Barku Bhavrao Bhaskar v State of Maharashtra

The Supreme Court of India in Barku Bhavrao Bhaskar v State of Maharashtra upheld the conviction and life imprisonment of the appellant for the kidnapping and murder of a six year old girl, establishing that an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence conclusively proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Delivered on July 25, 2013, by a bench comprising Justice T.S. Thakur and Justice F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla in Criminal Appeal No. 910 of 2010 (reported in (2013) 14 SCC 745 and AIR 2013 SC 3564), the judgment confirmed that the prosecution successfully established the last seen theory, proven motive, Section 27 recovery of the deceased body, and unrefuted bloodstains of group 'A' on the appellant clothing.

Procedural History and Background of the Criminal Appeal

The criminal proceedings originated from Sessions Case No. 49 of 2001 tried before the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge at Nashik. The trial court convicted the appellant, Barku Bhavrao Bhaskar, under Sections 364 (kidnapping in order to murder), 302 (murder), and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). For the offence under Section 302 IPC, the trial court sentenced the appellant to undergo imprisonment for life along with a fine of two thousand rupees, with default rigorous imprisonment for six months. Concurrent sentences were imposed under Sections 364 and 201 IPC.

Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the appellant preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1024 of 2001 before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. By its judgment and order dated February 10, 2006, the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of the trial court in its entirety. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court of India by special leave, giving rise to Criminal Appeal No. 910 of 2010.

Factual Matrix and Prosecution Narrative

The incident occurred on May 12, 2000, in village Patvihir, Taluka Chandwad, District Nashik, Maharashtra. The complainant, PW-1 Bhavrao Bhaskar, was the father of the deceased child, Rakhi, aged about six years. The appellant, Barku Bhavrao Bhaskar, was a cousin brother of PW-1 and resided in the same locality within the village.

According to the prosecution case, PW-1 had engaged the appellant for agricultural labor and construction work. PW-1 had made an advance payment to the appellant, but the appellant failed to render the agreed work. A dispute arose between them, culminating in an altercation where PW-1 publicly reprimanded the appellant in the village. The prosecution asserted that the appellant harbored severe resentment and an axe to grind against PW-1 following this public rebuke.

On May 12, 2000, at approximately 10:30 am, the appellant visited the house of PW-1. At that time, PW-1 was away in the agricultural fields. The mother of the deceased, PW-3 Kusum, was present at the residence performing domestic chores and washing clothes. The appellant sat on the veranda, took the child Rakhi onto his lap, and remained there until about 11:00 am. When the appellant left with the child, PW-3 believed he was taking Rakhi to his mother house in the same village, as the appellant mother was the paternal grandmother of the child.

When PW-1 returned from the fields in the evening and discovered that Rakhi had not returned home, a search was launched across the village. Inquiries revealed that the child had not reached the grandmother house. During the search, PW-1 and his brother PW-5 Madhukar met PW-7 Sanjay Jadhav, a local petty shopkeeper, who disclosed that at approximately 1:15 pm on that day, the appellant had brought the child to his shop and purchased sweets worth one rupee for her. Despite an extensive overnight search, the child could not be traced.

On the morning of May 13, 2000, PW-1 lodged a missing person complaint at Chandwad Police Station. Later that day, on suspicion, the police apprehended the appellant. During interrogation, the appellant made a disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, offering to point out the location where he had hidden the body of the child and where he had concealed his bloodstained clothes.

Investigation, Panchnama, and Evidentiary Discoveries

Pursuant to the disclosure statement recorded in the presence of independent panch witnesses (PW-2 and others), the appellant led the police team and complainant PW-1 to the foot of a hill known as Munja Dongar located in the precincts of village Patvihir. At that secluded spot, beneath large and small boulders and covered with two to three branches of a babool (acacia) tree, the dead body of the child Rakhi was discovered. An inquest panchnama (Exhibit 14) and spot panchnama were drawn on the site.

Subsequently, the appellant led the investigating team to his residential premises and produced a bloodstained shirt concealed inside the house, which was seized under panchnama (Exhibits 16 and 17). The appellant was subjected to medical examination, which confirmed that he had sustained no physical injuries or cuts on his person. The seized articles, including the shirt of the appellant, the clothing of the deceased, soil samples, and stone specimens from the scene of crime, were forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for chemical and serological analysis.

Medical and Forensic Evidence

The post mortem examination on the dead body of Rakhi was conducted by the medical officer. The post mortem report revealed multiple external contusions, abrasions, and blunt force injuries on the neck, face, and chest of the child. The internal examination revealed extensive subcutaneous hemorrhage, fracture of the hyoid bone, and signs of mechanical asphyxiation.

The medical officer opined that the death was homicidal, caused by asphyxia due to throttling and manual strangulation. The time of death was estimated to correspond with the afternoon hours of May 12, 2000, fitting the timeline established by the last seen evidence.

The Chemical Analyzer and Serologist report confirmed that the blood found on the clothing of the deceased child belonged to human blood group 'A'. Crucially, the bloodstains detected on the seized shirt of the appellant were also determined to be human blood of group 'A'.

The Law on Circumstantial Evidence and the Five Golden Principles

Since there was no direct eyewitness to the actual act of strangulation at the foot of Munja Dongar, the entire prosecution case rested upon circumstantial evidence. In criminal jurisprudence, the legal standards governing convictions based on circumstantial evidence are well established. The Supreme Court recalled the celebrated Panchsheel or five golden principles laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116:

1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn must be fully established.
2. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty.
3. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency.
4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved.
5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.

The apex court examined whether each link in the chain of circumstantial evidence was established beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution before the trial court and the High Court.

Analysis of Circumstance 1: The Last Seen Theory

The first foundational circumstance presented by the prosecution was the last seen theory. In criminal trials, the last seen theory gains immense probative force when the time gap between the point when the accused and deceased were seen together and the estimated time of death is minimal, excluding the possibility of any third party intervening.

The prosecution examined two independent witnesses to substantiate this circumstance:

• PW-3 Kusum (Mother of the Deceased): PW-3 deposed that on May 12, 2000, at around 10:30 am, the appellant came to her house while she was washing clothes. The appellant sat on the veranda with the child sitting on his lap. He remained there until 11:00 am and then left with the child. PW-3 stated that because the appellant was a close relative and the child paternal grandmother lived nearby, she did not suspect any foul play at that time. Both the trial court and the High Court found PW-3 to be a natural and truthful witness whose testimony was unshaken during cross examination.
• PW-7 Sanjay Jadhav (Shopkeeper): PW-7, an independent petty shop owner in the village, deposed that at around 1:15 pm on May 12, 2000, the appellant came to his shop accompanied by the child Rakhi. The appellant purchased sweets valued at one rupee and handed them to the child before leaving together.

Counsel for the appellant attempted to challenge the evidence of PW-7 by contending that the name of PW-7 came to light through one Ashok, who was not examined as a witness. The Supreme Court rejected this contention. The record showed that a requisition had initially been filed on behalf of the appellant to examine Ashok, but was subsequently withdrawn by the defense. The court held that the testimonies of PW-3 and PW-7 firmly established that the deceased child was in the continuous custody and company of the appellant until 1:15 pm on the date of occurrence, shortly before her death.

The prosecution also sought to examine a six year old child witness named Mohna, who had informed PW-1 about seeing the deceased with the appellant. In court, the child witness did not speak due to intimidation. The High Court and Supreme Court held that the prosecution attempt to produce the child demonstrated complete transparency, and the silence of the young child did not detract from the credible depositions of PW-3 and PW-7.

Analysis of Circumstance 2: Bloodstains on the Appellant Shirt and Serological Proof

The second decisive circumstance was the recovery of the bloodstained shirt of the appellant and the serological findings. Under Exhibits 16 and 17, the police recovered the shirt from the house of the appellant pursuant to his voluntary disclosure. The Forensic Science Laboratory confirmed that the shirt contained human bloodstains matching blood group 'A', which was the blood group of the deceased child.

The appellant argued that the prosecution had not determined his own blood group, suggesting that the bloodstains could have been his own. The Supreme Court rejected this submission as untenable. The medical examination conducted immediately upon the arrest of the appellant revealed that he had no injuries, abrasions, or lacerations anywhere on his body. Therefore, the possibility of the appellant own blood staining his shirt was completely excluded.

Furthermore, under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. The appellant offered no explanation in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as to how human blood of group 'A' came to be present on his shirt. The apex court held that this unrefuted forensic evidence formed an unbreakable link connecting the appellant to the homicide.

Analysis of Circumstance 3: Discovery of the Dead Body Under Section 27 Evidence Act

The third vital circumstance was the discovery of the dead body of the deceased child at the instance of the appellant under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Section 27 provides an exception to the ban on confession to police, allowing so much of the information as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered to be proved.

The evidence of PW-1 and independent panch witness PW-2 established that the dead body was concealed in a remote, secluded area at the foot of Munja Dongar mountain in village Patvihir. The body had been hidden under large and small stones and covered with branches of a babool tree. This location was not an open public place visible to passersby; it was an obscure spot specifically known to the perpetrator who concealed the body.

The appellant led the police party and the panch witnesses directly to that spot and pointed out the concealed body. The trial court and the High Court scrutinized the panchnama and witness depositions in minute detail, finding no discrepancy in the recovery process. The Supreme Court held that the recovery of the dead body at the exclusive instance of the appellant was a conclusive incriminating circumstance pointing squarely to his guilt.

Analysis of Circumstance 4: Proof of Motive

In cases resting on circumstantial evidence, the establishment of motive provides valuable corroboration and helps complete the chain of events. The prosecution established that the appellant had an axe to grind against PW-1.

The witnesses PW-1 (father), PW-4, and PW-5 (uncle) deposed in unison that PW-1 had given money to the appellant for agricultural labor and construction work. When the appellant failed to perform the work, PW-1 confronted and publicly scolded him in the village. This incident caused humiliation and resentment, motivating the appellant to take revenge by targeting the young, vulnerable daughter of the complainant.

The defense argued that minor variations existed in the testimonies of PW-1, PW-4, and PW-5 regarding the exact words exchanged during the earlier dispute. The High Court and Supreme Court held that these variations were trivial and natural for rural witnesses deposing after a lapse of time. The core fact that a bitter dispute had taken place between PW-1 and the appellant remained completely uncontradicted.

Evaluation of the Chain of Circumstances

When the four established circumstances are examined together, they form a solid, unbroken chain that leaves no room for doubt:

The Supreme Court observed that the five golden principles of circumstantial evidence were fully met. The hypothesis of guilt was the only conclusion consistent with the established facts, excluding any reasonable possibility of innocence.

Similar standards of judicial scrutiny are applied in circumstantial evidence in criminal appeals, where appellate courts demand that every individual link in the chain be established on solid evidence rather than conjecture.

Rejection of Defense Arguments and Final Supreme Court Holding

Counsel for the appellant raised several technical challenges, including the non examination of certain village residents and minor discrepancies in recording times. The Supreme Court dismissed these arguments, affirming that criminal courts must evaluate evidence as a whole and not permit hyper technical contentions to derail substantial justice.

The non examination of every person who participated in the search did not weaken the prosecution case when key eyewitnesses, panch witnesses, medical officers, and forensic experts had been duly examined and subjected to cross examination. The High Court had meticulously scrutinized the trial court records in accordance with high court judicial review standards, ensuring that the findings were supported by credible evidence.

The Supreme Court concluded that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial court and the Bombay High Court were fully justified and suffered from no perversity or legal infirmity. The appeal was devoid of merit and was accordingly dismissed, confirming the conviction under Sections 364, 302, and 201 IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment.

Legal Precedents and Principles Reaffirmed by the Judgment

The decision in Barku Bhavrao Bhaskar v State of Maharashtra serves as an authoritative precedent in Indian criminal jurisprudence, reaffirming several vital principles:

• Completeness of Circumstantial Chain: A conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC can be safely founded on circumstantial evidence when the chain of events is complete, conclusive, and incapable of explanation on any other hypothesis.
• Strength of Last Seen Evidence: When the accused is proved to have been in the company of the deceased child shortly before the estimated time of death, the burden shifts to the accused under Section 106 of the Evidence Act to explain when and where they parted company.
• Validity of Section 27 Discoveries: The discovery of a hidden dead body in an obscure spot pursuant to the statement of an accused serves as a powerful incriminating circumstance confirming author of concealment.
• Serological Significance: Matching blood groups between the clothing of the accused and the victim, combined with the absence of physical injuries on the accused, provides strong forensic corroboration.
• Motive as a Corroborative Pillar: While motive alone is insufficient for conviction, proven motive lends cogency and coherence to the overall circumstantial chain.

Through this detailed evidentiary analysis, the Supreme Court ensured that a grave crime against a defenseless child was met with firm legal retribution based on rigorous evidentiary standards.