Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SADHANA S. JADHAV, SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ.
Dattatray Shankar Patil – Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 822 of 2012
Decided On : 11-03-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 201 and 302 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 313 - Commission of offence – Criminal Trial - Offence of Murder – Appeal against conviction - Whether Mangala had died because of suicide or because of strangulation - Appellant was suspecting character of his wife Mangala - They had a son from their marriage - Appellant and Mangala had got married on 26.5.2003 - At time of incident Mangala was four month’s pregnant - Their son Omkar was about five years of age - It is prosecution case that Appellant was suspecting Mangala’s character and was even disowning the paternity of their son - He also committed murder of Omkar by throttling Omkar - On some information, police came to his flat - When police and neighbours entered his flat, they found that both dead bodies were lying on floor.
Finding of the court:
Court find that evidence of DW-1 is very weak. There is nothing to show that the Appellant usually used to stay with him. The Appellant has not examined anybody from his office to show that he had taken half-day leave. He has also not produced on record anything to show that he did actually call Mangala about his not returning home for the night. DW-1 was admittedly his friend and had deposed at the Appellant’s instance - Court do not find any truth in Appellant’s defence - Even otherwise, his defence does not explain his conduct - He has stated in his statement under Section 313 of Cr.PC. that he reached his house at 7.30 a.m - He opened door with his keys - It is not his case that he was on inimical terms with any of his neighbours - He made a few phone calls instead - It is clear that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt - Appellant is rightly convicted and sentenced - Prosecution has sufficiently established this fact - Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with judgment and order passed by trial Court.
Result: Appeal is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
1. The Appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 21.6.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Vasai in Sessions Case No. 64/2010. The Appellant was convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. The Appellant was also convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC and was sentenced to suffer R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in default to suffer R.I. for six months. The Appellant was given set off for the period during which he was an under-trial prisoner. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2. Heard Shri Shailesh Kharat, learned counsel appointed for the Appellant and Smt. M.M. Deshmukh, learned APP for the State.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is as follows:
The Appellant was suspecting character of his wife Mangala. They had a son from their marriage. The Appellant and Mangala had got married on 26.5.2003. At the time of incident i.e. on 5.2.2010, Mangala was four month’s pregnant. Their son Omkar was about five years of age. It is the prosecution case that the Appellant was suspecting Mangala’s character and was even disowning the paternity of their son. In the night between 4.2.2010 to 5.2.2010, he committed murder of Mangala by strangulating her with an odhani. He also committed murder of Omkar by throttling Omkar. On some information, the police came to his flat about 8.00 a.m. on 5.2.2010. When the police and the neighbours entered his flat, they found that both the dead bodies were lying on the floor. One of the neighbours gave a complaint, which initially was recorded as accidental death report. In the meantime, Mangala’s father was informed. He came there. He expressed suspicion against the Appellant and he lodged his own FIR. The Appellant was arrested on 7.2.2010. The investigation was carried out. Blood was found in the nail clippings of Omkar and the Appellant. The blood group could not be determined. The investigation was carried out by recording statements of witnesses and carrying out various panchnamas. At the conclusion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The Appellant faced the trial as the sole accused and at the conclusion of the trial, he was convicted and sentenced as mentioned earlier.
4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined eighteen witnesses as follows:
| PW-1 | Maruti Varekar was Mangala’s father. He had lodged the FIR, which is produced on record at Exhibit-18. |
| PW-2 | Arjun Varekar was brother of the deceased. |
| PW-3 | Gautam Ahire and PW-4 Anand Tandel were the panchas for inquest panchnamas. |
| PW-5 | Prithviraj Shinde was a neighbour. He had given his accidental death report. |
| PW-6 | Chandrakant Gaidhane was a pancha for the arrest panchnama. |
| PW-7 | Mahendra Jaiswal and PW-9 Laxmi Jaiswal were other neighbours. |
| PW-8 | Anant Kulkarni had conducted the postmortem examination of both the dead bodies. |
| PW-10 | Vallukaran Anthory was a pancha for seizure of the Appellant’s baniyan and towel. |
| PW-11 | Mithun Rawat was a pancha for taking specimen handwriting of the Appellant. |
| PW-12 | Kamalakar Kumawat was a Police Officer who had gone to the Appellant’s building at about 5.00 a.m. but he had not actually gone to his flat. |
| PW-13 | Manish Thakkar was a pancha for seizure of the clothes of the deceased. |
| PW-14 | Bhavarlal Chavhan was a photographer, who had taken photographs at the spot and of the dead bodies. |
| PW-15 | Dr. Janardhan Bansode had examined the Appellant for his injuries. |
| PW-16 | Deepak Pandit was examined as an handwri |
SupremeToday
Prosecution has sufficiently established this fact - Court not inclined to interfere with judgment and order passed by the trial Court.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in homicide cases, relying on clear circumstantial evidence while providing plausible alternative explanations.
Murder - Conviction upheld - Medical evidence also shows that deceased had suffered injuries on head as mentioned earlier - Cause of death was “head injury.” Looking at nature of injuries, it is quit....
In cases of unnatural death in matrimonial homes, the husband bears the burden of proof to explain the circumstances, and conviction can be based on credible eyewitness testimony.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; circumstantial evidence must negate the innocence of the accused, which was not established in this case.
The burden of proving any exception to the definition of murder under section 300 of the IPC lies on the accused, and failure to discharge this burden can lead to upholding the conviction for murder.
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
