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

2022 Supreme(Bom) 631

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SADHANA S. JADHAV, MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ.
Babu Vansha Gangad – Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra through Talasari Police Station – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 113 of 2016
Decided on : 05-04-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Ms. Nasreen Ayubi, Advocate
For the Respondent: Ms. P.P. Shinde, adv

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 and 307 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 209, 313 - Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 3 - Seriously Injured - Blow Of Weapon - First informant was at his house and Jethibai was in courtyard of their house - At that time first informant heard Jethibai's scream that accused Babu had assaulted her and therefore he rushed towards Jethibai - On seeing first informant accused started running away with weapon in his hand - Jethibai was seriously injured and bleeding due to injury on right side of her neck - Jethibai informed first informant that accused had given a blow of weapon on her neck – Held, Court find that there are serious shortcomings in prosecution's case to prove that accused had killed Jethibai - Evidence given by PW-1 to PW-4 is contradictory in itself - None of prosecution witnesses have seen accused committing offence, in fact PW-1 to PW-4 have categorically stated that they did not see accused assaulting Jethibai - Hence prosecution's evidence is demonstrably unreliable and does not inspire any confidence and in any case is insufficient for convicting accused of offence under section 302 IPC – Court may add that this is a case of "no evidence" against accused – Court is of considered opinion that learned Trial court has erroneously arrived at conclusion that accused is guilty of act to commit murder of Jethibai and in view of unreliable evidence given by PW-1 to PW-4 as established herein above, impugned judgment is not sustainable and deserves to be interfered with – Court is not convinced that evidence adduced by prosecution is sufficient to prove guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC as determined by Trial court - Appeal disposed of.

JUDGMENT :

MILIND N. JADHAV, J.

1. This is an Appeal against conviction of the Appellant by the Trial Court. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palghar by judgment dated 04.09.2015 has convicted Babu Vansha Gangad (Appellant-original accused) of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC") and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in case of default in the payment of fine, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. For the sake of convenience we shall refer to the Appellant as accused.

2. The case of the prosecution is as under:-

2.1. The incident took place on 23.04.2003. At about 08.00 p.m., the first informant was at his house and Jethibai was in the courtyard of their house. At that time the first informant heard Jethibai's scream that accused Babu had assaulted her and therefore he rushed towards Jethibai. On seeing the first informant the accused started running away with the weapon in his hand.

2.2. The first informant - Zinya Gangad is the elder brother of the accused. The deceased - Jethibai was the wife of the first informant and sister-in-law of the accused. The first informant and accused were jointly residing with their mother Ladku and Jethibai at village Vadavli, Bhojpada, Palghar. The first informant was employed in Prestige Company. The accused is unmarried.

2.3. Jethibai was seriously injured and bleeding due to the injury on the right side of her neck. Jethibai informed the first informant that the accused had given a blow of the weapon on her neck. Because of the commotion, people gathered and Jethibai was taken to government hospital in an auto rickshaw. Since the nature of injury sustained by Jethibai was serious, she was shifted to Haria Hospital at Vapi.

2.4. The first informant immediately lodged a report at Talasari Police Station and Crime No. 37/2003 (FIR) came to be registered for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC at 08.20 p.m. against the accused.

2.5. On 24.04.2003 i.e. the next day Mr. Nagare, Police Inspector visited the incident spot along with two panchas and carried out seizure of certain articles; viz. the mangalsutra, necklace having black beads, lungi, plain soil and soil mixed with blood from the scene of crime. The seized items were sent for Chemical Analyser's report.

2.6. On 25.04.2003 Jethibai succumbed to the injury in the hospital. Police Inspector Kailas Nagare, PW-9 who had recorded the FIR prepared the inquest panchanama in the presence of panchas and referred the dead body for post-mortem.

2.7. After the incident, the accused absconded. In absence of the accused, the Investigating Officer (I.O.) filed the charge sheet in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dahanu. The Judicial Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions under the provisions of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "Cr.P.C.") as the case was triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions.

2.8. The accused was arrested in the year 2010 and thereafter produced before the District Judge-I and Additional Sessions Judge, Palghar for framing of charge. The charges against the accused were read out and explained to him in vernacular language. The accused denied his complicity in the offence by a total denial. However by the impugned judgment the learned Trial court found the accused guilty of committing the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to pay fine, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month.

3. The Appeal was admitted on 08.02.2016 and on that date, Ms. Nasreen S.K. Ayubi, Advocate from the panel of Advocates of the High Court Legal Services Committee was appointed to represent and espouse the cause of the accused.

4. Ms. Nasreen S.K. Ayubi, learned Advocate appearing for the accused has submitted that the impugned judgment has been passed without appreciating the factual and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top