AMRUTLAL SOMESHWAR JOSHI versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 510 · Decided: 10-08-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI, K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
AMRUTLAL SOMESHWAR JOSHI 
v. 
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
AUGUST 10, 1994 
[M.M. PUNCHHI AND K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, JJ.] 
Indian Penal Code, 186<>-Section 301-indian Evidence Ac~ 1872-
Section 3--Circumstantial evidence: 
C 
ITT1ere circumstances established by independent evidence are sufficient 
to bring home the guilt to the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, the 
conviction under Section 302 can be safely recorded. 
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 197~Section 354. 
D 
Where the accused butchered the helpless Infirm victims in the most 
cruel and diabolical manner only with a view to commit robbery and his 
subsequent conduct also manifests an exceptional depravity, hi11 case Is 
one of the rarest of the rare cases ·in which death sentence Is justified. . 
. 
' 
The accused-appellant was employed as a domestic servant by the 
E deceased (three tn number) three months prior to the date of the Incident. 
He used to reside in the fiat with his belongings. There was one part·time . 
maid servant (P.W.3) as well. On the date of Incident till 3.00 P.M. the 
accused as well as .the three deceased were seen by P.W. 3 alive In the fiat. 
At about 5.00 P.M. the accused Is seen to have come down from the fiat 
F alongwlth three suit cases, by the watchman and the accused told the 
watchman that he was carrying the suitcases to the airport; but according 
to the prosecntion, the accused with suit cases proceeded tn a taxi and 
reached Shamlajl Junction In Gu,jarat and then hired a jeep of P.W. 7 for 
Ambajl Temple and told P.W. 7 that he comes from Hong Kong and runs 
a factory of translston at Pone and his name was Jltendra Kumar. At 
G Ambajl he booked a room in the Guest House for three days and agreed 
,to pay Rs. 300 per day for the taxi and visited different villages including 
his own, and sent Rs. 2,000 to his mother. He stayed tn the House of P.W. 
7 through whom he wanted to purchase a taxi and paid Rs. 30,000 for the 
purpose. He told P.W .8 to proceed to Debhari, the village of the accused 
H and ascertain whether the police was searching for him since he has 
510 
' 
AS.JOSH!v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
511 
murdered there persons at Bombay. P.W. 8 was accosted by the police and A 
the accused was arrested before panch witness and several valuable ar· 
tides were recovered from him. Rs.2,000 were recovered from his mother 
under Panchnama. His clothes were found blood stained by the Forensic 
expert and Chemical Examiner. 
He was chargesheeted. The prosecution examined 14 witnesses. He 
denied the crime but accepted that he was employed as a domestic servant 
of the deceased. He claimed that be left the job and reached his village 
where P.W.8 picked up a quarrel with him and he beat P.W.8. Therefore,he 
was arrested by the police and brought to Bombay. 
He also stated that the recovery of the articles from him was a 
fabricated one and the articles were planted on him. Trial Court as well 
as the High Court accepted the prosecution case, convicted and sentenced 
him to death. 
B 
c 
D 
On appeal to this Court it was contended for the appellant that many 
of the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are not proved by 
reliable evidence and most of the witnesses are put up witnesses and that 
the recoveries were foisted on the accused. It was. further submitted that 
he left the service of the deceased some days earlier to the Incident. It was 
also contended for the appellant that conduct of PW-2 In not searching for E 
the family members on the night of Incident itself is highly suspicious and 
that he had made the accused a scape-goat. Evidence of P.W . .3 (maid 
servant of the deceased) was also criticised on the ground that she could 
not have noticed the accused when he was In the bathroom and she has 
given a false version. 
F 
On the question of sentence it was contended for the appellant that 
the extreme penalty of death sentence should not be imposed in the facts 
and circumstances of the case.· Reliance was placed on the recovery of 4 
knives and also 3 pairs of male dresses which could have been worn by G 
three people and also on the large number of injuries found on the three 
deceased persons and it was contended that the possibility of more than · 
one person having participated in the occurrence cannot be ruled out and 
that with certainty it cannot be said that the part played by the appellant 
was so cruel and diabolical as to bring his case within the category or 
rarest of rare case's

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.