Back
2017 Supreme(Bom) 1523
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR
VASANTI A. NAIK, M.G. GIRATKAR, JJ.
Sudhakar – Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra, Through the P.S.O. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 39 of 2017
Decided On : 22-09-2017
For the Appellant :S.P. Kulkarni, Advocate
For the Respondent: A.M. Joshi, A.P.P.
The judgment establishes the significance of circumstantial evidence, the burden of proof on the accused in cases of offences committed inside a house, and the application of Section 106 of the Evidence Act to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Headnote:
Conviction - Indian Penal Code - Section 302
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of his wife. The prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence as there were no eyewitnesses to the incident. The appellant's defense included total denial, accidental death, and plea of alibi.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant's motive to kill his wife was proved by the prosecution as he was addicted to liquor, used to demand money from his wife, and had a history of ill-treating her. The medical evidence supported the conclusion that the death was homicidal and not accidental. The court also noted that the appellant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for his wife's injuries and took a false plea of alibi. The court held that the prosecution had proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and upheld the conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the reliability of the circumstantial evidence, the appellant's motive, and the sufficiency of the prosecution's case to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda and emphasized the importance of circumstantial evidence in cases where the offence takes place inside the privacy of a house. The court also invoked Section 106 of the Evidence Act to shift the burden of proof to the appellant to explain the circumstances of the crime, which he failed to do.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant's conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was upheld.
M.G. Giratkar, J.
1. Appellant has challenged Judgment of conviction dated 7th January, 2016 of Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur in Sessions Trial No.98 of 2012, by which appellant is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months.
2. The case of prosecution against appellant, in short, is as under:
Appellant and his wife deceased Mayabai were residing together in the house at Tohgaon. Their son namely Ravindra was residing at Bhadravati and daughter Pinki was married and residing with her husband at village Amboli, Tq.Chamorshi, District Gadchiroli
3. As per the case of prosecution, appellant/accused was addicted to liquor. He used to snatch money from his wife and consume liquor. He always used to beat his deceased wife under the influence of liquor. Due to behaviour of appellant, his son Ravindra was residing separately at Bhadravati.
4. In the night of incident, appellant and his wife only were in their house. In the evening, deceased Mayabai had been to the house of Anita Misalwar (PW2) and she talked with her. Deceased told her that accused always used to beat her and she was under fear of death at the hands of appellant. She returned to the house.
5. Early in the morning, on 26.6.2012, Anita (PW2) was informed by Anjanabai that accused came to her and disclosed her that deceased was lying in the house. Therefore, Anita, Anjanabai along with Gulab Itankar went to the house of appellant/accused. They found deceased lying on the cot. Her blouse was removed and tied to leg. There were injuries on her neck and chest. Blood was oozing from her nose. Anita (PW2) was sure that the appellant has committed murder of his wife. Therefore, she immediately informed to Police Patil and went to Police Station and lodged report vide Exh.13. Crime was registered vide Printed F.I.R. (Exh.14). Anita also informed about the incident to the son and daughter of the appellant on telephone.
6. A.P.I. Hemant Chandekar (PW6) reached to the spot of incident and prepared spot panchanama. He seized pillow cover and pieces of bangles. Pillow cover was stained with blood. He took photographs of dead body (Exh.23). He prepared inquest panchanama vide (Exh.25). Thereafter, he sent the dead body for postmortem examination. The Investigating Officer arrested the accused and seized his clothes. His dhoti and baniyan were stained with blood. I.O. also seized blood samples of deceased and clothes as per seizure panchanama (Exh.28). I.O. obtained the documents of ownership from the Gram Panchayat and recorded statements of witnesses. After complete investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Court.
7. Charge was framed at Exh.4 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Same was read over and explained to the appellant in vernacular. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Defence of the appellant appears to be of total denial, accidental death and plea of alibi. The appellant has taken alternate defence.
8. Mrs. S.P.Kulkarni, learned Counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that evidence of Anita (PW2) is not reliable because there was no good relations between the appellant and this witness. Learned Counsel submitted that there are material omission in her evidence. She has further submitted that evidence of Ravindra Misalwar (PW3) and Pinki Sandukwar (PW5) is also not reliable because they had also not good relations with the appellant. Learned Counsel has submitted that the trial Court has wrongly convicted the appellant. Therefore, it is prayed to allow the appeal and acquit the appellant.
9. Heard Mr.Ambarish Joshi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent/State. He has strongly supported the impugned Judgment. He has submitted that circumstantial evidence are proved by prosecution. Presence of appellant is not denied. D
