Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1438 (BOM)

Sitaram Dattu Shinde v. State of Maharashtra

2006-09-12

NISHITA MHATRE, V.G.PALSHIKAR

body2006
Smt. NISHIT A MHA TRE, J.:- The appellant challenges the judgment and order of 20th September, 2001 in Sessions Case No.98 of 2000. The Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli has convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to life imprisonment. 2. The prosecution case is that the appellant has killed his wife in the night of 2nd and 3rd April, 2000. He used an axe to inflict the fatal injuries on his wife. The body of the victim was discovered early next morning when a neighbour saw it lying in a pool of blood. The axe was seized at the instance of the appellant. The clothes of the appellant which were seized were stained with blood belonging to group 'B'. The victim's blood group also was 'B' and all her clothing and ornaments which she was wearing when she was assaulted were stained with blood of the same group. An extrajudicial confession made by the accused is also relied on by the prosecution. Besides this, the son of the appellant and the victim who has been examined has deposed that his father, the appellant, was addicted to liquor. He had quarrelled with the victim during the previous night. The son has also stated that the appellant's addiction to liquor was a bone of contention between his parents. 3. With the assistance of the learned Advocate appointed for the appellant and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, we have scrutinised the entire evidence on record and the impugned judgment. We find that the learned trial Court has considered all aspects of the matter and the evidence led before him to draw a proper inference that the appellant is guilty as charged. 4. The prosecution has placed reliance on the deposition of 9 witnesses. PW1 and PW-2 are the Panch witnesses who have deposed to the arrest panchanama and the Spot Panchanama. PW -3 is the son of the appellant. PW-4 is a shopkeeper who met the appellant at about 4.30 am on 3.4.2000. PW-5 is the victim's brother. PW-6 is the neighbour, who claims that the appellant had quarreled with his wife under the influence of liquor. PW-7 is a neighbour residing behind the appellant's house who alerted PW-3 about his mother's death. PW-8 is the Medical Officer who performed the postmortem examination on the dead body. PW9 is the Investigating Officer. PW-5 is the victim's brother. PW-6 is the neighbour, who claims that the appellant had quarreled with his wife under the influence of liquor. PW-7 is a neighbour residing behind the appellant's house who alerted PW-3 about his mother's death. PW-8 is the Medical Officer who performed the postmortem examination on the dead body. PW9 is the Investigating Officer. 5. The learned Advocate for the appellant submitted before us that the recovery of the axe at the instance of the appellant should not be accepted by the Court. He submits that the Spot Panchanama was drawn up on 3.4.2000 at Exhi,bit 10 before the Sessions Court. There is no mention in the panchanama of any axe being found at the spot. However, the Spot Panchanama conducted on 4.4.2000 and which is exhibited at Exhibit 19 indicates that the appellant had disclosed where he had hidden the axe. The learned Advocate submits that such a recovery cannot be accepted as, had the axe in fact been used by the appellant for murdering his wife it would have been found when the Spot Panchanama was drawn on 3.4.2000 itself. The learned Advocate also points out that PW4 i.e., the shopkeeper who had seen the appellant in the early hours of 3.4.2000 has stated that the appellant was wearing blood stained clothes. This has been contradicted by PW -6 who claims that the appellant had confessed to him at about 7.30 am on 3.4.2000 that he had quarrelled with his wife under the influence of liquor. This witness has not stated anything about the blood stains on the appellant's clothing. The learned Advocate, therefore, submits that since there are contradictions in the evidence led by the prosecution, the appellant is entitled to an acquittal. 6. In our opinion, the so called contradictions which are pointed out by the learned advocate for the appellant are of no consequence. The axe was recovered at the instance of the appellant on 4.4.2000 after he was arrested. It was recovered behind a privy situate behind the shed where the appellant resided with his family. A perusal of the Spot Panch an am a conducted on 3.4.2000. which. is Exhibit 10 indicates that the area considered in the Spot Panchanama was the shed itself and no other part of the premises. It was recovered behind a privy situate behind the shed where the appellant resided with his family. A perusal of the Spot Panch an am a conducted on 3.4.2000. which. is Exhibit 10 indicates that the area considered in the Spot Panchanama was the shed itself and no other part of the premises. Therefore, it is obvious that the Panchanama of the area behind the privy had not been drawn up as that area was not searched on 3.4.2000. There is no contradiction between the Panchanamas and both can be accepted. 7. The evidence of PW-4, the shopkeeper indicates that on 3.4.2000 at about 4.30 am, the witness was in his shop near the ST stand the appellant had requested him to take him to a place called Vita in the auto rickshaw he owned. The witness refused to do so and informed the appellant that he could undertake the journey by the ST bus which was. scheduled to depart immediately. This witness has categorically stated that the appellant's clothes were splattered with blood and that he had explained to the witness that he had sustained an injury when he fell under the influence of liquor. PW-6, who was examined to establish that there was a quarrel between the appellant and his wife has not spoken about the blood stained clothes. However, it is obvious that this was because the evidence was directed to establish that the appellant had confessed to this witness that he had quarrelled with his wife under the influence of liquor. 8. PW-7 has disclosed to PW-3, the son, who was sleeping inside the house that his mother had sustained fatal injuries. The appellant was not around at all at this point of time. PW -3 has spoken about the quarrels between his parents and has also deposed regarding the drinking habits of his father. He has denied the suggestion that the victim and their landlord had any illicit relations due to which there was a quarrel between his parents. 9. Considering the entire evidence on record afresh, we are of the view that the prosecution has established that it is the appellant who had killed the deceased. He had used an axe for assaulting the victim in a merciless manner. The injuries described by the Doctor indicate the extent of the appellant's ruthlessness. 9. Considering the entire evidence on record afresh, we are of the view that the prosecution has established that it is the appellant who had killed the deceased. He had used an axe for assaulting the victim in a merciless manner. The injuries described by the Doctor indicate the extent of the appellant's ruthlessness. In such circumstances, we have no hesitation in upholding the judgment of the trial Court. 10. The appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence of life imprisonment imposed by the additional Sessions Judge, Sangli upon the appellant are confirmed. Appeal dismissed.