Setting aside the trial court’s order awarding death sentence to six persons in the 2012 Yavatmal human sacrifice case, the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court has acquitted all the six convicts after holding that the earlier Judgment “cannot sustain in the eye of law”.
In its 99-page judgement delivered on Friday, a HC bench of Justices PN Deshmukh and MG Giratkar held that the Prosecution had failed to prove that the accused in the case hatched a conspiracy to give human sacrifice on the Dussehra day and that the trial court wrongly considered “inadmissible memorandum of statements” and held the accused guilty.
“..... there is no evidence led by prosecution to establish that accused persons hatched any conspiracy to give human sacrifice to the Goddess on the day of Dussera. Learned trial Court wrongly took into consideration inadmissible evidence of Memorandum Statements of accused and only on the basis of same, convicted accused holding them to be guilty of the offences as stated above, which Judgment thus cannot sustain in the eye of law,” the HC bench observed.
The high court also set aside five years’ sentence awarded to seventh accused in the case Durga Sitaram Shirbhate. “ ...though accused no.8 Durga has not preferred any appeal, on evaluating evidence, since we are satisfied and have reached to the conclusion that no conviction of any of the accused can be based, benefit of this decision is also necessary to be extended to the said accused,” the Judges noted.
The six persons, whose death sentence set aside and who were acquitted by the high court, are: Manoj alias Lalya Vasantrao Atram (19), Devidas Punaji Atram (22), Yadavrao Tukaram Tekam (50), Punaji Mahadev Atram (57), Motiram Mahadev Meshram (54) and Yashodabai Pandurang Meshram (60), all of whom residents of Choramba village in Yavatmal district of eastern Maharashtra.
The Prosecution’s case was that a seven-year-old girl Sapna was allegedly kidnapped by Motiram, Yadavrao and Manoj unknown persons on the evening of Dussera on October 24, 2012, while she was returning home from a shop. They took her behind the village school, where other accused were present. The victim girl was later taken to the house of Yashodabai, where mantras were chanted and a puja was performed. Later they accused placed Sapna in front of a temple of goddess in Yashodabai’s house and slit her throat with a knife.
After collecting the blood and sprinkling it on the goddess, the accused allegedly packed the victim girl’s body and buried it near the bathroom in Yashodabai’s house. Later, the accused allegedly took the exhumed body and buried it in an agricultural field located near judpi jungle.
According to the prosecution case, one of the convicts, Durga Shirbhate had claimed that she had been possessed by a goddess. She had then told the accused persons that the goddess needed human blood of a child to save the entire village from its wrath.
Acting on the missing complaint lodged by the victim girl’s parents on October 24 and claims made by accused Durqa, the local police uncovered the human sacrifice plot and exhumed the body on May 21, 2013 and recovered the skull, human bones and a frock of the victim from the agricultural filed. Later on December 25, 2013, the police arrested all the accused.
After conducting a trial in the case, Yavatmal district’s Additional Sessions Judge on August 17, 2017 found six accused guilty under section 302 read with section 4 of the IPC and awarded death penalty to them. He sentenced another accused Durga Sitaram Shirbhate to five years’ rigorous imprisonment.
Disapproving the manner in which the trial court handled the case, the HC bench observed:”Learned trial Court has not properly followed the decision of Apex Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra (cited supra). There is no evidence against the appellants except the evidence under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act”. “Learned trial Court has wrongly taken into consi eration the Memorandum Statements i.e. Confessional Statements in respect of guilt. As per Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, any statement made before the police is not admissible except under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act in respect of information given to discover the facts/articles and the articles/facts discovered,” the HC bench noted.