High Court
Legal Reasoning
Cri. Apeal No.959 of 2019.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPEAL NO.959 OF 2019Mahendra s/o. Ramrao Gavai,Age : 35 years, Occ. Private Service,r/o. Shahunagar,Kamlanagar, Hingoli,Dist. Hingoli..AppellantVs.The State of Maharashtra..Respondent----Mr.Abhishek Kulkarni, Advocate for appellantMr.S.D.Ghayal, Addl. Public Prosecutor for respondent---- CORAM : R.G.AVACHAT AND NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ. DATE : March 15, 2024JUDGMENT (PER R.G.AVACHAT, J.) :- The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and orderdated 25.01.2018, passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Hingoli, inSessions Trial No.42 of 2015, whereby the appellant was convicted forthe offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code andtherefore, sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine withdefault stipulation. The appellant is, therefore, before us in this appeal. 2Cri. Apeal No.959 of 20192.The facts, giving rise to the present appeal are, asfollows:-The appellant had married Sunita (deceased) about nineyears before June, 2015. The couple was blessed with a son. Theywere residing together at Shahunagar, Hingoli. No one else wasresiding with them. It so happened that the appellant, suspectingcharacter of Sunita (deceased), assaulted her with knife and stone-grinder. He inflicted on her person many blows thereof. Their sonSamyak (PW 9) was home. He saw the incident. Moreover, onhearing uproar from the house, the neighbours gathered. They toosaw that the appellant killed his wife. The appellant had bolted thedoor from inside. After his wife became motionless, he came out ofthe house, threatened the people gathered, with knife, and fledaway.3.PW 2 – Sudhakar is uncle of deceased Sunita. He wasresiding in the nearby. He had rushed to the house of the appellant.He witnessed the incident. He, therefore, lodged FIR (Exh.37) withPolice Station, Hingoli. Crime vide C.R. no.149 of 2015, came to beregistered for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IndianPenal Code. The scene of offence panchanma (Exh.45) was drawn.Inquest was conducted under panchnama (Exh.44). Mortal-remains 3Cri. Apeal No.959 of 2019of the deceased Sunita was subjected to autopsy. The post mortemreport is at Exh.50. The appellant was arrested. The clothes on hisperson and the knife came to be seized from him. The statements ofthe persons acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the casewere recorded Upon completion of the investigation, the appellantwas proceeded against by filing charge sheet.4.Learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class (Court No.1),Hingoli, committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Hingoli, for trialin accordance with law. The case was assigned to the Court of Addl.Sessions Judge, Hingoli (trial court). The trial court framed Charge(Exh.19). The appellant pleaded not guilty. His defence was of falseimplication. His defence was that an unknown person had come tohis residence. He was insisting Sunita to accompany her. Theappellant intervened. It was that person who killed Sunita.5.To bring home the charge, the prosecution examinedeleven witnesses and produced in evidence certain documents. Onappreciation of the evidence in the case, the trial court convicted theappellant and consequently, sentenced as stated above.6.Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Legal Reasoning
4Cri. Apeal No.959 of 20197.Learned counsel for the appellant took us through theentire evidence on record to submit that the appellant had no reasonto commit murder of his wife. A stranger committed murder. Theappellant had intervened. The blame has been put on the appellant.Learned counsel, ultimately, urged for allowing the appeal.8.Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor would, on the otherhand, submit it to be an open and shut case. He took us through theevidence of the prosecution witnesses to submit the offence to havebeen proved beyond reasonable doubt. He, therefore, urged fordismissal of the appeal.9.Considered the submissions advanced. Perused theevidence on record. Let us advert thereto and appreciate the same. 10.PW 1 – Dr. Arun was Medical Officer on duty at CivilHospital, Hingoli on 18.07.2015. He has not been subjected to cross-examination, except one question was put to him suggesting thatthere were no two injuries at one place. As such, the defenceadmitted the evidence of PW 1 – Dr. Arun. The post mortem reportprepared by him suggests the deceased to have suffered tenexternal injuries. All of them were ante-mortem. The injuries havebeen described in Column no.17 of the post mortem report. 5Cri. Apeal No.959 of 2019According to him, injury nos.1 and 2 were grievous in nature. Eachof the injuries was within 24 hours. Some of the injuries namely,injury nos.2, 5, 6 and 8 were possible by a hard and sharp object. Inhis opinion, the deceased died due to cardio-respiratory arrest due tohemorrhagic shock with perforation of trachea with poly trauma.According to him, the injuries were homicidal.11.The appellant did not dispute his wife to have met withhomicidal death. The question is whether he is author of the crimein question.12.PW 2 – Sudhakar, cousin uncle of the deceased, wasresiding in the neighborhood. His evidence indicates that Sunita(deceased) was well educated. She was even about to be appointedas a Class-II Officer with Municipal Council. The appellant wassuspecting her character. The appellant did not want her to do a job.There, therefore, used to be quarrels between the two. It is further inhis evidence that just two days before the incident, he had settledthe dispute between the two. The evidence of PW 2 further indicatesthat he was home by little past 07.00 p.m. on 17.06.2015. PW 9 –Samyak, son of the appellant and the deceased, came his home toinform the quarrel to have been going on between the appellant and 6Cri. Apeal No.959 of 2019his wife. PW 2 - Sudhakar, therefore, along with his wife, son (PW 4 -Shubham) and others from the neighborhood, went to the house ofthe appellant. The entrance door was bolted from the inside. Noiseof Sunita was emanating from inside. He broke the glass of windowand saw that the appellant was assaulting Sunita with knife andstone-grinder. His evidence further indicates that his efforts to brokeopen the door went futile. After Sunita became motionless, theappellant came out of the house. He brandished knife to threatenthe people gathered outside. The appellant then fled away. It isfurther in his evidence that he lodged the FIR (Exh.37). He referredthereto. The contents of the FIR are consistent with his evidencebefore the court. As such, the evidence of PW 2 gets corroboratedby the averments in the FIR. 13.In his cross-examination, it was suggested to PW 2 –Sudhakar that a third person had entered the house and askedSunita to accompany with him. The appellant tried to remove Sunitafrom the clutches of that person. That person attempted to giveblow on the head of the appellant with stone-grinder. Sunita(deceased) intervened. The blow landed on her head. That personthen got angry. The, therefore, stabbed Sunita with knife. Thiswitness denied the suggestions. 7Cri. Apeal No.959 of 201914.PW 3 – Smt. Gangasagar, PW 4 – Shubham, son of PW 2,and PW 9 – Samyak, son of appellant and deceased, gave theirevidence in one voice. The evidence of PW 9 – Samyak indicatesthat he had returned from Karate class at about 05.00 p.m. on thefateful day. His mother Sunita (deceased) was engaged in cooking.The appellant assaulted her with knife and then even hit her headwith stone-grinder. It was he, who went to the house of PW 2, toinform about the incident.15.The evidence of PW 3 – Gangasagar and PW 4 – Shubhamindicate that they rushed to the house of the appellant along withPW 2 – Sudhakar. Their evidence is very much consistent with theevidence of PW 2 – Sudhakar. With a view to avoid repetition, we donot propose to refer to their evidence in extenso. Suffice it to saythat PW 2, PW 3, PW 4 and PW 9 are the eye-witnesses to theincident.16.Post-incident, the appellant fled. He appears to havecome with a false defence. He did not name who was that thirdperson, who had entered their house and attempted to take his wifewith him. Death of Sunita took place at the matrimonial home. Shewas living with her husband (appellant) and their minor son PW 9 – 8Cri. Apeal No.959 of 2019Samyak. Since the case had eye-witness account of not less thanfour witnesses, we find the appellant to have no defence at all.17.The evidence of PW 7 – Mangal reinforces the evidence ofthe aforesaid witnesses. She rushed to the house of appellant onhearing of uproar. She saw that the appellant was armed with knifeand then, he ran away. PW 6 – Ramesh is witness to the scene ofoffence panchnama (Exh.45) at the house of the appellant. He wasalso witness to the inquest panchnama (Exh.44). The clothes andthe knife were seized from the appellant in the presence of PW 10 –Sambhaji under seizure panchnama (Exh.53).18.From the aforesaid evidence on record, we are at onewith the findings recorded by the trial court. In our view, there is nomerit in the appeal. The same, therefore, fails. In the result, theappeal stands dismissed. [NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.][R.G. AVACHAT, J.] KBP