Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2025 (BOM)

Ashwini Ganesh Sakpal v. State of Maharashtra

2013-09-30

A.R.JOSHI, V.K.TAHILRAMANI

body2013
JUDGMENT (A.R. Joshi, J.) 1) Both the criminal appeals are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order as they challenge same judgment and order of conviction passed in Sessions Case No. 710 of 2006 by which respective appellant accused were convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of IPC vide order dated 16th April, 2008 passed by the 10th Ad hoc Additional Sessions judge, Mumbai. 2) Both the appellants are original accused Nos. 1 and 2 and they were tried and convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 read with section 34 of IPC and were sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default to suffer RI for one month each. Admittedly, from the date of their arrest i.e. 8th May, 2006 both the appellants-accused are in custody till date. The appellant in Appeal No. 979 of 2010 is original accused No.1 and is represented by learned Advocate Ms Rebeca Gonsalvez. Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 362 of 2008, original accused No.2 is represented by learned Advocate Mr. Makasare. 3) The case of the prosecution is as under: On the relevant night between 1 May, 2006 and 2nd May, 2006 one Police Inspector, Ashok Namdeo Ghaste PW No.1 was on night duty at Deonar Police Station. At about 2:15 am at early hours of 2nd May, 2006 he received information from Shatabdi Hospital, Govandi that one victim by name Ganesh Motiram Sakpal was brought to the hospital by his wife Ashwini (accused No.1), with the help of other neighbours. It was further informed to the Police Officer that on admission said victim Ganesh was declared dead by attending doctor. PW No.1 immediately went to the hospital and after ascertaining situation as to the death of victim Ganesh, registered accidental death report and started enquiry. During enquiry, present appellant accused no.1 revealed that deceased was her husband and on the earlier night at about 10:00 pm when they were at home watching TV, Ganesh took meals and thereafter by 11:00 p.m. victim became unconscious and motionless and as such she gathered the neighbours and took the victim to Shatabdi Hospital for treatment, however, victim was declared dead on admission. Inquest panchnama Exh.15 was drawn on the dead body of victim Ganesh. Certain ligature marks were noticed on the front side of the throat. Inquest panchnama Exh.15 was drawn on the dead body of victim Ganesh. Certain ligature marks were noticed on the front side of the throat. Dead body was sent for postmortem and to obtain the cause of death certificate. In the postmortem report there was specific observation as to finding of ligature marks and cause of death as to “death due to ligature strangulation at anterolateral neck”. As such noticing some foul play in the death of the victim Ganesh, PW 1 Ashok Ghaste lodged a complaint with Deonar Police Station. Said complaint was treated as FIR Exh.16. Offence came to be registered against the unknown person for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and investigation was taken over by Police Inspector Shri Bharat Pardeshi (PW No.15). During investigation statements of various witnesses were recorded including the maternal uncle of the victim Ganesh, other relatives and after revealing the names of the present appellant-accused, they were arrested on 8th May, 2006. 4) Also, according to the case of the prosecution, during interrogation, present appellant-accused no.1 made voluntary statement regarding recovery of dupatta. Accordingly, memo of seizure panchnama was drawn and dupatta was recovered from her house. Also according to the case of the prosecution, accused no.2 made voluntary statement to show the medical shop from which he had purchased an Avil-25 tablets. As such the panchnama was drawn on 17th May, 2006, as accused No.2 pointed out the medical shop from where he allegedly purchased the Avil-25 tablets. Prior to that, according to the case of the prosecution on 9th May, 2006 during house search of accused no.2, three empty strips of Avil-25 tablets were seized from the house of accused no.2 under simplicitor search panchnama. 5) Also according to the case of the prosecution, a confessional statement was given by accused no.1 before Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai on 20th May, 2006 which was so recorded. 6) As such according to the case of the prosecution, both the appellants accused committed murder of the victim Ganesh by strangulating him by means of dupatta, thus causing apparent instantaneous death at the house of Ganesh. This was apparently done by both the appellant-accused in order to do away with the victim, husband of accused no.1 as he was an obstacle between the love affair of both the accused with each other. This was apparently done by both the appellant-accused in order to do away with the victim, husband of accused no.1 as he was an obstacle between the love affair of both the accused with each other. As such, gathering the evidence by way of statements of witnesses and collecting documentary evidence as to PM reports, different panchnamas, seizure reports, etc charge sheet was filed before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court Room No. 45, Kurla and ultimately the matter was committed to the Court of Session. During trial total 15 prosecution witnesses were examined and finding the charge for offence under Section 302 read with section 34 of IPC established against both the appellant-accused they were convicted and this is the order which is challenged in both the appeals by respective accused no. 1 and 2. 7) Prior to appreciating the rival arguments certain admitted position is required to be narrated as under : 8) Admittedly, appellant accused no.1 was the wife of victim Ganesh and was residing with him in the hutment area at Indiranagar Slum Area at Samatanagar, Govandi, Mumbai in a rented room of which one PW No.4 Sita Jadhav was the owner. Victim Ganesh was taken to Shatabdi hospital, Govandi on the night between 1st May, 2006 and 2nd May, 2006 and he was declared dead on admission and death was due to strangulation and there was ligature mark on the lower lateral side of the neck and that the death was unnatural and not due to any cardiac failure or heart attack. It is also admitted position that the entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. The circumstances, being firstly that there was a motive for both the appellants to do away with the victim, inasmuch as both the appellants had love affair with each other and to which the victim Ganesh, husband of appellant-accused No.1, was the obstacle. Secondly, the circumstance that the victim was found at his own house when appellant-accused No.1 was also present on the relevant night and she apparently took the victim to the hospital for medical treatment. However, he was declared dead on admission. Secondly, the circumstance that the victim was found at his own house when appellant-accused No.1 was also present on the relevant night and she apparently took the victim to the hospital for medical treatment. However, he was declared dead on admission. Thirdly, there was recovery at the instance of appellant-accused No.1 of dupatta from her house which was allegedly used by the appellant-accused to strangulate the victim and fourthly a voluntary confessional statement given by appellant-accused No.1 before Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai confessing commission of offence of murder of her husband by herself in association with the co-accused No.2. All these circumstances are required to be dealt with at appropriate place in detail in order to ascertain whether the material brought before the trial court was sufficient to convict both the accused or any one of them for the offence charged. 9) Again, prior to discussing the above circumstances, a summary of prosecution witnesses can be given in order to ascertain the scope of the matter and to ascertain on which aspect which witness of the prosecution has given evidence. PW No.1 is Ashok Ghaste (PI) who on official information from Shatabdi hospital Govandi visited the hospital and ascertained that the victim had already died and then PW No.1 recorded accidental death report and inquire with applicant-accused No.1 – wife of the victim and thereafter conducted inquest panchnama and sent the dead body for postmortem and revealed through postmortem notes that the death was unnatural mainly noticing the ligature marks on the neck of the dead body. Hence, he lodged FIR Exh.16. PW Nos. 2 and 3 are maternal uncles of the victim Ganesh. PW No.2 speak of usual marital disputes between accused no.1 and victim Ganesh and as to knowing regarding death of the victim Ganesh on 2nd May, 2006. PW No.3, another uncle, has also deposed on the similar line as that of PW No.2. However, apart from mentioning of some marital disputes between the couple nothing much was brought on record through their substantive evidence as to alleged illicit relations between both the accused. PW No. 4 Sita Jadhav is owner of the room where the victim was residing with his wife. P.W.No.7 is Chandrakant Gangavane relative of Sita Jadhav and was residing by the side of the victim and PW.No.2 is one Jahira Ebrar, another neighbour of the victim. PW No. 4 Sita Jadhav is owner of the room where the victim was residing with his wife. P.W.No.7 is Chandrakant Gangavane relative of Sita Jadhav and was residing by the side of the victim and PW.No.2 is one Jahira Ebrar, another neighbour of the victim. These three witnesses deposed as to what happened on the night of 2nd May, 2006 and knowing regarding the death of victim when he was taken to the hospital for treatment. PW No.5 is one panch Raju More regarding memorandum panchnama of accused No.2, however, nothing was discovered at the instance of accused No.2. Hence, evidence of this panch PW No.5 is of no importance. PW No.6 is one Navnath Khandagale, Manager of one Prakash Guest House at Kurla, however, he did not support the case of the prosecution in any manner and also did not identify the accused persons before the Court and did not say anything regarding their alleged visits to the Guest House on different occasions. As such his evidence is also of no use to the case of the prosecution. PW No.8 is one panch witness, Ashwin Kamble concerning memorandum panchnama of accused No.1 intending to produce the dupatta from her house and consequently producing the dupatta on 13th May, 2006. The said dupatta was seized under the panchnama. Said PW No.8 Ashwin Kamble is also the panch witness who took part in another panchnama during which on 9th May, 2006 house of accused No.2 was searched wherein allegedly three strips of Avil-25 tablets were found and which were taken charge of under panchnama. PW No.9 is another panch Mohammad Shaikh concerning memorandum statement of accused No.2 made on 17th May, 2006 showing the medical shop from which he allegedly purchased Avil-25 tablets. PW No.10 is Dr Lanjewar who issued pathology report regarding the viscera sample of the victim. His evidence is also of no much significance inasmuch as no any stupefying substance or any traces of Avil-25 tablets or ingredients of the said tablets were found in the histo pathology report. As such, this material is also not helpful to the case of the prosecution to further the case that some stupefying substance was administered to the victim prior to his murder. PW No.11 is Dr Sunil Jawle who conducted postmortem on the dead body of victim. Postmortem report is at Exh.36. As such, this material is also not helpful to the case of the prosecution to further the case that some stupefying substance was administered to the victim prior to his murder. PW No.11 is Dr Sunil Jawle who conducted postmortem on the dead body of victim. Postmortem report is at Exh.36. At this juncture the injuries observed by this witness during the postmortem can be reproduced with advantage. The findings of external examination of the dead body as detailed in column No.17 of the postmortem report and also detailed in paragraph No.1 of notes of evidence of this witness are as under; “Ligature mark which was defined, cruciate type. One end starts at two centimeter below left ear lobule passes above thyroid cartilage and ends at five centimeter below right angle of mandible. In the middle the marks show maximum breadth four centimeters, but at the both ends it is narrowed. Lower border is darken upper is faint. Darken band runs just below thyroid cartilage and faint band runs above thyroid cartilage. Total length of ligature 16 centimeters breadth in center four centimeters.” 10) PW No.13 is Dr Ahmad Keriya with whom allegedly accused No.2 was working as a helper. However, considering the substantive evidence of this PW No.13, it must be said that there is no corroboration to the case of the prosecution that the accused No.2 had knowledge of some medicines and as such allegedly it was used by him for administering Avil-25 tablets to the victim on the night of the incident. The substantive evidence of said PW No.13 shows that he was running his clinic being a medical practitioner at Shivajinagar, Govandi and accused No.2 was working with him during the year 1991-92 as helper and according to him accused no.2 had no knowledge about the medicines. Last two prosecution witnesses are police officers. PW No.14 is PSI Shamrao Naik who registered the FIR on the complaint given by PW No.1 Ashok Ghaste. PW No.15 is PI Bharat Pardeshi. He is the Investigating Officer. He took over the investigation on 4th May, 2006 wherein the inquest panchnama and spot panchnama were already conducted and statements of witnesses were recorded. After taking over investigation he recorded statements of Sita Jadhav, PW No.4, PW No.7 Chandrakant Gangavane and other witnesses. PW No.15 is PI Bharat Pardeshi. He is the Investigating Officer. He took over the investigation on 4th May, 2006 wherein the inquest panchnama and spot panchnama were already conducted and statements of witnesses were recorded. After taking over investigation he recorded statements of Sita Jadhav, PW No.4, PW No.7 Chandrakant Gangavane and other witnesses. After revealing role of both the appellants accused, he arrested them on 8th May, 2006 by conducting different arrest panchnamas. On 9th May, 2006 he searched the house of accused No.2 under panchnama and found three empty strips of Avil-25 tablets. During investigation he also took part in the panchnamas wherein accused No.1 and 2 made voluntary statements as mentioned earlier and in which panch witnesses PW Nos. 8 and 9 took part respectively on 13th May, 2006 and 17th May, 2006. According to him, accused No.1 showed her willingness to give confessional statement on 18th May, 2006 and accordingly requisition letter was prepared by him and consequently on 20th May,2006 confessional statement under Section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure came to be recorded by the Metropolitan Magistrate. This aspect of the case of the prosecution is discussed in detail while appreciating the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant accused No.1. 11) As such as mentioned above the important prosecution witnesses are PW Nos. 4, 7 and 12, so far as the relation between accused No.1 and her husband victim Ganesh and as to the death of victim declared at the hospital. In fact, these witnesses are on the theory of last seen accused No.1 with victim at their house. Another important witness is PW No.8 Ashwin Kamble, panch regarding memorandum statement of accused No.1 and seizure of dupatta at her instance on 13th May,2006 and also another important piece of evidence is regarding judicial confession of accused No.1. 12) Now coming to the aspect as to motive, allegedly according to the case of the prosecution, both the appellants-accused were having illicit relations and they had done away with the victim, he being husband of accused no.1. On this aspect of alleged illicit relations between the accused persons, the main witness for the prosecution was only PW No.6 i.e. Manager of the Guest House. On this aspect of alleged illicit relations between the accused persons, the main witness for the prosecution was only PW No.6 i.e. Manager of the Guest House. However, as mentioned earlier, this witness has not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner and did not mention anything regarding visit of both the accused to the Guest House on various occasions and on various such occasions posing them as husband and wife and remaining in the Guest House for about an hour or so on every such occasion. All that portion from the statement of PW No.6 was brought on record as a contradiction and it was proved through the I.O. and earlier marked as “A” for identification and subsequently proved as Exh.57. However, no much significance can be attributed to this piece of evidence due to the hostility shown by PW No.6. more so when there is no investigation on the part of the police by way of seizing the guest house register showing the particular entry, thus fortifying the visit of the accused persons to the said Guest House. Apart from this evidence of PW No.6, though PW Nos. 2 and 3 state something regarding the marital discord between accused No.1 and the victim, still there is no mention as to accused no.1 having illicit relations with accused no.2. The only available material on this aspect is the confessional statement of accused No.1 which is at Exh.61 collectively. As such apparently except that confessional statement there is nothing to accept the case of the prosecution as to the accused no.1 having illicit relations with accused No.2. 13) Now coming to the second circumstance as to accused No.1 in the company of victim on the relevant night, there is substantive evidence of PW Nos. 1, 4,7 and 12, inasmuch as according to PW No.1, he enquired with accused No.1 at hospital when victim was brought to the hospital by accused No.1 along with other neighbours for treatment and when victim was declared dead. According to this witness PW No.1, accused No.1 narrated the story which is mentioned thus; Accused no.1 Ashwini stated that “deceased Ganesh had taken meal at 9 p.m. and Ganesh was watching TV and accused Ashwini was sitting in the house. Deceased Ganesh went for sleeping at 11:00 p.m. Thereafter, he became unconscious and his body became cool. According to this witness PW No.1, accused No.1 narrated the story which is mentioned thus; Accused no.1 Ashwini stated that “deceased Ganesh had taken meal at 9 p.m. and Ganesh was watching TV and accused Ashwini was sitting in the house. Deceased Ganesh went for sleeping at 11:00 p.m. Thereafter, he became unconscious and his body became cool. Therefore, she took deceased Ganesh for medical treatment to Shatabdi Hospital. The Medical Officer of said Hospital declared him dead.” 14) During the cross-examination, it was not suggested to PW No.1 that accused No.1 did not make any such statement or did not inform him to that effect. As such, it is acceptable position that accused No.1 was in the Company of the victim and then victim breathed his last and was declared dead when brought to Shatabdi Hospital by accused No.1 in association with other persons. Again the substantive evidence of PW No.4 indicates regarding presence of accused No.1 at her house on that night. According to this witness, who is the owner of the room where the victim was residing with his wife accused No.1, at about 12 o' clock, her son woke her up between night of 1st May, 2006 and 2nd May, 2006 and informed that something has happened to victim Ganesh. On this she went to the house of Ganesh and found that he was lying outside his house and some fluid was coming from his mouth and few persons had gathered there and they took him to the hospital and after about half an hour accused No.1 came to her and told that Ganesh had died. According to this witness, when she had gone to the house of victim, she saw that there were some marks on the neck of Ganesh and she also saw accused No.2 and one Sherkhan present there. However, she further mentioned that she had no knowledge regarding any relation between accused Nos. 1 and 2 interse. PW No.7 also gave similar evidence. On the relevant night he went to sleep at about 10:30 p.m. That time he was residing in the adjacent room to that of the victim. After sometime he noticed that accused No.1 started shouting so he went to the place and according to him accused No.1 told that her husband had suffered some attack and that he has become unconscious. After sometime he noticed that accused No.1 started shouting so he went to the place and according to him accused No.1 told that her husband had suffered some attack and that he has become unconscious. According to this witness, he along with both the accused carried the victim to Shatabdi Hospital and he was told by accused No.1 that earlier also the victim had sustained such attacks. According to this witness, on examination doctor declared the victim dead and thereafter his statement was recorded by the police. Similar such evidence is given by PW No.12 Jahira Ebrar, the neighbour of the victim. Also she was knowing accused No.2 as he was residing in front of her house. On the night of incident one Chandrakant had informed her husband that victim Ganesh had sustained heart attack and was carried to the hospital. Thereafter, accused No.1 told PW No.12 regarding the death of Ganesh. According to this witness, the marital life of accused No.1 and victim was going on smoothly. 15) By analyzing the substantive evidence of above referred witnesses, PW No1. 4, 7 and 12 it transpires that definitely accused No.1 was in the company of the victim when he lost live and she herself in association with other persons took him to Shatabdi hospital for treatment. However, he was declared dead on admission. Considering these special circumstances, it is must for the appellant accused No.1 to give plausible explanation as to how victim Ganesh had died on that night. This is more so when the death was definitely not on account of any heart failure or any other natural cause but due to strangulation and compression of the neck and being unnatural death. Apparently, explanation forthcoming from the appellant accused No.1 is a mitigating circumstance to her defence which is of total denial and false implication. As such this second circumstance is definitely a clinching circumstance pointing towards guilt of accused No.1 for the offence charged. 16) Now coming to the third circumstance as to recovery of dupatta at the instance of accused No.1, the substantive evidence of PW No.8 panch witness Ashwin coupled with the substantive evidence of PW No.15 (P.I. Bharat Pardeshi) is of much importance. According to the case of the prosecution on 13th May,2006 appellant accused No.1 made a voluntary statement to produce the dupatta from her house and it was consequently seized under the panchnama. According to the case of the prosecution on 13th May,2006 appellant accused No.1 made a voluntary statement to produce the dupatta from her house and it was consequently seized under the panchnama. On this evidence much is argued by learned Advocate Ms Rebeca Gonsalvez that the said recovery is not trustworthy and moreover the said dupatta allegedly used for strangulating the victim, was not shown to the Medical Officer who performed the postmortem and opined as to the cause of injury for the ligature marks. It is also argued that said panch witness Ashwin was amenable to PI Shri Bharat Pardeshi (PW No.15) and he was in fact a habitual panch and as such not worthy of believing. On this aspect, our attention is drawn towards the answer given by PW No.8 during his cross-examination. By pointing out this answer appearing in paragraph No.7 of the notes of evidence, it is submitted that house of this panch witness is within the jurisdiction of RCF Police Station and previously PI Bharat Pardeshi was attached to RCF Police Station and since then this witness was knowing him. This witness is also running a social institution at Chembur and so he also used to visit said police station for social work and on that count police had taken down his contact number and while PI Pardeshi was attached to RCF Police Station twice, this witness had occasion to visit RCF Police Station. Though this answer is accepted still it cannot be construed that this witness was amenable to the police when there is no specific answer or acceptance by this witness that he has acted as panch in various matters concerning any police station or Deonar Police Station in the present case. According to this witness, a dupatta was seized from the house of accused No.1 at her instance and it was recovered under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. On this aspect, it is tried to argue that earlier the house of the victim was searched, when spot panchnama was drawn and as such recovery on 13th May,2006 i.e. after about five days of arrest of accused No.1 is doubtful. It is strongly argued that earlier during spot panchnama police did not search for the dupatta however it was subsequently allegedly produced by accused No.1. It is strongly argued that earlier during spot panchnama police did not search for the dupatta however it was subsequently allegedly produced by accused No.1. On this aspect, one must not lost sight of the fact that at the time of the spot panchnama the matter was only at the accidental death report stage and inquiry in the said accidental death. That time there was no suspicion of any foul play, much less involvement of the wife of the victim. Moreover, there was apparently injury on the body of victim and a doubt was created in the mind of the IO only when the postmortem report revealed the injuries as mentioned in paragraph No. 17 of the postmortem notes and discussed earlier in the present judgment. As such there cannot be any unnatural or unacceptable in finding of dupatta which is apparently being the instrument for strangulation of the victim. Still considering the answer given by PW No.11 Dr Sunil Jawle who performed the postmortem that the ligature marks found on the body of Ganesh though were not possible by rope made of jute, but were possible by a nylon rope, it may not negate possibility of use of dupatta for strangulation specifically considering description of the strangulation mark which is having about 4 cms width on the front of neck and narrow on both ends below the mandible near the ears. In any event, considering the substantive evidence of PW No.8 and PW No.15 there is nothing to doubt the recovery of dupatta at the instance of accused No.1. Again, the same witness PW No.8 is for the seizure of three empty strips of Avil-25 tablets from the house of accused No.2 on usual simplicitor search panchnama. It must be borne in mind that this recovery was not under Section 27 of the Evidence Act but it was simplicitor search conducted on 9th May, 2006 after the arrest of accused No.1 on 8th May,2006. Though it is accepted that the three empty strips were found at the house of accused No.2, this circumstance is not a clinching circumstance for the reason that the his to pathology report does not mention presence of any stupefying substance or any ingredients of Avil-25 tablets in the body of the victim. Though it is accepted that the three empty strips were found at the house of accused No.2, this circumstance is not a clinching circumstance for the reason that the his to pathology report does not mention presence of any stupefying substance or any ingredients of Avil-25 tablets in the body of the victim. This is more so when admittedly according to the case of the prosecution the utensil in which water containing Avil-25 tablets was given to the victim for drinking as mentioned, was not found or seized during the house search of victim. All the same though the substantive evidence of PW No.8 and PW No.15 is incriminating against accused No.1, it is not so concerning accused No.2 when in fact there is no material against accused No.2 in order to establish the illicit relations between him and accused No.1 and that no witness takes his name except one witness PW No.4 regarding presence of accused No.2 at the house of accused No.1 when the incident happened. 17) Now coming to the fourth circumstance as to the confessional statement much is argued on behalf of accused No.1 submitting that the said confessional statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. is required to be discarded for want of proper procedure adopted by Metropolitan Magistrate while recording such statement. To substantiate this argument ratios propounded by the following authorities was taken shelter of; (1) AIR 1978 Supreme Court 1544 Davendra Prasad Tiwari v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2) A.I.R. 1957 S.C. 637 (3) (1995) 2 Supreme Court Cases 76 (4) (2003) 3 Supreme Court Cases 21 Sarwan Singh Battan Singh v. State of Punjab Shivappa vs. State of Karnataka Bhagwan Singh and others vs State of M.P. 18) On this aspect, a confessional statement of accused No.1 is recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. The substantive evidence of PW No.15 is significant. According to him, when accused No.1 showed her willingness to give confessional statement on 18th May,2006 he prepared a requisition letter and produced accused No.1 before the Metropolitan Magistrate Kurla on 19th May,2006. Accused No.1 was produced through woman police constable for recording her confessional statement. On production of accused No.1 before the Metropolitan Magistrate, she was taken in magisterial custody and was sent to Bhoiwada Central Lockup on 19th May, 2006. On the next day, magistrate again called accused no.1 for recording further confessional statement in part 2. Accused No.1 was produced through woman police constable for recording her confessional statement. On production of accused No.1 before the Metropolitan Magistrate, she was taken in magisterial custody and was sent to Bhoiwada Central Lockup on 19th May, 2006. On the next day, magistrate again called accused no.1 for recording further confessional statement in part 2. After recording such statement, Magistrate sealed it and sent it to Registrar for keeping in safe custody and again sent accused No.1 in Bhoiwada Central Lockup. It is the substantive evidence of PW No.15, PI Pardeshi that he had no control over Bhoiwada lockup and as such lockup was used for keeping the accused persons who were in magisterial custody. During cross-examination much is enquired with this witness and it was extracted from him that after arrest of accused no.1 she was continuously interrogated at the police station and after completion of interrogation she was sent to ladies lockup at Ghatkopar. It is also argued by taking shelter of the answers given by said PW No.15 in his cross-examination that there was a separate lockup for ladies accused at Byculla jail and Thane jail. By pointing out this answer, it is submitted on behalf of accused No.1 that during the intervening period between 19th May,2006 and 20th May, 2006, accused No.1 was not in magisterial custody but in fact in police lockup. For that purpose our attention is drawn towards contents of Exhibit 61 collectively and specifically to answer to question No.5 in the statement in part No.2. The question No.5 and its answer are as under; Question No.5 : At what place you were kept by the police? Answer : At Bhoiwada lockup. 19) By pointing out the above, it is strongly argued that the appellant-accused No.1 was not in the magisterial custody but was in fact in police custody and under the influence of police during the reflection period in order to ascertain that there was no coercion or any compulsion on the accused to give a confessional statement. On this aspect, we have carefully gone through the contents of Exhibit 61 collectively which is recorded in vernacular Marathi with dated signature of concerned Metropolitan Magistrate, 45th Court, Kurla so far as first two parts are concerned. On this aspect, we have carefully gone through the contents of Exhibit 61 collectively which is recorded in vernacular Marathi with dated signature of concerned Metropolitan Magistrate, 45th Court, Kurla so far as first two parts are concerned. We have also gone through the three certificates issued by the said Magistrate which are in English and certificate No.3 is in the own handwriting of the concerned Magistrate which clearly mentions that all the precautions were taken by the concerned Magistrate, prior to recording the confessional statement of accused No.1 and also ascertaining himself as to the custody of the accused during the reflection period not with the police machinery. Even certificate III is very eloquent which is in the handwriting of the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate regarding his satisfaction that there was no policeman in the Court or the place where the confessional statement was recorded and giving of 24 hours time to the accused for the purpose of reflection period. In Certificate III in para No. (iv) it is specifically mentioned by the Magistrate to the following effect; (iv) Accused was remanded in judicial custody from 19th May, 2006 to 20th May, 2006 i.e. between the period of recording questionnaire in part I and part II. 20) After going through the contents of the confessional statement and report of the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate being part of Exhibit 61 collectively we are of the considered view that there is nothing to doubt that the confessional statement was recorded in accordance with law and the guidelines given by the High Court as per the Criminal Manual concerning the guidelines on the aspect of confessions. 21) In view of the above, it must be said that the said confessional statement is clinching one, involving accused No.1 in the offence of murder. 22) As mentioned above, so far as accused No.2 is concerned, apart from his reference in the confessional statement of accused no.1, there is no material available on record to independently construe his role in the matter. Still considering the provisions of Section 30 of the Evidence Act as to the relevancy of the confession of the co-accused while considering the case against the another accused, in our considered view the said confessional statement made by appellant-accused No.1 cannot be taken against the appellant accused No.2 so as to bind himself with the offence of murder. Still considering the provisions of Section 30 of the Evidence Act as to the relevancy of the confession of the co-accused while considering the case against the another accused, in our considered view the said confessional statement made by appellant-accused No.1 cannot be taken against the appellant accused No.2 so as to bind himself with the offence of murder. In the result, virtually apart from the confessional statement of the co-accused, there is nothing against the appellant – accused no.2. In the result, the present appeal preferred by accused No.2 bearing Cr. Appeal No. 362 of 2008 is allowed. Whereas the appeal preferred by appellant-accused No.1 has no merit and same is consequently dismissed with the following order. ORDER. (1) Criminal Appeal No. 979 of 2010 is dismissed. (2) The Judgment and order of conviction in Sessions Case No. 710 of 2006 dated 16th April, 2008 so far as accused No.1-appellant is concerned, shall sustain. (3) Criminal Appeal No. 362 of 2008 is allowed. The Judgment and order of conviction in Sessions Case No. 710 of 2006 dated 16th April, 2008 is set aside so far as appellant accused No.2 is concerned. He shall be released, if not required in any other case or crime. If the fine amount is deposited by the appellant accused No.2, the same shall be returned to him. (4) Office to communicate this order to the appellant-accused No.1 who is in jail through the concerned jail Authorities.