DEEPAK SOPAN JOGDAND v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Case Details
( 1 ) cri appln 1273.21.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1273 OF 2021 in Criminal Appeal No. 306 of 2021 DEEPAK SOPAN JOGDAND VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ... Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Soban G. Bobde APP for Respondents/State : Mr. A.V. Deshmukh ... CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI & Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ. DATE : 8th March, 2023 ORDER :- (Per: Y.G. Khobragade, J.) 1.
Legal Reasoning
has made out strong prima facie case of his acquittal in this appeal. Therefore, ( 4 ) cri appln 1273.21.odt prayed for suspension of sentence and to release the accused on bail during the pendency of the appeal. 9. Per contra, the learned APP vehemently submitted that the accused committed murder of his wife by throttling on 21.02.2017 and post mortem report (Exhibit-63) proves fourteen ante mortem injuries and on internal examination on neck dissection following injuries were found: 1) Multiple contusions of sizes varying from 1 cm x 1 cm to 2cm x 2 cm in Sterno- hyoid mussel of both side of neck, reddish. On cut section blood infiltrations present. 2) Multiple contusion of sizes varying from 1 cm x 1 cm to 1.5 cm x 1 cm seen in pre-vertebal mussel of neck, reddish. On cut section blood infiltrations present. 3) Congestion of epigplottis present with sub mucosan hemorrhage present in lumen of pharynx and larynx, trachea, reddish. Blood tinged whitish froth seen in larynx trahea and bronchian lumen. 10. As per the medical expert’s opinion death of deceased caused due to throttling. Which is a homicidal death. The PW7-Chandrakant Avchermal who is the neighbour of the accused deposed that when he was present at his house on 21.02.2017, accused visited him at 10.00 a.m. and made inquiry with him. Accused told him his intention to go to his village but his wife (deceased) was not willing to accompany him therefore he would go alone. Thereafter, he heard shouts of quarrel between the accused and deceased. Then accused took him (PW7) towards electricity D.P. and disclosed him that his wife (deceased) is having illicit relations with another person and he has ( 5 ) cri appln 1273.21.odt killed his wife by throttling. Thus, prosecution has adduced the evidence about extra-judicial confession. 11. The other evidence brought on record is on the point of Section 106 of Evidence Act. Prosecution has tried to prove that, at that time of incident the accused and his wife Shilpa were the only persons present in their tenanted room and she was then found dead. Thus, there appears to be substantial evidence against the appellant. So also, the present applicant accused was not enlarged on bail during the pendency of the trial. Hence, we are of the opinion that case is not made out to suspend the sentence and to release him on bail. 12. In view of the above discussion, the present application is rejected. [Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, J.] [SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.] mub
Arguments
Heard Mr. Bobde learned advocate for the applicant/appellant and Mr. A.V. Deshmukh learned APP for the State. 2. The accused-appellant has filed present application and prayed for suspension of sentence and to release him on bail for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C., during the pendency of the appeal. 3. With the able assistance of the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP we have gone through the record. 4. It is the case of the prosecution that, the informant PW3- Dnyaneshwar Gaikwad lodged a report with MIDC Waluj Police Station, ( 2 ) cri appln 1273.21.odt Aurangabad on 21.02.2017, stating that his younger sister-Shilpa got married to accused Deepak Sopan Jogdand prior to five years of the incident. They have two daughters. Accused was working in MIDC Waluj. Informant along with his parents was residing in separate premises; whereas, his sister-Shilpa with her husband (accused) and daughters were residing separately in rented premises. One Chandramani Sarkate, the relative of accused visited at the gate of informant’s workplace at about 1.00 p.m. on 21.02.2017 and told him that his sister-Shilpa has become unconscious at her premises. Therefore, immediately he visited at the room of his sister and found that, his sister- Shilpa was lying unconscious in her room and noticed some nail scratches and injuries around the neck of his sister. Therefore, he inquired with his brother- in-law / accused about the incident but accused fled away. Thereafter, he immediately took his sister Shilpa to Hospital, however, his sister was declared dead on examination by the Medical Officer. The informant-PW3 alleged that his brother-in-law / accused always used to raise doubt on chastity of his sister and on that count, the accused committed the murder of Shilpa by pressing her neck in between 12.00 p.m. to 12.30 p.m. on 21.02.20217. On the basis of said report, Crime No.103 of 2017 was registered against the appellant-accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C. ( 3 ) cri appln 1273.21.odt 5. Prosecution has examined in all ten witnesses to prove the guilt of the accused. Prosecution has proved inquest panchanama (Exhibit-15), spot panchanama (Exhibit-21), oral report (Exhibit-29), seizure panchanama (Exhibit-40), CA report (Exhibit-50 and 51), post mortem report (Exhibit-63), seizure panchanama (Exhibit-67) and arrest panchanama (Exhibit-66). 6. After conclusion of the trial and upon hearing both the sides, on 31.05.2021, the learned trial Court passed the impugned judgment and order and convicted the appeallant-accused under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant-accused submitted that, the applicant is innocent and he has not committed the alleged crime but on the basis of false report lodged by the informant-PW3, who is brother of his deceased-wife, the applicant has been falsely implicated. Though, the prosecution examined ten witnesses but the evidence of prosecution witnesses is not in corroboration with each other. There is no eye witness. There is variance in the testimony of PW3-informant. There is no cogent evidence on the point of last seen together. The prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Applicant-accused