Back
2016 Supreme(Bom) 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR
B.R. Gavai, V.M. Deshpande, JJ.
Gajanan Chindhuji Atram - Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 528 OF 2014
Decided On : 22-07-2016
For the Respondent: Mr. T.A. Mirza, Addl. Public Prosecutor
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of medical evidence, witness testimonies, and the principle that when the deceased was under the custody of the husband at the relevant time, her death is to be construed as a custodial death, and the husband is to be explained the death of the victim which is within his special knowledge.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code - Conviction under Sections 302 and 498A - Summary of Acts and Sections: Indian Penal Code, Sections 302, 498A, and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act - The court discussed the evidence related to the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code and the Dowry Prohibition Act, and the findings of the trial court in convicting the appellant. The court also highlighted the medical evidence, witness testimonies, and chemical analyzer's report that led to the conclusion of the appellant's guilt.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code for the death of his wife Bhavna. The prosecution presented evidence of the appellant's involvement in the death, while the appellant claimed that the deceased committed suicide.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the death of Bhavna was homicidal, and the evidence pointed to the appellant as the author of the death. The court upheld the findings of the trial court and dismissed the appeal.
Issues: The main issue was whether the death of Bhavna was homicidal and if the appellant was responsible for her death.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on medical evidence, witness testimonies, and the appellant's failure to offer any explanation about the death of Bhavna, which was well within his special knowledge, to establish the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the appellant's conviction under Sections 302 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
V.M. Deshpande, J.
1. The present appeal is filed against the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Warora in Sessions Case No.5 of 2012, on 22nd of August, 2014. By the said, the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code. On account of his conviction for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant was directed to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. As well, for his conviction under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months.
Prosecution Case :
2. From the record of the sessions case, the prosecution case can be narrated as under :
(A) Deceased is Bhavna. She is daughter of Smt. Chandrabhaga Meshram (PW 3) and Shankar Meshram (PW 6). Her marriage took place with appellant on 6th of June, 2011. Her death occurred on 10th of November, 2011.
(B) On 10th of November, 2011, appellant came to the Police Station, Chimur and filed his report (Exh.27). By the said, it was intimated that the appellant is working as Security Guard in Wardha Power Plant at Warora. He resides as a tenant in a house owned by Shankar Jumde (PW 2) in Abadi Ward. He was not attending duty since last three months and depending on the pension of his mother. His mother Ahilyabai was admitted in the hospital at Chandrapur and his sister was with her. In the house, his wife (deceased) and his maternal aunt, whose name he does not know, were present.
(C) On 9th of November, 2011 at about 8.30 to 9.11 p.m., the deceased had been to a Flour Mill. That time, the appellant followed her and on that account there was a quarrel in between them and upon that, the appellant slapped her. Thereafter, both had dinner before going to the bed.
(D) Rameshwar Jayaram Piprewar (PW 9), Police Inspector, registered Accidental Death (AD) No.33 of 2011 on the basis of the report lodged by the appellant. He visited the spot of the incident in Abadi Ward. He found that the spot of incident was a kitchen of the house and dead body of Bhavna was lying there in a burnt condition. Police inspector Piprewar thereafter prepared Inquest Panchanama (Exh.18). He also prepared panchanama of the spot of occurrence (Exh.17) in presence of panch witnesses. From the spot he seized one kerosene Stove, one burnt matchstick, burnt clothes and one matchbox under Seizure Memo (Exh.19). He also took photographs of the spot of the incident with the help of photographer Shri Milind Raut (PW 7). The photographs are on record as Articles E/1 to E/6. Thereafter, he sent dead body for the PostMortem. He requested for primary PostMortem Report and accordingly the Medical Officer gave primary PostMortem Report, which is at Exh.33. According to the said, the doctor expressed his opinion that the death is due to asphyxia due to throttling and postmortem burns.
(E) In the meanwhile, Smt.Chandrabhaga Meshram (PW 3), the mother of Bhavna, approached to the Police Station and lodged her oral report (Exh.22). In the said report it was reported that the deceased was subjected to cruelty at the hands of the appellant for demand of gold ornaments and also the appellant used to take suspicion over her character. The Investigating Officer Rameshwar Piprewar (PW 9) registered a Crime on the basis of the report lodged by Smt.Chandrabhaga Meshram as C.R.No.98 of 2011 for the offence punishable under Sections 498A and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The printed FIR is at Exh.23. Thereafter, he arrested the appellant under arrest Memo (Exh.55). He was sent for medical examination. His Police Custody Remand (PCR) was obtained and during the said period he made a disclosure statement in the presence of panch
