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

2021 Supreme(Bom) 215

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT AURANGABAD
RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, B.U. DEBADWAR, JJ.
Saraswati – Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 40 of 2015
Decided On : 19-01-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Aniket Vagal.
For the Respondent: R.D. Sanap.

Headnote:

HOMICIDE - Indian Penal Code - Section 302 - [SUMMARY OF ACT SECTIONS: Indian Penal Code - Section 302] - The court analyzed the evidence and concluded that the death of the deceased was homicidal based on the injuries suffered. The testimony of seven witnesses was scrutinized, and the court found that doubt had been created regarding the guilt of the accused. The court also highlighted the inadequacies in the prosecution's case, including the casual and halfhearted conduct of the trial, and the failure to properly cross-examine hostile witnesses. Ultimately, the court granted the benefit of doubt to the accused and ordered her acquittal.

Fact of the Case:

The deceased was found dead in his house, and the appellant, his wife, was convicted for his murder. The appellant appealed the conviction, arguing that the evidence presented by the prosecution was insufficient to establish her guilt.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the evidence presented by the prosecution was not sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The court highlighted the doubts created by the testimony of the witnesses and the inadequacies in the prosecution's case.

Issues: The issues revolved around the sufficiency of the evidence to establish the guilt of the accused, the credibility of the witnesses, and the conduct of the trial by the prosecution.

Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principle that if the case of the prosecution appears to be improbable or if doubt has been created based on the evidence, the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused. The court also emphasized the need for efficient trial conduct and proper examination of witnesses.

Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and acquitted the appellant from the charge of committing an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The court also directed the Trial Court to initiate action under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against all hostile witnesses in the case.

JUDGMENT :

RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.

1. By this appeal, the appellant/original accused, prays for quashing and setting aside the judgment and order of conviction delivered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai, District Beed dated 11.09.2014 in Sessions Case No. 1/2014. By virtue of the said judgment, the appellant (Saraswati W/o Ganpat Landge) has been convicted for the offence of murdering her husband (Ganpat Landge), punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. She has been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- or suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months.

2. We have heard the learned advocate for the appellant and the learned prosecutor on behalf of the prosecution. With their assistance, we have gone through the appeal paper book, the record and proceedings and the muddemal. 3. The prosecution has been successful in proving the charge leveled upon the accused on the basis of the following factors:-

(a) The deceased Ganpat Shankar Landge and his wife Saraswati, the appellant herein, were residing in Gaval Galli, Ravivar Peth, Ambajogai. They had five daughters and one son. All the daughters are married. An agricultural land admeasuring about 3 to 4 acres was in the name and in the possession of the deceased. Because of his constant quarrels with the appellant, he was intending to donate it to any religious trust/Devasthan or a person, who would maintain him during his old age. This was said to be a primary reason for the quarrels between the couple.

(b) On 10.10.2013, early in the morning the deceased Ganpat Landge was found dead in his house. It was obviously an unnatural death. The appellant had herself traveled to the Police Station and made a statement that she had murdered her husband. On hearing this, the concerned Police Officer informed the Station House Officer Mr. Tribhuvan on telephone. He has taken such entry in the Station Diary. On receiving the telephonic message, Mr. Tribhuvan, who was on night duty at the Yogeshwari Temple, Ambajogai, proceeded to the place of incident along with some constables. He found the dead body of Ganpat with injuries on his head, face, all over the body and even his genitals. He found pieces of bangles, a wound plank, a blanket, an old bucket, a faint sky colour blouse and sky colour saree, at the spot. All these articles were stained with blood. Mr. Pradip Tribhuvan seized all those articles, collected simple earth and blood stained earth. He prepared the spot panchanama Exhibit-28, an inquest panchanama Exhibit-14 and referred the dead body for postmortem.

(c) Mr. Tribhuvan recorded the statements of Tukaram Ganpat Landge (PW-2), who is the son of the deceased. Tukaram narrated that there used to be frequent quarrels between his parents. On one occasion, his father had fractured the limb of his mother and in a subsequent fight, the appellant had fractured the limb of the deceased.

(d) He narrated that at about 09:00 PM on 09.10.2013, a quarrel erupted between his parents on account of the agricultural land while they were taking meals. Though he requested them to stop quarreling, both were uncontrollable. Being fed up, Tukaram left his home and slept at the Bus Stand at Ambajogai. After about half an hour, he started feeling cold and he traveled to the house of his married sister Satyasheela Atmaram Vaidya, who was also residing at Ambajogai. He stayed with her in her residence that night.

(e) At about 06:40 AM on 10.10.2013, his sister woke him up and said that the Police had informed her that “Bai” (their mother) had killed “Anna” (their father). Both of them reached their house and saw a wooden plank in broken condition, their father lying dead on the ground with multiple injuries, there was blood splattered on the ground. Injuries were noticeable on his head, ear, upper and lower limbs and his genitals. By that time, the appellant/their mother had reached the Police Station.

(f) After recording of evidence and voluntary statement

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top