KISHORE BHADKE versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2017] 1 S.C.R. 330 · Decided: 03-01-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. KHEHAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 10 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
[2017] 1 S.C.R. 330 
KISHORE BHADKE 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 467 of2010) 
JANUARY 03, 2017 
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, ARUN MISHRA AND 
A. M. KHANWILKAR, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: ss.364, 302, 201 rlw ss.341120-B -
Abduction and murder by strangulation - Destruction of clothes 
and articles of deceased - Recovery of wrist watch and gold ring 
from accused persons - Motive - Transaction of purchase of land 
by deceased from appellants - Conviction by courts below on the 
ground that complete chain of circumstances pointed towards the 
guilt of appellants - Held: Evidence of mother of the deceased was 
to the effect that on the fateful day, the deceased received a phone 
call from accused no. I whereafter he left home with relevant 
documents/papers to finalise deal of land - This was relevant fact 
in support of circumstance of motive - Prosecution also established 
the vital circumstance of last seen together - The circumstance was 
further strengthened by evidence to the effect that concerned 
accused persons loaded a gunny bag in a vehicle - Gunny bag as 
found by courts below was used to carry dead body of deceased 
which was transported in a vehicle and then thrown at the isolated 
location - The fact where the dead.body of deceased was disposed, 
was disclosed by accused nos. 2 and 3 in quick succession to the 
Investigating Officer - The discovery was made only after accused 
nos.2 and 3 were taken together by the police to the spot - Dead 
body was discovered at the instance of accused Nos. 2 and 3 from 
the spot in a valley about 600 ft. deep - The fact disclosed by them, 
therefore, and the discovery made at their instance, was admissible 
against both the accused in terms of s.27 of the Evidence Act -
There was clinching evidence to point towards the involvement of 
the appellants in the commission of the crime - No tangible reason 
to deviate from the concurrent findings of the courts below -
Evidence Act, 1872 - s.27. 
Evidence Act, 1872: s.27 -Applicability of - Held: When two 
330 
KISHORE BHADKE v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
persons in custody are interrogated separately and in quick 
succession and both of them furnish similar information leading to 
the discovery of fact, such disclosure by two or more persons in 
police custody does not go out of the purview of s.27 altogether -
What is relevant is that information given by one after the other 
without any break, almost simultaneously and such information is 
followed up by pointing out the material things by both of them 
then there is no good reason to eschew such evidence from the regime 
of s.27. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 
1. The evidence given by PW-1 (brother of the 
deceased) and corroborated by PW-15 (mother) revealed that 
there was transaction in respect of land between the accused 
no.1 and the deceased. That version could not be demolished in 
the .cross-examination. Another piece of.evidence relied by the 
prosecution is about the destruction of clothes and articles of 
deceased. The Police could only recover ash from the spot along 
with bunch of keys. That would lend support to the prosecution 
case that the possibility of documents having been destroyed also 
cannot be ruled out. Hence, it was open to the trial court as well 
as the High Court to rely on the evidence of witnesses for the 
limited purpose. The fact that deceased while leaving bis house 
bad carried some papers/documents with him has been stated by 
PW-15, when be went to meet accused No.1. Therefore, there is 
no tangible reason to discard the relevant fact established by the 
prosecution witnesses in support of the circumstance of motive. 
[Para 151 1352-C-D, HJ 
2. The prosecution also established the vital circumstance 
of last seen together. That evidence is given by PW-11 and PW-
12 in particular. Their evidence will have to be juxtaposed with 
the evidence of PW-15, who bas spoken about the telephone call 
received from accused no.1 and pursuant to which the deceased 
left his house in her presence with relevant documents/papers. 
The courts below accepted her version as truthful and reliable. 
The evidence of PW-11 corroborated the fact that deceased bad 
gone to the Bank for withdrawing cash amount and then 
proceeded to the house of accused no.1. He deposed that 
deceased went inside the house of accused no.1 and saw accused 
331 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
332 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2

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