High Court · 2024

Legal Reasoning

APEAL-872-23.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 872 OF 2023Ramdas Chhotulal BedveAge: 43 years, Occu.: Labour,R/o Vishranti Nagar, Mukundwadi,Aurangabad..APPELLANTVERSUSState of MaharashtraThrough Police Inspector,Mukundwadi Police Station,Aurangabad..RESPONDENT....Mr. P.B. Kadam, Advocate for appellantMs. V.S. Chaudhary, A.P.P. for respondent - State....CORAM : R.G. AVACHAT AND NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJRESERVED ON : 13th MARCH, 2024PRONOUNCED ON : 14th MARCH, 2024JUDGMENT ( PER : R.G. AVACHAT, J. ) :1.The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order ofconviction dated 02nd April, 2016 passed by Additional Sessions Judge,Aurangabad in Sessions Case No. 275 of 2014. Vide the impugnedjudgment and order, the appellant was convicted for the offence of murderpunishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (‘I.P.C.’), andtherefore, sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine ofRs.2,000/- with default stipulation. He is, therefore, in appeal before us. Hehas, however been acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 498-Aof the I.P.C.. State did not prefer appeal against acquittal.1 / 8 APEAL-872-23.odt2.Facts, as disclosed from the police papers (charge-sheet), are asfollows :-F.I.R. (Exh.14) was lodged by P.W.1 – Nita (informant), sister ofBabita (deceased). The appellant married Babita about ten years beforeMay 2014. The couple was blessed with two children, daughter Aruna ofeight years and seven years old son Akash. The informant was residing atMukundwadi, Aurangabad. The appellant, alongwith his wife (deceased) andchildren was also residing in the neighbourhood of the informant.3.The appellant was addicted to alcohol. He would suspect fidelityof his wife. It was 22nd May, 2014. The appellant, his wife – Babita(deceased) and children took dinner at the residence of the informant. Theappellant, Babita (deceased) and their son – Akash returned to their house(tin shed). Daughter – Aruna stayed with the informant.It is also the case of prosecution that in the early morning of 23rdMay, 2014, P.W.4 - Master Akash came to the house of the informant torelate her the appellant to have killed his mother and fled. The informantalongwith her mother, therefore, rushed to the house of the appellant to findBabita lying dead in the pool of blood. There were two stones and a woodenrod lying nearby the deceased. The informant, therefore, lodged the F.I.R.(Exh.14) against the appellant.4.Crime vide C.R. No. 173 of 2014 was registered with MukundwadiPolice Station, Dist. Aurangabad for the offence punishable under Sections2 / 8 APEAL-872-23.odt302 and 498(A) of the I.P.C. Scene of offence panchanama (Exh.16) wasdrawn. The appellant was arrested. Mortal remains of the deceased wassubjected to autopsy. Statements of the persons acquainted with the factsand circumstances of the case were recorded. On completion ofinvestigation, the appellant was proceeded against by filing the charge-sheetbefore the Court of J.M.F.C., Aurangabad. The case was then committed tothe Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad (‘trial Court’) for trial inaccordance with law.5.The trial Court framed charge (Exh.5). The appellant pleaded notguilty. His defence was of false implication.6.To bring home the charge, prosecution examined ten witnessesand produced in evidence certain documents. The trial Court, on appreciationof the evidence in case, convicted the appellant and consequently sentencedas stated above.7.Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellantwas not at home at the relevant time. Someone else committed the murderof his wife. P.W.4 – Akash was seven years of age at the relevant time. He,being a child, was prone to tutoring. He was in the custody of his maternalgrand parents. Learned counsel took us through the entire evidence onrecord to ultimately urge for allowing the appeal.3 / 8 APEAL-872-23.odt8.Learned A.P.P. would, on the other hand, submit that it is an openand shut case. She supports the judgment impugned herein.9.Considered the submissions advanced. Perused the evidence onrecord. Let us advert thereto and appreciate the same.10.Deceased Babita met with homicidal death is undisputed. P.W.8– Dr. Vijay conducted autopsy of her mortal remained. He noticed followinginjuries on her person :-“1)Stitched wound of size 4 x 0.7cm present over rightpareito-temporal region, with 4 stitches intact, no fluidoozing, on opening margins-irregular, contused, suggestiveof lacerated wound, reddish.2)Lacerated wound of size 2 x 1.5cm x bone deep presentover upper lateral 0.5cm above right supra-orbital ridge ofright eyebrow, margins-irregular, reddish.3)Lacerated wound of size 1.8 x 1cm x bone deep present5cm above right supraorbital ridge of right frontal region,margins-irregular, reddish.4)Lacerated wound of size 1.5 x 1.3 cm x bone deep present0.2cm above injury no.3 of right frontal region, margins-irregular, reddish.5)Lacerated would of size 1 x 0.5cm x bone deep present9cm from midline over right temporal region, margins-irregular, reddish.6)Lacerated wound of size 1 x 0.5cm x bone deep present9.2cm from midline over right temporal region, margins-irregular reddish.4 / 8 APEAL-872-23.odt7)Abrasion of size 2.5 x 1cm present over rightsupraclavicular region, obliquely placed, reddish.8)A sutured wound of size 2cm x 0.1cm is present over leftmedial malleous with plastic tube in situ, 3 sutures intact.On opening margins are clean cut and well definedsuggestive of surgical incised wound of venesection,reddish.”In his opinion, the deceased died of head injury. Postmortemreport finds place at Exhibit 39. He was not subjected to cross-examination.11.Now, the question is whether the appellant is the author of crimein question. The Apex Court in case of Trimukh Maroti Kirkan Vs. State ofMaharashtra, (2006) 10 SCC 681 observed thus -“12.In the case in hand there is no eye-witness of theoccurrence and the case of the prosecution rests on circumstantialevidence. The normal principle in a case based on circumstantialevidence is that the circumstances from which an inference ofguilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmlyestablished; that those circumstances should be of a definitetendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused;that the circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain socomplete that there is no escape from the conclusion that withinall human probability the crime was committed by the accusedand they should be incapable of explanation on any hypothesisother than that of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent withhis innocence....5 / 8 APEAL-872-23.odt22.Where an accused is alleged to have committed themurder of his wife and the prosecution succeeds in leadingevidence to show that shortly before the commission of crime theywere seen together or the offence takes placed in the dwellinghome where the husband also normally resided, it has beenconsistently held that if the accused does not offer any explanationhow the wife received injuries or offers an explanation which isfound to be false, it is a strong circumstance which indicates thathe is responsible for commission of the crime.”12.P.W.1 – Nita (informant) testified that her sister – Babita(deceased) had married the appellant about 10/12 years ago. The couplewas blessed with two children, Aruna and Akash. The appellant was servingwith a cement dealer. The appellant was addicted to alcohol. He would ill-treat Babita over suspecting her character. He was convinced many a time.An agreement entered between the appellant and the deceased Babita on09th February, 2010 has been tendered in evidence. The appellant admitsthe same under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure (‘Cr.P.C.’). Thesaid document indicates the appellant to have assured to be kind enoughtowards the deceased. He, however appears to have not kept his word.There was no change in his behaviour. It is further in her evidence that whilethe appellant alongwith his family members was staying at village Soyegaon,he had poured kerosene on the person of Babita. The matter was reportedto the police. It was, however settled.13.The appellant has admitted in his examination under Section 313of the Cr.P.C. that on the fateful evening he, deceased and their two children6 / 8 APEAL-872-23.odttook dinner at the house of P.W.1 – Nita. Leaving their daughter – Aruna tostay overnight at the house of P.W.1 – Nita, they returned to their house.Same suggests the appellant, deceased and P.W.4 - Master Akash wereadmittedly at their residence. The appellant even admits that all of themwent to sleep in the very room. Learned counsel for the appellant tried tocontend discrepancy in the evidence. According to him, P.W.4 - MasterAkash testified that all of them slept on the floor, while the scene of offencepanchanama (Exh.16) indicates existence of a cot in the room. In our view,this discrepancy is on account of memory not serving well and the time gapbetween the incident and Master Akash giving his oral evidence.14.P.W.4 - Master Akash, at the relevant time, was seven years ofage. The trial Court found him to be competent witness. His evidenceindicates that on the fateful night, the appellant assaulted his mother with awooden rod and two stones. All these articles were found during scene ofoffence panchanama (Exh.16). His evidence further indicates the appellantthen fled. He went to his grand-mother’s residence and related the same. Inresponse thereto, his maternal aunt, P.W.1 – Nita and P.W.3 - Jankabai,grand-mother rushed to the appellant’s residence to find Babita lying in thepool of blood. She was dead. The appellant was nowhere to be seen. Onthe same lines is the evidence of P.W.6 – Shamkant, neighbour, whotestified that he rushed to the house of the appellant to find Babita dead. Theappellant was not at his residence.7 / 8 APEAL-872-23.odt15.As such, the aforesaid evidence undoubtedly indicate it to be anopen and shut case. On the given night, the deceased was in the companyof the appellant. Their minor child, Master Akash was with them. Historyindicates the appellant would suspect her character and even ill-treated hermany a time. Babita was found dead at her matrimonial home, shared by herwith the appellant and a seven years old minor child. The child is an eyewitness. He has no reason to testify against his father. The appellant did notoffer any explanation how did Babita met with a homicidal death. On thecontrary, after committing murder, he absconded. His conduct is inconsistentwith his innocence. We need not refer to rest of the evidence on record,since the one which is referred to hereinabove, undoubtedly make out theoffence to have been committed by the appellant. We find the trial Court tohave not committed any error in convicting the appellant for the offence ofuxoricide and consequently sentencing him to life imprisonment. We are,therefore, not inclined to interfere with the order impugned herein.16.In the result, appeal fails. Same, therefore, stands dismissed.( NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J. )( R.G. AVACHAT, J. ) SSD8 / 8