SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2013 Supreme(Bom) 502

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
V.K. TAHILRAMANI & SADHANA S. JADHAV, JJ.
Anna Manku Mane
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra
Criminal Appeal No. 964 of 2006
Decided on: 4th March, 2013

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. ARFAN SAIT, Advocate appointed for Appellant.
Mrs. SHILPA GAJARE-DHUMAL, APP for State.

Headnote:[Indian] Penal Code, 1860 - Section 300 - Conviction for murder.

       Where deceased wife died due to strangulation by wet saree and accused husband absconding from date of incident and traced out 14 years after incident therefore conviction of accused just and proper.

       

JUDGMENT

SMT. V. K. T AHILRAMANI, J.

1. The appellant-original accused has filed this appeal against Judgment and Order dated 27th January, 2006 passed by the learned IIIrd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Baramati, Dist. Pune in Sessions Case No. 20 of 2005. By the said Judgment and Order. the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- in default S.I. for six months.

2. The prosecution case briefly stated is as under:

(i) The appellant was married to Kamal. They had two children. Kamal was the daughter of P.W. 2 Sheelabai Dhotre. Sheelabai was residing at Zargadwadi, Taluka-Baramati, District-Pune. About 2½ months prior to the incident the appellant and his wife Kamal i.e. daughter of Sheelabai alongwith children of appellant and Kamal started residing behind the house of Sheelabai. On 12/2/1991 it was Mahashivratri. In the morning quarrel took place between deceased Kamal and Appellant. Kamal asked appellant to fetch something to break the fast. Hence, quarrel broke out between the two of them. Kamal then went to wash clothes. Her niece Baidabai who was residing with P.W. 2 Sheelabai accompanied her. Baidabai was sitting on the boundary of land and Kamal was washing clothes. At that time appellant came there. He started abusing Kamal. He then took green saree among the bundle of clothes brought for washing. The saree was wet. The appellant then strangulated Kamal with the said saree. Baidabai ran to the house of grand parents i.e. P.W.2 Sheelabai and informed her about the incident. Baidabai showed the parents of Kamal where the dead body was lying. They found that Kamal was strangulated with the 9 yards saree. The appellant was not seen anywhere. Someone informed the police. The police lodged A.D.R. No.2 of 1991. During enquiry they found that it is a case of murder and that Kamal had been strangulated. PSI Yadav lodged FIR under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code on the very same day i.e. on 12/2/1991. Thereafter investigation commenced.

(ii) The dead body of Kamal was sent for post-mortem. P.W. 3 Dr. Deokate performed the post-mortem on the dead body of Kamal. On external examination Dr. Deokate found diffused ligature mark around the neck 34 cm. x 4 cm. Anteriorly middle 1/3 of neck and going horizontally to posterior side. The injury was ante mortem. On internal examination, Doctor found subcutaneous hemorrhage below the ligature mark. Both the lungs were congested and odematus on cut surface (swollen). Bloodstained fine frothy fluid was seen. Pericardium was congested. Both chambers of heart contained dark blood. Liver, bladder, pancrea suprarel kidneys congested. Cause of death was asphyxia due to pulmonary oedema due to strangulation. Dr. Deokate opined that since ligature mark was running horizontally, hanging was ruled out. The strangulation is possible by saree article No. 1 if used in wet condition. In ordinary course such strangulation can cause death. Search was made for the appellant but he could not be found. The appellant was traced on 24/2/2005 i.e. 14 years after the incident. He came to be arrested on 24/2/2005. After completion of investigation chargesheet came to be filed. In due course, case was committed to the Court of Sessions.

3. Charge came to be framed against the appellant under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed to be tried. The defence is that of total denial and false implication. After going through the evidence adduced in this case, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated in paragraph No. 1, hence this appeal.

4. We have heard Mr. Arfan Sait, learned Advocate appointed for the appellant and Mrs. Shilpa Gajare-Dhumal, learned APP for the State. After carefully considering the arguments of both the sides, the Judgment and Order passed by the learned Sessions Judge and the evidence












Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top