High Court

Legal Reasoning

Criminal Appeal No.365/2022:: 1 ::IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPEAL NO.365 OF 2022Netaji s/o Gyanoba GodeAge 33 years, Occ. Shepherd R/o Hali, Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur… APPELLANTVERSUSThe State of Maharashtrathrough Police Inspector,Wadhwana Police Station,Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur… RESPONDENT.......Mr. P.P. More, Advocate for appellant Mr. S.J. Salgare, A.P.P. for respondent ....… CORAM : R.G. AVACHAT ANDNEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ.DATE : 5th February, 2025.J U D G M E N T (PER : R.G. AVACHAT, J.) : The challenge in this appeal is to a judgment andorder of conviction and consequential sentence, passed on24/3/2022, by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-2, Udgir,District Latur (Trial Court) in Sessions Case, No.07/2021. The Criminal Appeal No.365/2022:: 2 ::appellant was accused in the said case. He has beenconvicted for committing murder of his wife by multiple stabinjuries and, therefore, sentenced to suffer imprisonment forlife and to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/-. He is, therefore, before usin this appeal.2.The case of the prosecution in short was that theappellant had married Ashabai about 20 years before August2020. With the passage of time, the appellant startedsuspecting her fidelity. The appellant was a shepherd byprofession. He, therefore, used to be away from home for 2-3days. The deceased developed extra-marital relationship witha person residing in the nearby. The appellant came to knowabout the same. The said relationship haunted him. On thegiven day, i.e. on 1/8/2020 by little past 2.30 p.m., theappellant along with his wife were proceeding from in front ofVitthal Rukhmini Temple in their village – Hali. The appellantfished out a knife and rained blows thereof on the person ofAshabai, causing her death on the spot. Criminal Appeal No.365/2022:: 3 ::3.Based on the First Information Report (F.I.R.Exh.24) lodged by P.W.3 Maruti, maternal uncle of thedeceased, a crime vide C.R. No.106/2020 was registered withWadhwana (Bk.) Police Station. A crime scene panchanamawas drawn. Inquest and autopsy were conducted on themortal remains of Ashabai. Her blood stained clothes weretaken charge of. The appellant was arrested. Pursuant to thedisclosure statement made by him, a knife came to berecovered. Clothes on his person were also seized.Statements of persons acquainted with the facts andcircumstances of the case were recorded. Upon completion ofthe investigation, the appellant was proceeded against by filinga charge sheet. 4.The Trial Court framed the Charge. The appellantpleaded not guilty. His defence was of false implication.According to him, some unknown person committed murder ofhis wife. 5.To bring home the charge, the prosecutionexamined 6 witnesses and adduced in evidence certain Criminal Appeal No.365/2022:: 4 ::documents, on appreciation whereof, the appellant wasconvicted and consequently sentenced as well by the TrialCourt.6.Heard. Learned Advocate for the appellant wouldsubmit that, the case was based on sole eye witness account.The so called eye witness is a relation of the deceased. Hiscross-examination would indicate he lied on the fact of havingresiding in the neighbourhood of the appellant. Had he reallywitnessed the incident, it was he who would have lodged theF.I.R. immediately. His cross-examination would furtherindicate the appellant ran away and he could not even hadglimpse of the face of the appellant. According to the learnedAdvocate, the evidence of rest of the witnesses is hear-say.He also brought on record inconsistency inter-se theprosecution witnesses. He would further submit that, when theincident took place at broad day-light in a public place, noindependent witness has been examined. He, therefore, urgedfor allowing the appeal. Criminal Appeal No.365/2022:: 5 ::7.Learned A.P.P. would, on the other hand, submitthat, it is an open and shut case. The cross-examination of thewitnesses indicate that the appellant admitted the deceased tohave had extra-marital relationship with a person in the village.As such, the appellant himself brought on record his motive todo away with his wife. The suggestion to P.W.1 would indicatethe appellant to have admitted his presence at the crimescene. Pursuant to his disclosure statement, a knife, stainedwith blood was recovered. C.A. report indicate the knife tohave been stained with human blood. The learned A.P.P.,therefore, urged for dismissal of the appeal.8.Considered the submissions advanced. Perusedthe evidence on record. The wife of the appellant met withhomicidal death is undisputed. The post mortem examinationreport (Exh.27) indicates her to have suffered followingexternal injuries :-(1)Stab wound admeasuring 3 x 2 x 3 cm. just abovesuprasternal notch (just below throat).(2)Stab wound admeasuring 3 x 2 x 2 cm. just below thexiphosternum (just above the abdomen). Criminal Appeal No.365/2022:: 6 ::(3)Incised wound admeasuring3 x 1 cm. over left forearmon antero-lateral aspect.(4)Stab wound admeasuring 2.5 x 2 x 3 cm. over rightlateral rib cage.(5)Stab wound admeasuring 5 x 3 x 4 cm. over left side ofback para spinally.(6)There were left T-11 and T-12 cartilage fracture.In the opinion of the Medical Officer Dr. Kiran Patil(P.W.4), Ashabai died of hypovolumic shock due to multiplestab injuries. 9.The question is, whether the appellant is the authorof the crime. P.W.1 Dnyanoba is said to be an eye witness tothe incident. He testified that the appellant is the son of hisparental aunt. He was residing in his neighbourhood.Deceased Ashabai was the daughter of his maternal aunt. Hefurther testified that, there used to be frequent quarrelsbetween appellant and his wife. The appellant would suspecthis wife’s character. According to the witness, the incident tookplace in the afternoon. It was by 3.00 p.m. He was sitting infront of house of one Panchal. He saw the appellant and thedeceased passing along the road towards Vitthal Temple. In a Criminal Appeal No.365/2022:: 7 ::while, he heard screams of Ashabai. He, therefore, rushedtowards her. He saw the appellant inflicted number of blowson Ashabai with knife. He shouted at the appellant.Thereupon, the appellant fled away with the knife in his hand.He further testified that, one Maroti Gode, Laxmibai Gode andhimself took Ashabai to Government Hospital, at village Hali inone auto. This witness was subjected to searching cross-examination. He admitted that, his house was not located inthe lane in which deceased was residing. The appellant, hiswife and their two children were only persons residing in theWada. Persons of various community were residing in thelane. One Tanaji Mane would reside in front of the house ofthe appellant. The appellant was shepherd by profession. He,therefore, used to be away from home for 2-2 3-3 days. Hiswife Ashabai used to be alone home. She was beautiful. Itwas further suggested that Ashabai developed illicitrelationship with Tanaji Mane, next door neighbour. It wasfurther suggested that, the family name was thereby defamed.It was suggested that some unknown person committed themurder. He denied that he could not see the appellant whilehe was proceeding towards temple. He, however, admitted Criminal Appeal No.365/2022:: 8 ::that, when he heard the screams of Ashabai and ran towardsher, he could not see face of the person who was runningaway from the spot. The rest of the questions were in thenature of denying his evidence in the examination-in-chief.10.P.W.2 Rukminbai was the mother of the deceased.She too testified that appellant would suspect Ashabai’scharacter. She had, therefore, returned to her parental house.On the intervention of one Maroti Gode, Ashabai had resumedcohabitation. The appellant had beaten her up on account ofAshabai to have been talking with male persons residing in thelane. Ashabai had related her the same on phone. Shefurther testified that, Mahadev Mane received a call fromDnyanoba (P.W.1) informing Ashabai to have been murdered.11.During her cross-examination, she admitted tohave never lodged any report with police against the appellant.She denied that, Ashabai had developed illicit relationship withTanaji Mane since the appellant used to be away from home 2-3 days a week. She further denied that because of the same,the relatives were annoyed. It was further suggested that the Criminal Appeal No.365/2022:: 9 ::appellant had purchased agricultural land in the name ofAshabai. The same is admitted by her. It has also beenbrought on record that the appellant had admitted his son inEnglish medium school.12.P.W.3 Maroti was the uncle of deceased Ashabai.He testified that, Ganesh Gode informed him about theincident. He, therefore, rushed to the village and saw Ashabailying in a pool of blood. He along with others rushed her tohospital in an auto of Yousuf Shaikh. She was, however,declared dead. He lodged the F.I.R. (Exh.24). 13.P.W.3 Maroti is not an eye witness to the incident.He admitted that, Dnyanoba (P.W.1) was not residing in thelane in which he was residing. The appellant would alonereside in a Wada along with his wife and children. The houseof Kalyan Mane was adjacent to it. There is another house ofone carpenter. He denied that the appellant used to be awayfrom home for 4 days in a week on account of he beingshepherd. He further denied that, illicit relationship developed Criminal Appeal No.365/2022:: 10 ::between deceased and next door neighbour Tanaji Mane. Hedenied to have lodged the false F.I.R.14.P.W.5 Pranay is a witness to the crime scenepanchanama and even disclosure statement made by theappellant, pursuant to which a knife came to be seized(Exhs.34 & 35). In his cross-examination, he testified that thecontents of spot panchanama were not written on the spot. Itwas prepared at the police station. He, however, denied thatthe appellant did not make any disclosure statement. 15.P.W.6 Sandeep did the investigation of the crime. 16.Section 134 of the Evidence Act states that noparticular number of witnesses are required in proof of a fact.Meaning thereby, a conviction can be based on a testimony ofa sole eye witness. It is true that P.W.1 Dnyanoba did notlodge the F.I.R. The motive to commit murder of the wife,however, was brought on record during cross-examination ofthe prosecution witnesses itself. It was suggested to thematerial witnesses that the deceased had extra-marital Criminal Appeal No.365/2022:: 11 ::relationship with her next door neighbour since the appellantused to be away from home for 3-4 days in a week. It has alsobeen brought on record that, P.W.1 Dnyanoba was not residingin the lane in which the appellant would reside. Close readingof the evidence of P.W.1 Dnyanoba would, however, indicatethat he claimed to have been present (sitting) in front of houseof one Panchal and not of himself. He had seen the appellantand the deceased going together towards Vitthal Temple. Itwas suggested to him that he could not see the appellant whilehe (appellant) was proceeding towards temple. The samesuggests the appellant to have impliedly admitted that he wasproceeding towards the temple in the village. P.W.1 Dnyanobaclaimed to have seen the deceased in the company of theappellant. He heard screams of Ashabai and rushed towardsher to see the appellant assaulted her with knife blows. Heeven testified to have given the appellant calls, “Netya, Netya”.It is true that he admitted in cross-examination that the personwho went running from the crime scene could not be seen withhis face as his back was towards behind. Criminal Appeal No.365/2022:: 12 ::17.It is true that the appellant had purchased someland in the name of his wife. His son was admitted in Englishmedium school. the appellant meant to say that he was aloving husband and caring father as well. P.W.1 Dnyanobawas the cousin of the appellant (son of paternal aunt ofappellant). While the deceased was the daughter of hismaternal aunt. As such, both the appellant and deceasedwere closely related to P.W.1 Dnyanoba. There is nothing toindicate him to have any reason to grind an axe against theappellant. It is true that P.W.3 Maroti claimed to have learntabout the incident from Ganesh while P.W.2 Rukminbai(mother of the deceased) testified that P.W.1 Dnyanoba hadinformed Mahadev Mane about the incident. LearnedAdvocate meant to say that the case of the prosecution thatP.W.1 Dnyanoba informed Maroti has thus been falsified.Needless to mention, a stray inconsistency inter-se theevidence of prosecution witnesses which do not go to the rootof the case, is of little consequence.18.The appreciation of the evidence referred tohereinabove would indicate P.W.1 Dnyanoba to have Criminal Appeal No.365/2022:: 13 ::witnessed the incident. He is in close relationship with theappellant and deceased as well. The appellant had everymotive to eliminate his wife. He was seen in the company ofwife, proceeding towards a temple in the village (admitted inview of suggestion to P.W.1 Dnyanoba). Within seconds P.W.1Dnyanoba heard screams of the deceased. The appellant wasnot then around. This lead us to infer that it was the appellantand none else who assaulted his wife with number of knifeblows and immediately fled away when P.W.1 Dnyanoba gavehim calls.19.In view of the above, we find the Trial Court to haverightly convicted the appellant and consequently sentenced forthe offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian PenalCode. No interference therewith is, therefore, warranted. Inthe result, the appeal fails. It is dismissed. (NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.) (R.G. AVACHAT, J.) fmp/-