Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT AURANGABAD
RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & B.U. DEBADWAR, JJ.
Sanjay – Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 585 of 2014
Decided On : 17-02-2021
CRIMINAL - MURDER - SECTION 302 IPC - CONVICTION - EVIDENCE - SOLE EYE WITNESS - CHILD WITNESS - CORROBORATION - DISCOVERY OF CRIME WEAPON - MOTIVE - INTENTION TO KILL - SUFFICIENCY OF INJURIES TO CAUSE DEATH - SECTION 300 IPC - DISTINCTION BETWEEN CLAUSES (2), (3) AND (4) - CASE HELD TO FALL UNDER CLAUSE (3) - APPEAL DISMISSED.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted of murdering his wife by beating her with a stick. The prosecution's case was based on the evidence of the couple's son, who was 9 years old at the time of the incident. The defense argued that the son's evidence was unreliable and that the appellant should have been convicted of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) instead of murder under Section 302 IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the son's evidence was reliable and that it was corroborated by the discovery of the murder weapon and the motive for the crime. The court also held that the injuries suffered by the deceased were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and that the appellant had the intention to kill her. Therefore, the court dismissed the appeal and upheld the appellant's conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC.
Issues: 1. Whether the evidence of the sole eye witness, a child witness, was reliable and sufficient to convict the appellant of murder. 2. Whether the discovery of the crime weapon and the motive for the crime corroborated the evidence of the sole eye witness. 3. Whether the injuries suffered by the deceased were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 4. Whether the appellant had the intention to kill the deceased. 5. Whether the case fell under Section 302 IPC (murder) or Section 304 Part II IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder).
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The evidence of a child witness can be reliable and sufficient to convict an accused of a crime, provided that the child is able to understand the questions put to them and give rational answers, and that there is no likelihood of the child being tutored. 2. The discovery of the crime weapon and the motive for the crime can corroborate the evidence of a sole eye witness. 3. Injuries that are sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature are sufficient to support a conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC, even if the accused did not intend to kill the victim. 4. The intention to kill can be inferred from the nature of the injuries inflicted, the weapon used, and the motive for the crime. 5. A case falls under Section 302 IPC (murder) if the injuries inflicted are sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and the accused had the intention to kill the victim. A case falls under Section 304 Part II IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) if the injuries inflicted are sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature but the accused did not have the intention to kill the victim.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed and the appellant's conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC was upheld.
JUDGMENT :
B.U. Debadwar, J.
1. This appeal, under Section 374(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as ‘Cr.P.C.’), has been directed against the judgment and order dated 16-08-2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Latur, in Sessions Case No. 124 of 2013, thereby convicting the appellant/accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as ‘I.P.C.’) and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only), in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months.
2. Facts unfolding the case of the prosecution in the nutshell are as under :
a) Deceased Umabai, a middle aged lady, was the wife of the appellant/accused. The couple was blessed with two daughters and two sons. Both the daughters were married. The appellant/accused was original resident of District Parbhani. He had migrated to Latur for earning livelihood. Satish Bora (DW3) had employed him as a watchman at his construction site, situated at New Adarsh Colony, Latur. The appellant/accused along with his father, wife Umabai and two sons namely Akash and Vikas used to reside at the construction site. Elder daughter of appellant/accused and deceased Umabai by name Sheela Dilip Raibhole (PW2) used to reside with her husband in Narsinh Nagar, Latur.
b) Appellant/accused was in habit of drinking liquor. He used to pick up quarrel and beat wife Umabai, suspecting her character. On 08-07-2013 at about 10:30 p.m., as usual, appellant/accused had come to house in drunken state and started quarreling and beating wife Umabai, after raising doubt about her fidelity. Father and sons of the appellant/accused tried to give him understanding, but in vain. Since, appellant/accused had become violent and was not in a mood to listen to father and sons, father and elder son of the appellant/accused left the house and proceeded to Parbhani. When wife Umabai and younger son Vikas (PW3) remained in the house, appellant/accused mercilessly beat wife Umabai with a solid stick. Consequently, deceased Umabai suffered 22 injuries all over the body and ultimately succumbed to the said injuries in the house itself.
c) Soon after deceased Umabai’s lying in supine condition without giving response, appellant/accused along with the younger son Vikas (PW3) rushed to the house of Sheela (PW2) situated in Narsinh Nagar, Latur, and informed her about the incident. Since, appellant/accused was under the influence of liquor, Sheela (PW2), by taking brother Vikas (PW3) aside from the appellant/accused, asked him in detail about the incident. On Vikas’s disclosing her about the incident and the death of Umabai, Sheela along with her husband and brother Vikas left her house and proceeded to the house of appellant/accused, situated at the construction site of Satish Bora (DW3) and saw her mother Umabai lying in the house in dead condition, with injuries all over the body. Then, along with brother Vikas, went to Shivajinagar Police Station, Latur, and lodged the report narrating the incident referred above.
d) On the basis of the said report lodged by Sheela (PW2), Crime bearing No. 129 of 2013, for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C., came to be registered at Shivajinagar Police Station, Latur, on 09-07-2013 at about 04:10 a.m.
e) The investigation of the said crime was carried by Rajkumar Ganpatrao Sonawane (PW5), Police Inspector. During the course of investigation, initially, inquest panchanama of the dead body of Umabai was drawn by proceeding to the spot of incident along with panchas, then, dead body of Umabai was sent to the Government Medical College and Hospital, Latur, for conducting postmortem, along with copy of the inquest and requisition for conducting postmortem. Thereafter, in presence of panchas, spot panchanama was drawn and blood found on the spot was collected with cotton swab in a plastic box, and the same was packed and sealed. Then, appellant/accused was arres
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
