REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.185-186 OF 2011

SUDAM @ RAHUL KANIRAM JADHAV      … APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA      …RESPONDENT

J U D G M E N T

CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, J.

1.  Appellant, an accused held guilty of committing  

the murder of four children and a woman with whom he  

was living as husband and wife and sentenced to death  

is before us with the leave of the Court.

2. Residents of Rupla Naik Tanda, a remote village  

in District Nanded in the State of Maharashtra were  

horrified  when  few  of  its  natives  found  four  dead  

bodies floating in the village pond in the morning of  

21st August, 2007.  A male child of six years alongwith  

a female child of ten years and another female child  

of ten years alongwith a male child of two to four

years were tied separately.  P.W.1 Yashwant Jadhav,  

Inspector of Rupla Naik Tanda outpost came to know  

about the presence of dead-bodies in the pond through  

a  villager  and  reached  there  at  8.00  A.M.  There  

besides the aforesaid dead-bodies, he found the body  

of an unidentified woman with Mangalsutra on her neck  

below a boulder.  He accordingly informed the Mahur  

Police Station and on that basis crime under Section  

302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code was registered  

and  the  investigation  was  entrusted  to  the  Police  

Inspector Parmeshwar Munde (P.W.14).  He went to the  

spot  took  out  the  dead  bodies  from  the  Pond  and  

prepared the inquest reports.  During the course of  

investigation,  Maroti Madavi identified the dead body  

of the woman to be his daughter, Anita and the two  

children of deceased Anita born to her from the first  

husband and two children from the appellant herein.  

Search was made to apprehend the appellant but he was  

not found till 24th August, 2007.  During the course of  

investigation, it further transpired that the deceased  

Anita who was living with the appellant as his wife  

had come to know about his illicit relationship with  

P.W.6, Muktabai. The deceased used to protest the said  

relationship.   This  relationship  led  to  serious

dispute  amongst  deceased  Anita,  Muktabai  and  the  

appellant.   Appellant  orally  divorced  Muktabai  and  

agreed to pay Rs.15,000/- to her.  It was the deceased  

Anita who promised to pay the amount.  Thereafter,  

Muktabai went to her village and the appellant the  

deceased Anita and the four children came to Juna Pani  

where because of the strained relationship, appellant  

committed the murder of Anita and the four children.

3.  Police after usual investigation submitted the  

charge-sheet under Section 201 and 302 of the Indian  

Penal Code and the appellant was ultimately committed  

to the Court of Session to face the trial. Appellant  

denied to have committed any offence and claimed to be  

tried.   

4. In order to bring home the charge the prosecution  

has altogether examined 14 witnesses besides a large  

number of documents have been exhibited.  There is no  

eye-witness  to  the  occurrence  and  relying  on  the  

circumstantial evidence the trial court came to the  

conclusion that the circumstances proved clearly lead  

to one and the only conclusion that the appellant had  

committed the murder of the four children and Anita

and in order to cause disappearance of evidence of  

murder threw the dead bodies in the Pond.  For coming  

to the aforesaid conclusion, the trial court held that  

the appellant had motive to commit the crime and the  

five deceased were last seen in the company of the  

appellant.  Further extra-judicial confessions given  

before PW.6, Muktabai and PW.9, Ishwar were reliable.  

Failure to explain the circumstances under which all  

of  them  met  homicidal  death  were  taken  into  

consideration  to  hold  the  Appellant  guilty  of  the  

charge. Abscondence was another circumstance relied on  

by the trial court to hold the appellant guilty.  The  

trial court awarded the death sentence.  On appeal,  

the  High  Court  concurred  with  the  findings  of  the  

trial court and finding the case to be one amongst the  

rarest of the rare cases confirmed the death sentence.  

5. We have heard Mr. Manoj Prasad, learned Counsel  

appearing for the appellant; whereas respondent-State  

is represented by Mr. Sushil Karanjakar.

6. All the deceased met a homicidal death has not  

been questioned before us.  Dr. Bandiwan (P.W.10) who  

had conducted the post mortem of the dead bodies of

the four children has clearly stated in his evidence  

that all the four children died of asphyxia due to  

throttling.  Dr. Bhosale (P.W.4) who conducted post-

mortem examination of deceased Anita in his evidence,  

has  opined  that  she  died  of  asphyxia  due  to  

strangulation.  In view of this, we have no manner of  

doubt that all the five deceased met homicidal death.

7.  Mr.  Prasad,  however,  contends  that  the  

circumstantial evidence brought on record do not point  

out towards guilt of the appellant. Mr. Karanjakar,  

however, submits that the circumstances proved point  

towards the guilt of the appellant.  

8. PW.5, Anusayabai is the mother of the deceased  

and she has stated in her evidence that her daughter  

Anita was earlier married to one Anil Gedam and they  

were  blessed  with  two  children.   Because  of  

differences,  he  deserted  Anita  and  the  deceased  

thereafter started residing with her.  According to  

her evidence, Anita suddenly left her house with the  

children  and  she  did  not  make  any  enquiry  as  she  

thought  that  she  had  gone  to  her  husband’s  place.  

After few days, according to this witness she came to

know  that  the  deceased  was  not  residing  with  her  

husband Anil but in fact residing with the appellant.  

She  went  to  the  house  of  the  appellant,  saw  the  

deceased  along  with  her  children  residing  there.  

According to her evidence when she came to know about  

the dead bodies of the children floating in the Pond  

she went there and identified the dead bodies.  They  

were the two children of the deceased and her husband  

Anil, and other two children of the deceased and the  

appellant.   She  also  found  the  dead  body  of  her  

daughter Anita there.

9. PW.6, Muktabai has stated in her evidence that  

proposal for her marriage came on behalf of a person  

called Rahul and she was told that he is unmarried.  

Her evidence is that the prospective bridegroom came  

to her house and proposed to marry her claiming that  

he was single.  After marriage, both of them resided  

at the village for eight to ten days and thereafter  

went  to  Karim  Nagar  and  resided  there  for  about  a  

month.  According to her evidence, she returned to her  

village along with her husband to attend the marriage  

of her cousin and while they were residing there the  

deceased Anita came there and informed her that the

name of her husband is not Rahul but appellant Sudam  

and she had two children from him.  Hearing this, the  

appellant fled away from there.   

10. Muktabai has further deposed in her evidence that  

after some time the appellant came to her house and on  

being  questioned,  he  disclosed  that  he  was  being  

harassed  by  the  deceased  Anita.  Appellant  further  

disclosed  to  this  witness  Muktabai  that  the  two  

children were his from Anita.  The deceased requested  

this  witness  to  release  the  appellant,  whereupon  

appellant undertook to maintain both PW.6, Muktabai  

and the deceased Anita but later refused to accept the  

aforesaid  proposal.   According  to  her,  appellant  

orally  divorced  her  and  promised  to  give  her  

Rs.15,000/-.  Thereafter, according to this witness,  

Anita alongwith children went with the appellant.  Few  

days  thereafter,  the  Police  came  to  her  house  and  

enquired  the  whereabouts  of  the  appellant  and  the  

deceased.  She  was  shown  the  photographs  of  four  

children  and  the  deceased  Anita.  This  witness  has  

further stated that after few days, appellant returned  

and   on  being  asked,  he  disclosed  that  he  had

committed the murder of Anita and four children as  

Anita was harassing him.

11. PW.9, Ishwar had stated in his evidence that the  

appellant made an extra-judicial confession before him  

that he strangulated the four children and his first  

wife to death and threw their dead bodies in the Pond  

as he was being harassed by his first wife.   

12. PW.8, Pralhad has stated in his evidence that on  

19th August,  2007  when  he  was  at  his  house  the  

appellant along with his wife and four children came  

and asked for water.  He has further stated in his  

evidence that he requested the appellant to stay back  

but he left the place along with his wife and four  

children and two to three days thereafter he came to  

know that he had killed his wife and the children.     

13. Thus from the evidence of PW.5, Anusayabai the  

mother  of  the  deceased  and  PW.6,  Muktabai  it  is  

evident that the deceased Anita along with the four  

children  were  living  with  the  appellant.   The  

appellant  had  married  PW.6,  Muktabai  projecting  

himself  to  be  single  and  the  protest  made  by  the

deceased led to the divorce. From the evidence of the  

aforesaid witnesses and further from the evidence of  

PW.8,  Pralhad  it  is  evident  that  Anita  and  four  

children were last seen alive with the appellant on  

19th August,  2007.   The  dead  bodies  of  the  four  

children were found floating in the Pond and of Anita  

under a boulder on 21st August, 2007. Appellant has  

also  made  extra-judicial  confession  before  PW.6,  

Muktabai  and  PW.9,  Ishwar.  He  confessed  to  have  

committed  the  murder  on  account  of  the  harassment  

meted out to him by his wife Anita.  From the evidence  

of the aforesaid witnesses it is apparent that the  

appellant had motive to commit the crime, was last  

seen  with  the  deceased  and  had  made  extra-judicial  

confession before the two witnesses PW.6, Muktabai and  

PW.9,  Ishwar  admitting  the  commission  of  crime.  

Further, he absconded and he is unable to explain how  

the woman with whom he was living as husband and wife  

and  the  children  met  the  homicidal  death.  In  our  

opinion to bring home the guilt on the basis of the  

circumstantial  evidence  the  prosecution  has  to  

establish that the circumstances proved lead to one  

and  the  only  conclusion  towards  the  guilt  of  the  

accused.  In a case based on circumstantial evidence

the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is  

sought  to  be  drawn  are  to  be  cogently  and  firmly  

established.  The  circumstances  so  proved  must  

unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused. It  

should  form  a  chain  so  complete  that  there  is  no  

escape  from  the  conclusion  that  the  crime  was  

committed by the accused and none else. It has to be  

considered  within  all  human  probability  and  not  in  

fanciful  manner.   In  order  to  sustain  conviction  

circumstantial  evidence  must  be  complete  and  must  

point towards the guilt of the accused.  Such evidence  

should not only be consistent with the guilt of the  

accused  but  inconsistent  with  his  innocence.   The  

circumstances referred to above, in our opinion lead  

to one and the only conclusion that the appellant had  

committed  the  murder  of  all  the  five  persons.  

Accordingly we uphold his conviction.   

14. Now we proceed to consider as to whether the case  

in hand fall in the category of rare of the rarest  

case.  The appellant had chosen to kill the woman with  

whom he lived as husband and wife, a woman who was in  

deep love with him and willing to pay Rs.15,000/- to  

PW.6, Muktabai,  to save the relationship.  Appellant

had not only killed the two children of the deceased  

who were born from the first husband but also killed  

his own two children.   He projected himself to be  

single and  changed his name to dupe a woman and in  

fact  succeded  in  marrying  her.   However,  when  the  

truth  came  to  light,  he  killed  five  persons.   The  

manner in which the crime has been committed clearly  

shows  it  to  be  premeditated  and  well  planned.   It  

seems that all the four children and the woman were  

brought near the Pond in planned manner, strangulated  

to death and dead bodies of the children thrown in the  

pond to conceal the crime.  He not only killed Anita  

but crushed her head to avoid identification. Killing  

four children, tying the dead bodies in bundles of two  

each and throwing them in the Pond would not have been  

possible, had the appellant not meticulously planned  

the  murders.   It  shows  that  the  crime  has  been  

committed in a beastly, extremely brutal, barbaric and  

grotescue manner.  It has resulted into intense and  

extreme indignation of the community and shocked the  

collective conscience of the society.  We are of the  

opinion that the appellant is a menace to the society  

who  cannot  be  reformed.   Lesser  punishment  in  our  

opinion shall be fraught with danger as it may expose

the society to peril once again at the hands of the  

appellant.   We are of the opinion that the case in  

hand falls in the category of the rarest of the rare  

cases and the trial court did not err in awarding the  

death sentence and the High court confirming the same.  

15. In the result, we do not find any merit in these  

appeals and the same are dismissed accordingly.  

….……….…………………………… …..J.

                        (HARJIT SINGH BEDI)

 .......………………………………..J.  (CHANDRAMAULI KR.  

PRASAD) NEW DELHI, JULY 4, 2011.