High Court
Legal Reasoning
APEAL-473-21.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 473 OF 2021ANDCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1984 OF 2021Sambhaji Maroti SakhareAge: 44 years, Occu.: Nil,R/o Kamtha, Tq. Ardhapur,Dist. NandedAt Present Convict No.C-8926,Central Jail Harsool, Aurangabad..APPELLANTVERSUSState of MaharashtraThrough Police Station Officer,Police Station Ardhapur,Tq. Ardhapur, Dist. Nanded..RESPONDENT....Mr. M.P. Kale, Advocate for appellantMrs. K.B. Patil Bharaswadkar, Addl.P.P. for respondent - State.... CORAM : R.G. AVACHAT AND NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJDATE : 11th FEBRUARY, 2025ORAL JUDGMENT :1.The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction andorder of consequential sentence dated 25th October, 2018 passed by theCourt of Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded (‘trial Court’) in Sessions Case,No. 17 of 2017. Vide the impugned judgment and order, the appellant hasbeen convicted for the offence of murder, and therefore, sentenced to sufferimprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation.2.In short, the case of the prosecution was as under :-1 / 7 APEAL-473-21.odtThe appellant was the resident of village Kamtha (Bk.), Tq.Ardhapur, Dist. Nanded. He has five brothers, PW 1 – Shivram, Narayan,Sahebrao, Gyanoba and Sitaram besides two sisters. Their parents werealive. All the brothers, however were residing separately. Fifty gunthas ofagricultural land was there in the name of his father (deceased – Maroti). Inthe month of May, the appellant had asked his father to transfer the land withits possession to his name. He had even assaulted his father over the saidreason.3.The deceased (Maroti) would sale black threads to the persons,who felt to have been affected by the evil luck or haunted by ghost. He wouldsit on a cot in front of a temple for sell of black threads. The appellant wantedhis father not to do the said business, as he wanted to take over the same.4.On 19th November, 2016 the appellant was selling black threads.He was sitting on a cot in front of the temple. Asmita, a six years old child ofPW 1 – Shivram, went to the appellant. He slapped her for no reason. Shereturned home crying. The appellant’s father - Maroti and mother questionedthe appellant as to why did he slapped the innocent child. The parents thenreturned to home. The appellant followed them. He came with a katti andassaulted on the head and neck of his father, Maroti. He then fled. Due tohue and cry, the villagers gathered. The appellant’s brother, PW 1 – Shivramtoo arrived. He went to the Ardhapur Police Station and lodged the FirstInformation Report (‘F.I.R.’) (Exh.12).2 / 7
Legal Reasoning
APEAL-473-21.odt5.A crime vide C.R. No. 218 of 2016 was, therefore, registered. Theappellant was arrested. Crime scene panchanama (Exh.17) was drawn.Mortal remains of Maroti was subjected to inquest and autopsy as well. Theappellant came to be arrested. Clothes on the person of both, the appellantand the deceased, were taken charge of. All the seized articles were sent toR.F.S.L., Nanded. Statements of the persons acquainted with the facts andcircumstances of the case were recorded. On completion of investigation,the appellant was proceeded against by filing the charge-sheet.6.The trial Court framed the charge (Exh.2). The appellant pleadednot guilty. His defence was of false implication. According to him, his motherand wife of his brother, PW 1 – Shivram alongwith Asmita had been to thefield at the relevant time. Some unknown persons assaulted his father.7.To bring home the charge, prosecution examined fifteenwitnesses and produced in evidence certain documents. On appreciation ofthe evidence in the case, the trial Court convicted and consequentlysentenced the appellant as stated above.8.Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellanthad weak eye sight. The same was admitted fact. At the material time theso called eye witnesses were not home. They had been to the fieldalongwith Asmita. The mother admitted that two unknown persons had cometo buy black thread. Those persons might have committed murder of thedeceased. He would further submit that the appellant is behind the bars for3 / 7 APEAL-473-21.odtover eight years. He took us through the evidence of the relevant witnessesand their cross-examination to submit that they were not reliable. Learnedcounsel ultimately urged for allowing the appeal.9.Learned Addl.P.P. would, on the other hand, submit that it was anopen and shut case. The mother of the appellant gave evidence against him.There is evidence of his sister-in-law as well (brother’s wife). They did nothave any reason to speak against the appellant. The neighbors too(independent witnesses) claimed to have had seen the appellant runningaway with a bag soon after assaulting his father. She, therefore, urged fordismissal of the appeal.10.Considered the submissions advanced. Perused the judgmentimpugned herein. Let us turn to the evidence on record and appreciate thesame.11.PW 13 – Dr. Rajabhau conducted autopsy on the mortal remainsof Maroti. The postmortem report is at Exhibit 56. He noticed five sharpinjuries on the vital parts of Maroti, besides three more injuries noticed incolumn no.17 of the said report. In his opinion, Maroti died of hemorrhagicshock due to multiple injuries over neck.12.As such, the fact that Maroti met with homicidal death hasundoubtedly been proved. The question is whether the appellant is theauthor of the crime.4 / 7 APEAL-473-21.odt13.PW 1 – Shivram, brother of the appellant, testified that he has fivebrothers and two sisters besides their parents. Fifty gunthas of agriculturalland was standing in the name of their father. 7/12 extract finds place atExhibit 13. The appellant would ask his father to give him possession of thesaid land. The father was reluctant. The appellant, therefore, assaulted thefather. Shivram further testified that on the fateful day he was on his duty.He was a driver on a school bus of Potdar International School. He receiveda phone call of PW 9 - Babarao. He immediately rushed to home to find hisfather lying in a pool of blood.14.PW 2 - Santosh is a witness to the crime scene panchanama(Exh.17). The place is the house of the appellant’s father. PW 7 - Bajirao isthe witness to the house search of the appellant. During the search, a bloodstained katti was seized under panchanama (Exh.19). PW 4 - Ashok is awitness to the seizure of clothes of the appellant (Exh.23), while PW 5 -Majaj is the witness to the seizure panchanama to the clothes of thedeceased (Exh.20).15.PW 6 – Dhanaji testified that he was residing in thenehighbourhood of the appellant. On the given day the appellant had sat infront of the temple selling spin by 09:45 a.m. Asmita went to the appellantand sat on the cot. The appellant slapped her. She returned home crying.The appellant’s parents came there. His father questioned him as to why didhe beat up the small child. PW 10 – Jamunabai, mother of the appellant,5 / 7 APEAL-473-21.odtasked him to not sit there and sell the spin. The appellant got annoyedthereby. His parents then returned home. The appellant followed them.Dhanaji further testified that after a while he heard noise. He came out of thehouse. He saw the appellant running away with a pink colour bag in hishand. He, therefore, went to the house of Maroti (deceased) and saw Marotihad suffered multiple injuries.16.Close reading of the cross-examination of this witness indicatesnothing fruitful to the appellant could be elicited.17.PW 5 – Bajirao was the in-charge Police Patil of the village. Onreceipt of information, he went to the house of the deceased and then wentto the police station.18.PW 8 – Sonali is the wife of the appellant’s brother, PW 1 –Shivram. While PW 10 - Janabai is the appellant’s mother. Both thesewitnesses gave evidence in one voice. Both of them reiterated the incidentand previous quarrel between the appellant and the deceased overagricultural land. Their evidence indicate that on the given day the appellantslapped Asmita at the temple. She returned home crying. The appellant’sparents and Asmita’s mother went to him. The parents questioned him as towhy did he beat up Asmita. He got annoyed. They returned home. Theappellant followed them. The appellant went to his room and returned with akatti. He assaulted his father therewith. The father suffered multiple injuries.6 / 7
Decision
APEAL-473-21.odtFrom the cross-examination of PW 10 - Jamunabai, it was brought on recordthat two unknown persons had come to purchase the threads. Thesuggestion goes a long way to infer that the mother was there and not in thefield. She has no reason to speak against her own son. We find theevidence of PW 10 – Janabai, PW 8 – Sonali and PW 6 – Dhanaji to beinspiring confidence. Their evidence brought home the charge against theappellant. Close reading of the impugned judgment lead us to infer that wehave no reason to take a different view.19.In the result, appeal fails. Same is dismissed. In view of thesame, nothing survives in the application and same stands disposed of.( NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J. )( R.G. AVACHAT, J. ) SSD7 / 7