High Court
Legal Reasoning
Cri.Appeal No.72/2020:: 1 ::IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPEAL NO.72 OF 2020Sanjay s/o Pandurang GaikwadAge 49 years, Occ. CarpenterR/o Indiranagar, LaturTq. & District LaturAt present Convict No.C-8923,Central Jail, Harsool,Aurangabad… APPELLANT(Orig. Accused)VERSUSThe State of Maharashtra through Police Station OfficerLatur, Tq. & District Latur(Copy to be served on Public Prosecutor, High Court ofJudicature of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad)… RESPONDENT.......Mr. M.P. Kale, Advocate for appellant (appointed)Mrs. S.N. Deshmukh, A.P.P. for respondent....… CORAM : R.G. AVACHAT ANDNEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ.DATE : 7th August, 2024JUDGMENT (PER R.G. AVACHAT, J.) : The challenge in this appeal is to a judgment andorder of conviction and consequential sentence dated26/10/2018, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Latur inSessions Case, No.11/2016. Vide impugned judgment and Cri.Appeal No.72/2020:: 2 ::order, the appellant was convicted for committing murder of hiswife and therefore, sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life tillhis entire life2.The prosecution case in short before the Trial Courtwas that, the appellant along with his wife -Sagarbai(deceased) would reside along with their two grown up childrenat Indiranagar, Latur. The appellant was carpenter byprofession. Sagarbai (deceased) would work as a maid in ahospital at Latur. The appellant did not like his wife to doservice. He would suspect her loyalty to him. On the fatefulnight particularly by 4.15 a.m. on 26/9/2015, both theappellant, his wife Sagarbai and one of the sons were at theirresidence. Another son had been at his work place in MarketYard. The residence in which they were residing was a tworoom premises.The appellant picked up quarrel with Sagarbai andbrutally murdered her. He assaulted her with a grinding stone.He even caused her injuries with hacksaw. On hearing hercries, the son Ajay (P.W.4) woke up. He was sleeping in thefront room. The incident took place in the kitchen room. Theappellant had bolted the door from inside. P.W.1 Babita, wifeof brother of the appellant woke up on hearing cries.
Legal Reasoning
Cri.Appeal No.72/2020:: 3 ::Neighbours too gathered. All of them peeped into the room tosee the appellant assaulting Sagarbai. Efforts to break openthe door went futile. A police van on patrolling duty arrived.Somebody had also informed the police. Before arrival of the police, the appellant had comeout of the room. He was armed with an iron bar and hacksaw.His face was smeared with blood. He was behavingabnormally. He again entered the house and bolted the roomfrom inside. He agreed to come out of the room if a localleader Mr. Chikate (P.W.9) comes to the place. P.W.9 Chikatein turn came. The room was opened. The appellant wasoverpowered. It appears that, he too was injured.3.P.W.1 Babita lodged the F.I.R. (Exh.24) at theconcerned police station. Inquest (Exh.35) and autopsy(Exh.58) were conducted on the mortal remains of Sagarbai.The weapons used in commission of the offence were seized.Those were sent to the office of Chemical Analyser for analysisand report. Statements of persons acquainted with the factsand circumstances of the case were recorded. Uponcompletion of the investigation, the appellant was proceedagainst by filing a charge sheet. Cri.Appeal No.72/2020:: 4 ::4.Learned Additional Sessions Judge-2, Latur framedthe charge (Exh.18). The appellant pleaded not guilty. Whatwas his stand in his examination under Section 313 of theCr.P.C. would be referred to while appreciating the evidence.5.The case then was tried and decided by learnedSessions Judge, Latur (Trial Court). The prosecutionexamined 13 witnesses and adduced in evidence certaindocuments. On appreciation of the same, the Trial Courtconvicted the appellant and consequently sentenced as statedabove. 6.Heard. Learned Advocate for the appellant wouldsubmit that, Indiranagar locality, wherein the appellant wasresiding, is a slum. Various crimes would take place in thatarea. On the given night, thieves had entered the house of theappellant and they caused injuries to appellant and evencommitted murder of his wife. According to him, P.W.1 Babitaand others gave evidence against the appellant since Babitawanted to deprive the appellant of his property. According tohim, a smaller portion had come to the share of her husband inpartition of the family property. He ultimately urged for allowingthe appeal. Cri.Appeal No.72/2020:: 5 ::7.The learned A.P.P. would, on the other hand,submit that, it is an open and shut case. She took us throughthe evidence on record and the reasons given by the TrialCourt. She ultimately urged for dismissal of the appeal.8.Let us advert to the evidence on record andappreciate the same.9.Admittedly, the appellant was the husband of Smt.Sagarbai (deceased). The couple was blessed with two sonsand a daughter. The daughter was married and residing at hermatrimonial home. The incident took place by 4.15 a.m. on26/9/2015 in the kitchen room of the house of the appellant inIndiranagar is also not in dispute. 10.P.W.8 Dr. Indrajeet conducted autopsy on themortal remains of Sagarbai. He noticed 22 external injuries onher person. Most of them were incised injuries besides stabwounds. He also noticed 10 internal injuries. In his opinion,Sagarbai died due to shock due to multiple injuries. Postmortem examination report is at Exh.58.11.P.W.2 Shivaji was a witness to the inquestpanchanama (Exh.35). The same too indicates number ofinjuries on the person of Sagarbai. Cri.Appeal No.72/2020:: 6 ::12.P.W.3 Sahebrao is a witness to the crime scenepanchanama (Exh.39). His evidence indicates that, he was aTalathi. On the direction of the Tahsildar, he remained presentat the crime scene. It is in his evidence that, it was a premisesconsisting of two rooms. There was one door intervening thetwo rooms. The inside room was a kitchen room. The kitchenhad a small window. The door was of iron. Household articleslike gas stove, water jar etc. were there in the kitchen room.He saw a muller lying on the spot, which was stained withblood. He also noticed one blood stained Sabbal (iron rod)and one hacksaw in the kitchen room. Both these articles toowere stained with blood. The police collected blood with cottonswab. A full sleeve shirt stained with blood was also seized inhis presence. In his cross-examination, it has been brought onrecord that, on the northern side of the house of the appellant,there was house of P.W.1 Babita. From his further cross-examination, nothing helpful to the appellant could be broughton record.13.P.W.1 Babita was the wife of appellant’s brotherVijay. It is in her evidence that the appellant was her elderbrother-in-law. The appellant would reside with his wife andtwo children in her immediate neighbourhood. The wife of the Cri.Appeal No.72/2020:: 7 ::appellant was serving with the hospital of Dr. Deshmukh atLatur. There used to be frequent quarrels between the couple.The appellant did not like his wife serve to earn living. Hewould suspect her loyalty with him. For 5-6 days next beforethe incident, Sagarbai had not attended her duties.14.It is further in her evidence that, by 4.15 a.m. on26/9/2015, she heard shouts of Sagarbai. On hearing thecries, she along with her husband and both children cameoutside the house of the appellant. The appellant wasrequested to open the door. He did not listen. Both, herhusband and son peeped into the room. Her son Ajay (P.W.4)saw the appellant assaulting Sagarbai. It is further in herevidence that, she too peeped in the room through a window.It is further in her evidence that, she saw the appellant to havetied a towel around the neck of Sagarbai and pulling her back.She, therefore, started shouting. Neighbours, namely KhanduShirsat, Eknath Kamble, Pintu Kakane and others gathered onthe spot. All of them tried to open the door of the house. Theappellant too was requested to open the door. The appellantcame out of the room for a while holding a hacksaw in hishand. He proclaimed to have killed his wife. Then he startedbehaving abnormally. The appellant started singing a song. Cri.Appeal No.72/2020:: 8 ::“Kurbani Kurbani Allah Ko Pyari Kurbani”. Then he againbehaved disorderly on road and entered his house. Theappellant then closed the door from inside, she again heardsound of something being hit on the tile. She peeped into theroom. She saw her co-sister Sagarbai to have been lying in apool of blood. The appellant was sitting by the side of herbody. The appellant collected the blood, applied the same tohis face. He also sipped some of the blood of his wife. Thenhe started assaulting himself. When the appellant was askedto open the door, he told that he would open the door only ifChandrakant Chikate (local leader) comes there. It is further inher evidence that, thereafter police arrived. They too tried toopen the door. Shri Chandrakant Chikate then came. Theappellant then opened the door. The police took him intocustody. P.W.1 Babita entered the house. She saw Sagarbaito have suffered multiple injuries and lying motionless. Shethen went to the police station and lodged the F.I.R. (Exh.24).15.In her cross-examination, she testified that,Chandrakant Chikate and she were active in local politics.Whenever any dispute occurs in any family residing in thevicinity, they would settle the same. She admitted that thehouse she was residing in, was allotted to her husband in Cri.Appeal No.72/2020:: 9 ::partition. She admitted that, there was a window to the frontroom of the house of the appellant. The appellant’s house wasnot well built. The police arrived at 6.00 a.m. She denied that,thieves had come to commit theft and they assaulted her co-sister. She denied that, with a view to grab property of theappellant she lodged a false report (Exh.24) and given falseevidence as well. She admitted that, in the incident theappellant too suffered grievous injuries. Rest of her evidencein examination-in-chief was denied by putting suggestions toher.16.P.W.4 Ajay is the son of the appellant. It is in hisevidence that, he along with his parents went to sleep in theirhouse on the night of 25/9/2015. His brother was away at hiswork place. By 3.45 a.m., he heard noise of his parents. Hewoke up. The appellant had taken his mother in the kitchenroom and bolted the door from inside. A quarrel was onbetween the two. Both of them were beating each other. Hewas asking his father to open the door. Due to his shouts, hisuncle Vijay and his wife Babita (P.W.1) arrived. Their sonVikas too was with them. Some neighbours had alsogathered. Their efforts to break open the door proved futile.The appellant was assaulting his mother. He saw the same Cri.Appeal No.72/2020:: 10 ::through the window. After half an hour, the father came out.His mother was lying injured in the kitchen. According to him,his father (appellant) was armed with iron rod and hacksaw.He, therefore, went away with fright. The father roamed in thelane and again went back in the house. He bolted the doorfrom inside. The police then arrived. The learned A.P.P. put some leading questions tothis witness as he was not supporting to some extent to theprosecution. He denied to have seen his father sipping bloodof his mother. To some other questions, his answers werepositive.Although he was subjected to a searching cross-examination, nothing could be elicited which would be helpfulto the prosecution. He denied each and every suggestion putto him during his cross-examination by the defence lawyer. 17.P.W.5 Vikas is the son of P.W.1 Babita. It is in hisevidence that, on hearing shouts of mother of his cousin Ajay,he woke up. He joined his parents to the house of theappellant. Some villagers had gathered there. The doorseparating the two rooms was closed. His aunt Sagarbai wasshouting “Wachwa – Wachwa”. The door was tried to be broke Cri.Appeal No.72/2020:: 11 ::open, but in vain. He peeped into the kitchen room through asmall opening of a window. He witnessed the appellantassaulted his wife with muller. Then he gave Sagarbai blowswith hacksaw. The appellant gave her further blows with ironrod. He sipped Sagarbai’s body. Then he opened the doorand came out for a while. He told the people gathered that hewas a Cub (Wagacha Baccha). He then again entered thekitchen room and closed the door from inside.18.In his cross-examination, he denied to have notseen anything or heard voice of Sagarbai. To none of thequestions put to him in cross-examination he gave in.19.P.W.6 Laxmibai was one of the neighbours of theappellant. It is in her evidence that, she woke up by 4.00 a.m.on hearing noise of her son. P.W.1 Babita was there. She wasshouting to save Sagarbai. She therefore went close to thehouse of the appellant. Some persons were present outside.She peeped into the house of the appellant. She saw theappellant assaulting his wife Sagarbai with pestal (grindingstone) and crow bar. It is further in her evidence that, after awhile the appellant came out of the room and confessed tohave killed his wife. He again went back to his house andbolted the door from inside. Cri.Appeal No.72/2020:: 12 ::20.In her cross-examination, she stated that, whenshe had come out of the house, many persons had gathered.She did not give in to any of the questions put to her duringcross-examination.21.P.W.7 Shirish was a Police Head Constable whocarried seized articles to Forensic Science Laboratory,Aurangabad. 22.P.W.9 Chandrakant Chikate testified that he arrivedat the house of the appellant by 5.00 a.m. i.e. post incident.He asked the appellant to open the door. The appellantobliged. The police took him into custody. The appellant hadsuffered injuries to his neck.23.P.W.10 Dr. Swapnil had examined the appellantand noticed following three injuries on his person :-(1)Injury No.1 :- C.L.W. 4 cm. below chin on central neck onanterior side, of size 4 x 3 x 4 cm., age of injury within 24hours, the weapon used is hard and blunt object andnature of injury was simple.(2)Injury No.2 :- Contusion on left foot, of size 2 x 2 cm.,age of injury within 24 hours, the weapon used is hard Cri.Appeal No.72/2020:: 13 ::and blunt and nature of injury was simple.(3)Injury No.3 :- Multiple linear abrasions over trunk, overabdomen and on both forearms, of variable sizes, age ofinjuries 24 hours, the weapon used is hard and blunt andnature of injury was simple. The appellant’s injury certificate is at Exh.65.24.P.W.11 Dashrath was one of the investigatingofficers. He drew inquest panchanama (Exh.35). He drew thecrime scene panchanama (Exh.39). He sent the seizedarticles to Forensic Science Laboratory, Aurangabad, the officecopy of forwarding letter whereof is at Exh.72. It is further inhis evidence that, he arrested the appellant after he wasdischarged from the hospital. The arrest panchanama is atExh.76. During cross-examination, he admitted to have hadnot referred the appellant to Psychiatrist. 25.P.W.12 Madhuri was another police officer. Shewas on patrolling duty. She reached house of the appellantpursuant to the message received on wireless. People hadgathered there. It is further in her evidence that, one Chikatearrived. On his arrival, the appellant opened the door. The Cri.Appeal No.72/2020:: 14 ::police took him into custody. The appellant had sufferedinjuries. She placed on record relevant station diary entriesvide Exhs.85 and 86. 26.P.W.13 Navnath was a Police Head Constable onpatrolling duty. He too arrived at the crime scene in responseto a wireless message. His evidence is consistent with theevidence of P.W.12 Madhuri.27.Appreciation of the aforesaid evidence wouldindicate that the crime scene is the kitchen room of theresidence of the appellant. The incident took place little past4.15 a.m. on 26/9/2015. The appellant’s son Ajay too testifiedagainst his own father. The evidence of Babita (P.W.1) and herson Vikas (P.W.5) undoubtedly indicate that the appellantassaulted and killed his wife, brutally. P.W.1 Babita’s evidenceindicates that, the appellant would suspect character of hiswife. While appreciating the evidence and even while hearingthe appeal, a thought came to our mind as to whether theappellant was sane while he committed the gruesome murder.We, therefore, scrutinised each and every paper in the file tofind neither defence of insanity was raised nor any paperrelating to the appellant taking treatment of a Psychologist wason record. We talked to him online. He gave rational answers Cri.Appeal No.72/2020:: 15 ::to our queries. True, the question whether he was in a mentalframe at the time of commission of crime was very muchrelevant. The Medical Officer serving in jail informed us theappellant to have no such medical history. His behaviour isnormal for the last 7 years. The appellant even did not raisethe defence of insanity either before the Trial Court or beforeus as well. True, if on appreciation of the evidence in the casethe same is made out, we cannot ignore the same. The act ofthe appellant smearing the blood of his wife to his face andeven he sipped her blood do not lead us to suspect that hewas not sane while the crime was committed. We have areason to say so, in his examination-in-chief under Section 313of the Cr.P.C., he gave rational answers. To 4-5 questions hegave positive replies. He admitted that, he refused to open thedoor until Mr. Chandrakant Chikate (P.W.9) had come there.He admitted to have opened the door on Chikate’s arrival. Thedefence that thieves had come and assaulted the appellantand his wife appears to be taken for the sake of defence andnothing more.28.The appellant placed on record his side of the storyin writing, before the Trial Court (Exh.38). We have perusedthe same. It has been stated therein that he had married Cri.Appeal No.72/2020:: 16 ::Sagarbai (deceased) 25 years before. They were blessed with3 children, 2 sons and a daughter. One of the sons and thedaughter have been married. He was working as a Carpenterto earn his living. His elder son was working to earn living.Some times he would not get carpentry work. Sagarbai was,therefore, insisting him to allow her to work. He would say her,“You should not work, we will pull on as it is.” According tohim, she joined the duty as a Nurse with the hospital ofDeshmukh against his wish. She would report on duty by10.00 in the morning and return by 5.30 in the evening. Hewould accompany her to reach her to her work place. He thenwould go to his work. Such things happened 4-6 months,thereafter she started telling him that she would be required todo night shift at the hospital. He was opposed to the same.He asked her to leave the job. She did not listen. She starteddoing night shift. For some days, he would accompany her toreach her to her work place. Thereafter she started asking himnot to accompany her. After some days, he realised asubstantial behavioural changed in her. She started picking upquarrel with him. She would not listen to him. According to the appellant, on the fateful night, shewas about to leave the house for night shift. He asked her to Cri.Appeal No.72/2020:: 17 ::not go. She, therefore, picked up quarrel with him. They wentto sleep in the front room. She, however, picked quarrel withhim. She threatened the appellant to commit suicide. Heasked her to fetch drinking water. She entered the kitchenroom. He too followed her. She refused to give him water.She started assaulting him. She then said the appellant thatshe would die that night. She then removed hacksaw andother articles from his tool bag and assaulted herself therewith.According to the appellant, she then picked up a grinding stoneand caused self-inflicted head injury therewith. When he triedto resist her, she assaulted him with hacksaw. He, therefore,suffered a neck injury. He covered his neck injury with a towel.After having seen her to have suffered multiple self-inflictedinjuries, he was mentally disturbed. Son started asking themto stop the quarrel. After his wife became silent, the son got upand started shouting that he (appellant) killed his mother. Theneighbours thereby gathered. He did not open the doorbecause he thought that he would be killed by the personsgathered outside. Somebody made a hole to the wall of hisresidence with a crowbar. He started wiping the floor stainedwith blood. His hands thereby got blood stained. After a whilepolice arrived. He got more frightened. He, therefore, askedoutsiders to call Mr. Chandrakant Chikate and then only he Cri.Appeal No.72/2020:: 18 ::would come out of the house. Chikate thereafter arrived.Then he opened the door. Nobody allowed him to tell his sideof the story.29.True, the injury certificate of the appellant indicateshim to have suffered some injuries. It is, however, reiteratedthat, the appellant’s son had no reason to speak against hisown father. The neighbours too witnessed the appellantassaulted his wife. Although P.W.1 Babita was the co-sister ofthe deceased, there is nothing to indicate her to have anyreason to grind an axe against the appellant. On appreciationof the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, we are notinclined to buy the defence version put up by the appellant inwriting before the Trial Court. In our view, the evidence onrecord proved the appellant to have committed murder of hiswife brutally. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with theorder of conviction passed by the Trial Court.30.So far as regards sentence part is concerned, weare inclined to withdraw the words “till his entire life” appearingin clause (1) of the operative order. Hence the order :-O R D E R(i)The Criminal Appeal is disposed of in following terms :- Cri.Appeal No.72/2020:: 19 ::(ii)The order dated 26/10/2018, passed by learnedSessions Judge, Latur in Sessions Case, No.11/2016,convicting the appellant for the offence punishable underSection 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him tosuffer life imprisonment is maintained. However, the words “tillhis entire life” in clause (1) of the operative order are herebywithdrawn.(NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.) (R.G. AVACHAT, J.) fmp/-