Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 586 (BOM)

Savita Bistur Bhoir v. State of Maharashtra

2012-03-16

A.P.LAVANDE, SHRIHARI DAVARE

body2012
Judgment A.P. Lavande, J. By this appeal, the appellant takes exception to the Judgment and Order dated 19th August, 2006, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Palghar in Sessions Case No.11/2005, convicting the appellant ("the accused" for short) for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentencing her to undergo Imprisonment for Life and to pay a fine of Rs.100/-, in default, to undergo R.I. for one month on the first count and to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.100/-, in default, to undergo R.I. for one month on the second count. Both the sentences are ordered to run concurrently. 2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution, is as under : The accused is the daughter-in-law of PW.1 Vishnu and PW.3 Sukri. She was staying along with her husband Bistur (deceased) and her daughter PW.4 Bharti in the village, while Vishnu and Sukri were staying in a field at a distance of about two furlongs from the house of the deceased. PW.6 Ashok is the cousin of the deceased Bistur. He had illicit relationship with the accused and his frequent visits to the house of the deceased was disliked by the deceased. On 3rd October, 2004, PW.1 Vishnu had informed by one Dasu Baswant that his son Bistur was killed by somebody and the dead body of Bistur was lying in front of the house of PW.6 Ashok, under a tamarind tree. Vishnu PW.1 and Sukri PW.3 went to the spot. They found that the dead body of the deceased Bistur was lying on the spot with injuries on face, chest and head. Vishnu also noticed marks on the ground, indicating that his son Bistur was dragged from his house towards the tamarind tree. Vishnu and Sukri went to the house and they found that there was a stone grinder in the kitchen having blood stains. Vishnu lodged the report Exhibit-9 in Nalasopara Police Station. On the basis of the report, Crime No.I-260/2004 was registered and investigation was taken up by PW.10 Sarjerao Bhandare, who went to the spot and recorded inquest panchanama Exhibit 11 on the dead body of Bistur in the presence of PW.2 Suresh and one Harinath. They found a number of injuries on the face, neck, near the left eye, and on chin of the deceased. They found a number of injuries on the face, neck, near the left eye, and on chin of the deceased. They found swelling on the right jaw and on the chest. The dead body was forwarded for postmortem examination which was conducted by PW.7 Dr. Anjali Pimple. PW.10 Sarjerao Bhandare also conducted spot panchanama Exhibit 12 in the house of the deceased where there was earth grinder and the upper slice of the earthen grinder had blood stains. There were blood stains also on the ground. One sickle with blood stains was also found on the spot. These articles and one bed sheet with blood stains, and normal soil as well as the blood stained soil were seized. The accused was arrested on 3rd October, 2004 vide arrest panchanama Exhibit 32. The investigating officer recorded statements of several witnesses, including PW.4 Bharti, minor daughter of the accused and the deceased. Pursuant to the disclosure statement made by the accused in the presence of Pancha PW.8 Ravindra and PW.9 Yashwant, blood stained clothes (sari and petticoat) worn by the accused were seized from the house of the accused vide Panchanama Exhibit 26. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. The defence of the accused is of total denial. The accused did not lead any evidence in defence. The trial Court, upon appreciation of the evidence, oral and documentary, led by the prosecution, held that both the offences were made out against the accused and consequently, sentenced her as above. 3. Ms. Gonsalves, learned Counsel appearing for the accused submitted that the evidence led by the prosecution is not sufficient to convict the accused for the offences for which she has been convicted; the evidence of PW. 3. Ms. Gonsalves, learned Counsel appearing for the accused submitted that the evidence led by the prosecution is not sufficient to convict the accused for the offences for which she has been convicted; the evidence of PW. 4 Bharti who was hardly 4 years at the time of commission of the alleged offences, does not inspire confidence and the learned Judge had not conducted the competency test properly before recording her evidence and as such, serious doubt is created about credibility of her evidence; the conduct of PW.4 Bharti is unnatural and her statement was recorded in the evening on 3rd October, 2004, after conducting the inquest and spot panchanamas which creates serious doubt about the prosecution case; the delay in recording the statement of PW.4 Bharti is fatal to the prosecution case; no reliance can, therefore, be placed on the testimony of PW.4 Bharti; although it is the case of the prosecution that the upper part of the earthen grinder was used for the commission of offence and was seized; the same was not produced before the Court and on the contrary the lower part of the grinder was produced before the Court which was not even identified by PW.4 Bharti; the evidence of PW.4 is not corroborated by any other evidence and, as such, no reliance can be placed on her evidence; the weapon allegedly used for the commission of offence was not shown to PW.7 Dr. Anjali Pimple and, therefore, there is no opinion given by the Doctor as to whether the weapon which was seized could have caused the injuries to the deceased; the prosecution has not led any evidence to prove that the blood was found in the house of the accused and the deceased; in the absence of any sign of dragging in the house, the marks of dragging found outside the house cannot be attributed to the accused alone; the investigation has been faulty which creates serious doubt about the entire prosecution case and, as such, the accused is entitled for acquittal. 4. 4. In the alternative, learned Counsel submitted that it is the case of the prosecution itself, as reflected in the First Information Report lodged by PW.1 Vishnu Bhoir that there was no premeditation on the part of the accused and the alleged incident occurred since the deceased returned home in the drunken state and accused his wife of infidelity, on account of which there was a quarrel between the deceased and the accused and in a fit of anger, the accused assaulted the deceased with the upper portion of the earthen grinder. Therefore, even if the prosecution case is accepted in toto, at the most an offence under Section 325 or Section 304(II) or Section 304(I) IPC is made out against the accused. 5. In support of her submissions, the learned Counsel relied upon the following Judgments : 1) Bombay Law Reporter, State of Maharashtra Vs. Sharanappa Malappa Sakhare, Appellate Criminal. LXXIX 132. 2) State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Surbham, 1996 Cri. L. J. 3199. 3) Nirmal Kumar Vs. State of U.P., 1992 Cri. L. J. 1426. 4) Jagjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2005 SC 913 . 5) Orsu Venkat Rao, Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2004 Cri. L. J. 4656 6) State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Punati Ramulu and ors., 1994 Supp.(1) SCC 590. 7) Bhagwan Singh and others Vs. State of M.P., AIR 2003 SC 1088 8) State of U.P. Vs. Ashok Dixit and another, (2000) 3 SCC 70 9) Deoraj Deju Suvarna and others Vs. The State of Maharashtra, 1994(4) Bom. C.R. 10) Niranjan Panja Vs. State of West Bengal, (2010) 6 SCC 525 11) Shankar Kondiba Gore Vs. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Trial, 1995(1) Mh.L.J. 416 12) State of Rajasthan Vs. Jora Ram, (2005) 10 SCC 591 13) Sahib Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1997 SC 2417 14) Bhagirath Vs. State of M. P.,1976 CR. L. J. 706 15) Sarup Singh Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1995 SC 2452 16) Ghansham Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1996 Cr. L. J. 27. 17) Keshavlal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2002 Cr. L. J. 1776 18) Rohidas Manik Kasrale Vs. State of Maharastra, 2012 ALL MR (CRI) 218. 6. Per contra, Mrs. State of M. P.,1976 CR. L. J. 706 15) Sarup Singh Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1995 SC 2452 16) Ghansham Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1996 Cr. L. J. 27. 17) Keshavlal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2002 Cr. L. J. 1776 18) Rohidas Manik Kasrale Vs. State of Maharastra, 2012 ALL MR (CRI) 218. 6. Per contra, Mrs. Pai, learned APP, appearing on behalf of the respondent supported the impugned Judgment and Order and submitted that the prosecution evidence clearly establishes the offences for which the accused has been convicted and there is cogent evidence led by the prosecution which establishes both the offences, beyond reasonable doubt against the accused. The learned APP further submits that the evidence of PW.4 inspires confidence inasmuch as her presence on the spot, at the time of the incident, was quite natural. The learned APP further submitted that the alleged delay in recording the statement of PW.4 Bharti is not fatal inasmuch as her evidence clearly discloses that the accused had told her not to disclose the incident to anybody. 7. Learned APP further submitted that the medical evidence of PW.7 Anjali Pimple led by the prosecution establishes that the death of the deceased was homicidal, which occurred in the house of the accused and the deceased and, therefore, in the absence of any explanation coming from the accused as to the circumstances in which the deceased met with the homicidal death, the conviction of the accused for both the offences cannot be faulted. In support of submissions, learned APP relied upon the following Judgments : 1) Suryanarayana Vs. State of Karnatak, (2001) 9 SCC 129 . 2) State of Karnataka Vs. Shantappa Madivalappa Galapuji and others, (2009) 12 SCC731. 3) State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ramesh and another, (2011) 4 SCC 786 . 4) Sunder Singh Vs. Stae of Uttaranchal, (2010) 10 SCC 611 . 5) Sheo Shankar Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and another, (2011) 3 SCC 654 . 8. We have carefully considered the rival submissions, perused the record and the decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the accused and the APP. 9. In order to prove that the death of Bistur was homicidal, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of PW.7 Dr. Anajali Pimple, who conducted the postmortem on the dead body of Bistur. 8. We have carefully considered the rival submissions, perused the record and the decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the accused and the APP. 9. In order to prove that the death of Bistur was homicidal, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of PW.7 Dr. Anajali Pimple, who conducted the postmortem on the dead body of Bistur. She deposed that on 3rd October, 2004, she was attached to P.H.C. Nalasopara as Medical Officer and she had conducted postmortem on the dead body of Bistur Bhoir and she found the following external injuries : 1) CLW of about 1.5 inches x 1 inch near left eye. 2) CLW of about 2 inch x .5 cm. on chin center and to the right side of this CLW there was CLW 1.5 inch x 5 cm. and below these two CLWs there was another CLW of about .5 inch x .5 cm. 3) CLW about .5 inch just below left ear with contusion of black in colour. 4) Contusion of black in colour with various sizes seen on back and shoulder. Also contusion of black in colour on left lateral side of chest of about 3 x 1 cm, 2 x 3 cm and 1 x 1 cm. She also found the following corresponding internal injuries : 1) Contusions in brain seen 2) Plura congested, 3) Larynx trachea and bronchi filled with blood, blood clotes seen. 4) Rt. and left lung congested. 5) Pericardia pallored. All the injuries were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. Cause of death was due to chocking with blood and traumatic injury to respiratory track. He identified his signature on the postmortem report Exhibit 22. He further deposed that all these injuries were possible by an object like grinding wheel. Due to fracture, there was heavy internal bleeding which was chocked in the respiratory track and due to suffocation Bistur died. He identified his signature on the advance medical certificate Exhibit 23. Upon the earthen grinder being shown to her, she deposed that the same could cause the injuries which were found on the person of Bistur. In the cross examination she deposed that if a person sustained injuries mentioned in the postmortem, death was bound to cause within a span of 15 minutes to an hour from causing of the injuries and the person could die. In the cross examination she deposed that if a person sustained injuries mentioned in the postmortem, death was bound to cause within a span of 15 minutes to an hour from causing of the injuries and the person could die. The contused wounds shown in the postmortem were not bleeding externally. She further deposed that Bistur did not die due to strangulation. 10. The above evidence of PW.7 Dr. Anjali Pimple which has not been shaken in the cross examination, establishes beyond doubt that the death of Bistur Bhoir was homicidal. The same also stands corroborated by the inquest panchanama Exhibit 11, which has been duly proved through PW.2 Suresh Baswant. The inquest panchanama also discloses that there were several injuries on the person of Bistur. Thus, the prosecution has been able to prove that the death of Bistur was homicidal. 11. The prosecution has claimed that PW.4 Bharti was an eye witness to the incident. At the time of the incident, PW.4 Bharti was 4 years old and at the time of her deposition, she was 5 years old. The record discloses that the learned Sessions Judge recorded her evidence after putting her questions which were answered by her after taking some time. PW.4 deposed that PW.1 Vishnu was her grandfather and Sukri was her grandmother. Her parents were staying in the field. Bistur (deceased) was her father and used to go on a vehicle for work in the morning and come home in the evening. She further deposed that at the time of incident, her father was asleep and she was present and sitting in the house. There was nobody in the house. Her mother was in the house. Her mother injured her father with the earthen grinder. Blow was given on the chest region. Thereafter, her mother injured her father on the neck by means of a sickle and she also injured her father by a grinding stone on his face. Her father did not shout after the assault. Thereafter, her mother dragged the body of her father towards the tamarind tree, which was near to their house. Thereafter, her mother slept on the platform inside the house. Her mother told her not to disclose the incident to anybody. In the morning, many people came to the house. She went to her grandmother who came in the morning. She was treated well by her mother (accused). Thereafter, her mother slept on the platform inside the house. Her mother told her not to disclose the incident to anybody. In the morning, many people came to the house. She went to her grandmother who came in the morning. She was treated well by her mother (accused). She further stated that her mother killed her father. The witness was asked whether she could identify the grinder and the sickle and the witness nodded in the negative. She further stated that the accused was present in the Court. 12. In cross examination she deposed that her father used to sleep on the cot and she used to like him. She further deposed that all three of them used to sleep in one room and, she used to sleep along with her father. She further deposed that her mother gave blow sometime after the dinner. There were many houses around their house. She did not go to neighbour to inform about the incident. After the incident, she sat in the house throughout the night on the cot. 13. Upon being confronted with the police statement, she stated that she had stated to the police that she and her mother were sleeping on the varanda on the day of the incident. However, she admitted that she had not stated to the police that she woke up from the sleep after hearing the cries of her father. She deposed that after the incident she started staying with her grandparents. She saw the dead body of her father below the tamarind tree and her mother was standing under the tamarind tree and she was not crying. She denied the suggestion that she did not know as to how her father died. She further deposed that when she was near the dead body along with her grandparents, her mother was in the house. At that time, her mother had asked her not to disclose the incident. She further deposed that she was deposing on the instructions of her grandparents. 14. No doubt the learned Judge has not specifically mentioned the question put to the witness, who at the time of her deposition was five years old, but, this fact by itself, would not be sufficient to jettison the evidence of PW.4 Bharti. Her presence in the house was quite natural. 14. No doubt the learned Judge has not specifically mentioned the question put to the witness, who at the time of her deposition was five years old, but, this fact by itself, would not be sufficient to jettison the evidence of PW.4 Bharti. Her presence in the house was quite natural. She was four years old and was expected to be with her parents during night time. No doubt there are some embellishments in her testimony, such as she claims that the accused assaulted her father with sickle, but the medical evidence does not suggest that the injuries found on the person of Bistur could have been caused with a sharp side of the sickle. However, her presence in the house being natural, her testimony that it was the accused who assaulted her deceased father with earthen grinder deserves to be accepted. No doubt, it is the case of the prosecution that the upper part of the earthen grinder used by the accused to assault the deceased and what was produced before the trial Court was the lower part of the grinder. But, this discrepancy is not sufficient to throw overboard the entire evidence of PW.4 Bharti since her presence at the time of the incident in the house was quite natural. Similarly, the presence of the accused and the deceased in the house during night time was also quite natural. This being the position, the evidence of PW.4 Bharti that the accused had assaulted her father with earthen grinder on the chest and face has to be accepted. The mere fact that the lower part of the earthen grinder was produced during the course of the trial, although the upper part of the was used in the commission of crime, by itself, would not be sufficient to come to the conclusion that the accused had not assaulted the deceased, more particularly having regard to the fact that the incident had occurred during the night of 2nd October, 2004. The spot panchanama Exhibit 12 which has been proved by the PW.2 Suresh Baswant also establishes that in the house of the accused and the deceased the grinder was found with blood stains. The spot panchanama also discloses that there were blood stains on the floor. The evidence of PW.4 Bharti stands corroborated by the medical evidence, as well as by the spot panchanama and the inquest panchanama. The spot panchanama also discloses that there were blood stains on the floor. The evidence of PW.4 Bharti stands corroborated by the medical evidence, as well as by the spot panchanama and the inquest panchanama. Therefore, we have no hesitation to accept her version that it was the accused who assaulted her husband with the earthen grinder. 15. The prosecution has also relied upon the alleged extra judicial confession made to PW.3 Sukri, as well as PW.1 Vishnu. The trial Court has disbelieved the extra judicial confession on the ground that there is variation between the testimony of PW.3 and that of PW.1. PW.3 Sukri claimed that although the confession was made on the spot, in cross examination admitted that the confession had come on the third day of the incident. In so far as PW.1 Vishnu is concerned, he did not support the prosecution in so far as the extra judicial confession is concerned. Therefore, in our opinion, the learned trial Court has rightly disbelieved the extra judicial confession allegedly made to PW.1 and PW.3. Moreover, PW.5 Suman Gaikwad also did not support the prosecution case that the accused had made the extra judicial confession. 16. In so far as the recovery of the blood stained clothes at the instance of the accused is concerned, the prosecution has led evidence of PW.8 Ravindra Pujari and PW. 9 Yashwant Tandel. The learned trial Court has refused to place reliance upon their evidence inasmuch as there is variation in the version of these two witnesses. According to PW.8 Ravindra, the clothes were found in an earthen pot; whereas PW.9 Yashwant claims that the clothes were found in the plastic bag, which was kept between the wall and roof tile. In our opinion, the learned trial Judge has rightly disbelieved the discovery of the blood stained clothes of the accused on account of variation in the testimony of the two witnesses. 17. The prosecution has also examined PW.6 Ashok Bhoir, cousin of the deceased with whom the accused had illicit relationship, as per the case of the prosecution itself. However, in his substantive evidence, PW.6 Ashok Bhoir stated that the deceased Bistur had suspicion that there was illicit relationship between him and the accused and on that count there was hot exchange of words between him and the deceased. However, in his substantive evidence, PW.6 Ashok Bhoir stated that the deceased Bistur had suspicion that there was illicit relationship between him and the accused and on that count there was hot exchange of words between him and the deceased. He further stated that he had decided not to visit the house of Bistur and he was not in talking terms with Bistur. In view of this clear evidence, the prosecution has not been able to establish that there were illicit relations between the accused and PW.6 Ashok. PW. 3 Sukri during the cross examination by learned APP admitted that the deceased Bistur used to get annoyed on account of frequent visits of PW.6 Ashok to his house. Moreover, the first information report lodged by PW.1 Vishnu clearly discloses that in the said report he mentioned that the accused had illicit relations with PW.6 and that Bistur (deceased) had told PW.6 Ashok not to visit his house. Therefore, though the evidence of PW.6 Ashok does not establish conclusively that there were illicit relations between the accused and PW.6, however, there is material on record to establish that the deceased suspected that the accused had illicit relations with PW.6 Ashok Bhoir and had even told PW.6 Ashok not to visit his house. 18. Evidence of PW. 1 Vishnu, father of the deceased and the evidence of PW.3 Sukri, mother of the deceased, establish that they had visited the house of the accused and the deceased at about 7.00 a.m. on 3rd October, 2004 and they found several injuries on the person of Bistur and also there were blood stains on the walls of the house in which the accused and the deceased were residing. 19. Thus, upon close scrutiny of the prosecution evidence, we have no hesitation to hold that it was the accused who had assaulted her husband deceased Bistur with earthen grinder, causing him injuries on the vital parts, which, ultimately, resulted in his death and that the prosecution evidence, more particularly that of PW.2 Suresh which is corroborated by the spot panchanama, also establishes that the deceased was dragged towards the tamarind tree, at some distance from the house of the accused. We have no hesitation to hold that the death of Bistur was in the house itself in view of the cogent evidence led by the prosecution about the presence of blood stains in the house and dragging marks from outside the house till the tamarind tree where the dead body of Bistur was found. Merely because no dragging marks were found in the house of the accused and the deceased, by itself, is not sufficient to hold that the body was not dragged from the house of the accused to the tamarind tree, more particularly having regard to the evidence of PW.2 Suresh Baswant which establishes that there were mark indicating dragging of the dead body from the house of the deceased and the accused to the spot where the dead body was found. 20. Thus, upon reappreciation of the entire evidence, we have no hesitation to hold that it was the accused who had caused injuries to the deceased Bistur which resulted in his death and the accused had dragged his body from the house to the tamarind tree in order to screen herself from the offence of causing the offence of culpable homicide. 21. The next question that arises for consideration is as to whether the offence under Section 302 or under Section 325 or under Section 304(II) or under Section 304(I), as submitted by the learned Advocate for the accused is made out against the accused. 22. Perusal of the First Information Report Exhibit 9 lodged by PW.1 Vishnu discloses that it was the case of PW.1 Vishnu that PW.6 Ashok had illicit relations with the accused and, therefore, the deceased had told PW.6 Ashok not to visit his house. It is the case of PW 1 Vishnu as set out in the First Information Report that Bistur had come home drunk on 2nd October, 2004 at about 11 p.m. and he started suspecting fidelity of the accused and started quarreling with her and thereafter, the accused assaulted him after he slept on the cot. Thus, it is the case of the prosecution itself that the incident occurred since the deceased had come drunk late at night and had suspected fidelity of his wife and started quarreling with her. Thus, it is the case of the prosecution itself that the incident occurred since the deceased had come drunk late at night and had suspected fidelity of his wife and started quarreling with her. In the absence of any cogent evidence about illicit relationship between the accused and PW.6 Ashok, the accused was justified in taking objection to the unwanted charge of illicit relations between the accused and PW.6. Therefore, it cannot be said that the accused intended to cause murder of her husband Bistur. However, the evidence led by the prosecution clearly establishes that the accused intended to cause injuries to Bistur which were likely to cause his death. Therefore, in our considered opinion, offence punishable under Section 304(I) and not under Section 302 IPC is made out and the accused is liable to be convicted for the said offence, instead of Section 302 IPC. 23. We have taken into consideration the ratio of the judgments cited by learned counsel for the appellant/accused and the learned APP. Hence, we do not deem it necessary to refer to each of the judgments relied upon by both sides. 24. In view of the above discussion, the conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC is liable to be quashed and set aside, and the accused is liable to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304(I) of IPC. 25. In so far as the conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC and the sentence imposed thereunder, no interference is warranted. 26. In the result, therefore, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and the sentence imposed on him, is quashed and set aside and she is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304(I) IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-and in default, to undergo R.I. for three months. The conviction of the accused and the sentence imposed on her for the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC. is maintained. Both the sentences are ordered to run concurrently. The accused would be entitled to set off in terms of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The order passed by the learned Trial Judge in so far as disposal of the property is concerned, is maintained. 27. is maintained. Both the sentences are ordered to run concurrently. The accused would be entitled to set off in terms of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The order passed by the learned Trial Judge in so far as disposal of the property is concerned, is maintained. 27. The appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.