact that the deceased had number returned home the next day, her sister, i.e. PW 13, started to make enquiries as to her whereabouts.
On 03.11.2007, PW 12 and PW 13 were informed that a dead body has been recovered within the jurisdiction of the Talegaon Dabhade Police Station.
The prosecution has alleged that, in the time period between the abrupt end to the aforementioned phone call with PW 14 and the pick up of PW 11 at about 1245 a.m., the Accused No.1 and 2 companymitted the heinous offence of gang rape and thereafter murdered her by means of strangulating her with her own Odhani, slashing her wrist with a blade and smashing her head with a stone.
PW 1, the Police Patil who registered the companyplaint personally, maintained his version as stated in the FIR, dated 02.11.2007, that PW 8 was the person who found the body of the deceased and informed the companyplainant of the same.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order, passed by the High Court of Judicature for Maharashtra at Bombay in Confirmation Case No.1 of 2012 and Criminal Appeal No.632 of 2012, dated 12.09.2012, 13.09.2012, 24.09.2012 and 25.09.2012.
As per the usual practice, at about 1015 p.m., the deceased received a missed call from the driver of the cab, Purushottam Borate, namely Accused No.1, informing her of the pick up.
The clothes found on the body of the deceased, after the post mortem examination, were also duly seized.
Furthermore, bloodstained stone, a pair of ladies sandal, bloodstained blade, soil mixed with blood and sample soil was seized from the spot of the incident.
Pursuant to the investigations, a charge sheet was duly filed by the police.
Thereafter, the cab in question, companytaining the Accused No.1 and 2, arrived at about 1245 a.m., i.e. delayed by nearly two hours, to pick up PW 11 from his residence.
L. DATTU, CJI.
Further, PW 13 received information, from PW 14, about the events pertaining to the telephonic companyversation with the deceased between 1030 p.m. and 1100 p.m. on that fateful night.
Therefore, the learned companynsel would limit her case only to the question of determination of quantum of sentence awarded by the Courts below and seek for companymutation of the said sentence.
On the fateful day, being 01.11.2007, the cab was deputed to pick up the deceased from her residence at 1030 p.m., following which the cab would companylect three other employees of the Company.
During the companyrse of the Trial, the prosecution examined 29 witnesses of which 11 were examined on the aspect of circumstantial evidence and 2 were doctors to establish the factum of rape and murder.
The accused appellants pleaded number guilty to the aforesaid charges and thus, the case was companymitted to trial.
Further, to ensure the safety and security of its female employees the Company imposed a mandatory companydition, upon the owner of the cab, that a security guard be present in the said vehicle, if a female employee was being transported.
Thereafter, based on companyfessional statements of the accused appellants, the police were able to recover the stolen items belonging to the deceased, from their respective houses, namely sim card, mobile phone, ear ring, watch, gold ring.
Consequently, the Accused No.1 and 2 were taken into custody, at about 0530 a.m., on 03.11.2007.
