Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
V.K. JADHAV, SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, JJ.
Madhav Dhondiba Wadwale – Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary Home Department Mantralaya Mumbai – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 392, 294 of 2014
Decided on : 06-01-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 498-A, 307, 34, 316 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 428, 357(1), 313 – Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 3 - Whether it was a case of strangulation or throttling - Whether when P.W.2 (victim) was discharged she was not handicapped - Whether weapon was carried by accused or was picked up from spot - Whether blow is aimed at a vital part of body – Whether amount of force employed in causing injury - Whether act was in course of sudden quarrel or sudden right or free for all fight - Whether incident occurs by chance or whether there was any pre-meditation - Whether there was any prior enmity or whether deceased was a stranger - Whether there was any grave and sudden provocation, and if so, cause for such provocation - Whether it was in heat of passion - Whether person inflicting injury has taken undue advantage or has acted in a cruel and unusual manner - Whether accused dealt a single blow or several blows – Held, As sentence part is concerned, Court is not inclined to reduce sentence only for reason that appellants accused persons are ready to give their consent to grant more compensation to P.W.2 (victim) for reducing sentence - However, at same time, Court cannot ignore that trial court has given maximum punishment to all appellants accused - Trial court has observed that P.W.2 (victim) was newly married girl and within one year of her marriage, she was assaulted in a very brutal manner - P.W.2 (victim) cannot stand and walk herself - She was actually brought in court room by lifting her - Fingers of her hands and legs are flexed - However, appellant accused No.1 Madhav was 23 years of age at time of incident - Furthermore, appellant-accused Dhondiba and Chandrakalabai are at present more than 70 years of age - Thus, on this backdrop reducing sentence appropriately passed against them would meet ends of justice - Though Court have given thoughtful consideration to submissions made on behalf of appellant accused No.2 (father-in-law) and appellant accused No.3 (mother-in-law) for reducing their sentence for reason that main role has been attributed to appellant accused No.1 and they have merely assisted him, however, it is clear case of premeditation and common intention - Manner in which appellant accused No.2 and appellant accused No.3 alongwith their daughter entered in the kitchen room from another door as soon as appellant accused No.1 entered in kitchen from outside door and given blows of kicks on abdomen of P.W. 2 (victim) and further appellant accused No.2 had handed over nylon rope prepared from fertilizer gunny bag to appellant accused No.1, case of appellant accused No.2 and appellant accused No.3 cannot be separated even for reducing sentence substantially by paying more compensation - Appeal disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
V.K. JADHAV, J.
1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kandhar dated 23.5.2014 in Sessions Case No.23 of 2004, the appellant - original-accused No.1 Madhav Dhondiba Wadwale preferred criminal appeal No. 392 of 2014 and appellants-accused No.2 and 3 i.e. Dhondiba Devrao Wadwale and Chandrakalabai Dhondiba Wadwale, respectively, preferred criminal appeal No. 294 of 2014.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the prosecution case are as follows:-
b) On 20.01.2004 at noon when P.W.2 Savita (victim) was cleaning the paddy rice grains in kitchen room, at that time appellant accused No.1 Madhav entered in the room and by closing the door of kitchen room from inside, had given two kicks on the abdomen of P.W.2 Savita (victim). The parents of appellant accused No.1 Madhav i.e. accused Nos. 2 and 3, who are appellants in criminal appeal No. 294 of 2014 also entered in the said kitchen room. The appellant accused No.2 Dhondiba had given a nylon rope to appellant accused No.1 Madhav and accused Madhav wrapped the said nylon rope around the neck of P.W.2 Savita (victim) and started twisting it. The appellant accused No.2 Dhondiba caught hold of the hands of P.W.2 Savita (victim) and appellant accused No.3 Chandrakalabai caught hold of her legs. The appellants accused persons have attempted to strangulate P.W.2 Savita (victim). P.W.2 Savita (victim) had made efforts to loose the rope wrapped around her neck. She was succeeded in removing the rope from her neck. Thereafter, the appellants accused had taken her in another room. The appellant accused No.1 Madhav given shock on her both the buttocks by soldering machine. Though P.W.2 Savita (victim) had raised shouts, but at that time the volume of TV was deliberately increased by the accused persons. Further the appellant Madhav had given electric shock on the thigh of P.W.2 Savita (victim) and she became unconscious.
c) P.W.2 Savita (victim) was taken to Apex hospital at Nanded on 20.1.2004 at 4.25 p.m. The concerned treating doctor has given M.L.C. intimation to Vajirabad police station, Nanded. P.W.2 Savita (victim) was unconscious when she was admitted in the said hospital. Her condition was critical. There was bleeding from her nose and ears. Blood was clotted in her eyes. Froth was coming from her mouth. The treating doctor has noted one lenier contused wound on her throat which was extending from right to left ear. The treating doctor has noted another injury on her both hips and the third injury was contused lacerted wound on left thigh. In the cross examination, the treating doctor has admitted that there was swelling on lungs. P.W.2 Savita (vict
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
