J-cr-apeal-621-98.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 621 OF 1998

Sanjay @ Sanjeev Hanmant Nikam

Age 27 years, Occ. Service

R/o. Urul (Polachiwadi), Taluka Patan

Dist. Satara

..Appellant

Vs.

The State of Maharashtra

(to be served through the

learned Public Prosecutor

High Court (A.S.), Bombay)

..Respondent

-------

Mr. H.S. Venegaonkar a/w. Mr. Saurabh Kshirsagar for the

Appellant.

Mrs. M.M. Deshmukh, APP for the Respondent – State

-------

CORAM :

PRASANNA B. VARALE &

N.R.BORKAR, JJ.

RESERVED ON

:

20.07.2021.

PRONOUNCED ON

:

09.02.2022.

JUDGMENT (PER: N.R. BORKAR, J.)

1]

This appeal takes an exception to the judgment and

order dated 13.07.1998 passed by Additional Sessions Judge,

Satara in Sessions Case No. 190 of 1995. By the impugned

judgment and order, the appellant who was accused before

Dinesh Sherla

1/14

DINESH

SADANAND

SHERLA

Digitally signed by

DINESH SADANAND

SHERLA

Date: 2022.02.09

14:57:57 +0500

J-cr-apeal-621-98.doc

the trial court, has been convicted for the ofence punishable

under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and

sentenced to sufer R.I. for Life. The appellant has also been

convicted for the ofence punishable under section 498-A of

the IPC and sentenced to sufer R.I. for one year.

2]

The deceased Monika was the wife of accused. The

marriage of deceased was solemnized with the accused on

21.6.1991. The accused at the relevant time was serving in

Indian Army at Danapur, Patna in State of Bihar.

3]

According to the prosecution, after marriage, the

deceased was treated well for two years and thereafter, the

accused used to beat the deceased under the infuence of

liquor and used to suspect her character.

4]

The incident took place on 14.7.1995. According to the

prosecution few days prior to the incident the deceased, due

to harassment of the accused was brought to her parents’

house. In May, 1995, the accused came to his native place on

leave. According to the prosecution, the message was sent to

Dinesh Sherla

2/14

J-cr-apeal-621-98.doc

the parents of the deceased to send the deceased for

cohabitation with the accused. According to the prosecution

after much reluctance the deceased was sent to the house of

accused for cohabitation at his native village Urul. According to

the prosecution, on the day of incident, the accused

committed murder of deceased by smothering her.

5]

The report in relation to the incident was lodged. On the

basis of said report, the crime was registered against the

accused for the ofences punishable under sections 302 and

498-A of the IPC. On completion of investigation, the charge-

sheet was fled against the accused.

6]

The accused was charged and tried for the aforesaid

ofences. As stated earlier, the trial Court, by the impugned

judgement and order, convicted the accused for the charges

framed against him.

7]

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant/

accused and the learned APP for the respondent -State.

Dinesh Sherla

3/14

J-cr-apeal-621-98.doc

8]

The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the

trial court has erred in appreciating the evidence on record in

it’s correct perspective and arrived at wrong conclusion. It is

submitted that the trial court has erred in holding that the

death of deceased was homicidal. It is further submitted that

the evidence in relation to alleged harassment to the deceased

is also not convincing. It is submitted that thus the impugned

judgment and order of the trial court needs to be set aside and

the accused needs to be acquitted of the charges framed

against him.

9]

On the other hand, the learned APP for the respondent/

State submits that the trial court on the basis of evidence on

record was justifed in holding that the death of deceased was

homicidal. It is submitted that the trial court on the basis of

evidence on record was also justifed in convic