2013 Supreme(Bom) 944
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
V.K. TAHILRAMANI & P.D. KODE, JJ.
Sudhakar Krishna Uthekar
Vs.
State of Maharashtra
Criminal Appeal No.1391 of 2008
Decided on : 7th May, 2013
Mr. NITESH NEVSHE, appointed Advocate for the Appellant.
Mr. V.B. KONDE-DESHMUKH, APP for the State.
Headnote:[Indian] Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Cr PC, 1973, Section 313 - Conviction under Section 302, IPC.
Where chain of circumstantial evidence was complete and leading to sole inference of guilt of accused, causing murder of deceased by hitting stone upon her head therefore conviction of accused just and proper.
P.D. KODE, J.
The appellant-original accused assails the judgment and order dated 24th March. 2006 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Raigad-Alibag in Sessions Case No.176 of 2003, convicting him for committing the murder of his wife and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.100/-, and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for seven days.
2. According to prosecution, the appellant alongwith wife Archana and two sons Sujit and Ajit was residing at Boravale, Taluka Poladpur. Dist. Raigad. The appellant was often falling sick and used to quarrel with Archana on suspicion of herself having committed some sort of witchcraft upon him.
2.1 PW 1 Dnyaneshwar Kank is husband of Savita, sister of the appellant. He was working as Security Guard in 'Hycal Company' at Nangalwadi. On 8th May, 2003 at about 10.30 hrs. the appellant alongwith wife and children came to the house of PW 1. On the said day, at about 7.00 p.m. appellant quarreled with Archana by saying that he is again getting pains in the abdomen and upon suspicion that Archana has committed witchcraft started abusing her. He went for assaulting her by catching he throat. PW 1 then told him that since they were his guest, they should enjoy visit instead of quarreling with each other. PW 1 and Savita pacified the quarrel. PW 1 left the house at about 22.00 hours for attending night shift. The appellant, his wife and wife of PW 1 and the children were then at his house.
2.2 According to the prosecution, PW 1 returned at about 7.45 hrs. on 9th May Savita informed him that Archana after bath at about 7.00 a.m. went towards hill region of northern side of the village for answering call of nature and the appellant followed her. She told that the appellant just returned and told her that he murdered Archana by hitting stone upon her head when she had been for answering call of nature. On inquiry by PW 1, the appellant told him that he had killed Archana by hitting stone upon her head. PW 1 not believing it took the appellant alongwith him to ascertain if Archana had died and found herselflying dead in hilly region due to stone injury on her head. After returning alongwith the appellant, PW 1 narrated the matters to his nephew Pravin also residing at Nangelwadi. Even after asking Pravin, the appellant reiterated of having killed Archana by hitting stone upon her head. PW 1 thereafter narrating such matters lodged First Information Report Exh.29 against the appellant with Mahad MIDC Police Station. On the basis of said Report at 10.35 hrs., crime No.21/2003 was registered at said Police Station.
2.3 The investigation of the said crime was carried by PW4 PSI Rupsingh Deore which included drawing of inquest panchanama (Exh.24), drawing of spot panchanama (Exh.25), collecting Postmortem Notes (Exh.32) prepared by PW3 Dr. Shivaji Pawar of autopsy of corpse carried by him at Primary Health Center, Birwadi Taluka Mahad sending of mudemaal articles to the Chemical Analyser and recording of statements of witnesses including father of deceased PW-2 Namdeo Balu Kadam. Dy. S.P. Pathak carried out further investigation in said crime and as a result of investigation, he charge-sheeted the appellant for having committed murder of wife Archana.
3. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge (Exh.21) framed against him by the Court of Sessions for the offence of committing murder of wife Archana, after the case was committed to the said Court. The prosecution examined in all above-referred four witnesses at the trial. The defence of the appellant was of total denial and false implication. Significantly enough, the appellant during his examination under Section 313 of Cr. P.C., admitted that he had been to the house of PW 1 alongwith deceased Archana as guest.
4. The trial Court after assessment of the prosecution evidence came to the conclusion that Archana had met with homicidal death and the appellant had committed her murder by hitting ston