Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1989 (BOM)

Deepak Dhondiba Deshmukh v. State of Maharashtra

2013-09-25

A.R.JOSHI, V.K.TAHILRAMANI

body2013
JUDGMENT SMT. V. K. TAHILRAMANI, J. :- The appellant-original accused has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 30.06.2010 passed by the Extra Joint Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Thane in Sessions Case No. 18 of 2009. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/- in default, RI for three months. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated, is as under: (a) Deceased Ratna was the wife of the appellant. The appellant and the deceased were residing in a room in a chawl at Karavegaon, Navi Mumbai. The said room was taken by them on rent from PW 3 Dilip and PW 4 Shau. The appellant used to do work of decorative articles. (b) It is the prosecution case that sometime after 07.30 p.m. on 24.08.2008, the appellant committed murder of his wife Ratna by assaulting her on the head and stomach with a hard and blunt object. Ratna sustained injuries due to the said assault and died. The appellant then locked the door of the house and absconded from the scene of the incident. After 2-3 days, persons from neighbourhood came and told PW 3 Dilip who was the landlord of the appellant and the deceased that some foul smell was coming from the room of the appellant. PW 3 Dilip informed the Police Station about the said fact. PW 1 Police Constable Tare received a call in the Police Station from PW 3 Dilip that some bad odour was coming from the one of the room of his chawl, hence, PW 1 Police Constable Tare came to the spot. PW 3 Dilip met him at the spot. PW 3 Dilip pointed out the room to constable Tare. One lock was noticed on the door, hence, PW 1 police constable Tare called two panchas and broke the lock on the room in presence of panchas and opened the door. Inside the room, dead body of one lady was seen. PW 3 Dilip identified the dead body as that of his tenant Ratna Deepak Deshmukh. PW 1 police constable Tare then registered FIR. Thereafter, investigation commenced. The dead body of Ratna was sent for postmortem. PW 5 Dr. Jain conducted the postmortem on the dead body of Ratna. Inside the room, dead body of one lady was seen. PW 3 Dilip identified the dead body as that of his tenant Ratna Deepak Deshmukh. PW 1 police constable Tare then registered FIR. Thereafter, investigation commenced. The dead body of Ratna was sent for postmortem. PW 5 Dr. Jain conducted the postmortem on the dead body of Ratna. He noticed that the dead body was highly decomposed, hence, he could not identify the external injuries. On internal examination, Dr. Jain noticed injuries to the deceased under scalp. He noticed hemorrhage over left temporal region of 5 x 4 cm reddish in colour. In abdomen, Dr. Jain noticed irregular hemorrhage at places over walls. Perutal cavity was found containing 1500 cc reddish fluid. Liver was found lacerated over suprarenals surface. In opinion of Dr. Jain, the probable cause of death of Ratna was due to hemorrhagic shock due to blunt abdominal trauma. He further opined that the injuries found in the internal examinations are possible by means of hard and blunt object and injuries found on the abdomen were sufficient to cause the death during the ordinary course of nature. After completion, of investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed. In due course, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. 3. Charge came to be framed against the appellant under Section 302 of IPC. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed to be tried. His defence is that of total denial and false implication. After going through the evidence adduced in this case, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated in paragraph 1 above, hence, this appeal. 4. We have heard the learned Advocate for the appellant and the learned APP for the State. After giving our anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced by the learned Advocates for the parties, the judgment delivered by the learned Sessions Judge and the evidence on record, for the reasons stated below, we are of the opinion that appellant committed the murder of his wife Ratna by assaulting her with a hard and blunt object. 5. There is no eye witness in the present case and the case is based entirely on the circumstantial evidence. 5. There is no eye witness in the present case and the case is based entirely on the circumstantial evidence. The circumstances are that the appellant and the deceased were residing in a room taken on rent from PW 3 Dilip and PW 4 Bhau. They were residing in a chawl at Karavegaon, Navi Mumbai. Witnesses had seen the appellant and the deceased on 24.08.2008 in their house, thereafter deceased Ratna was not seen alive and the appellant was found absconding. 6. PW 2 Devi has stated that on 24.08.2008 at about 05.00 p.m. to 05.30 p.m., she had gone to the house of the appellant to bring T.V. At that time, she had seen the appellant as well as his wife Ratna in the house. At that time, the wife of the appellant was alive. PW 2 Devi then took the T.V. and went to her house. 7. PW 4 Bhau who was the landlord of the appellant and the deceased has stated that the appellant was residing along with his wife in a room taken on rent from him. On 24.08.2008 at about 07.30 p.m., he had gone to the house of the appellant to see whether his decorative article was prepared by the appellant or not. The appellant told him that the decorative article was incomplete and he should come on Monday. Thereafter, on Monday in the morning, he went to the house of the appellant to bring his decorative article. He found the room of the appellant was locked. Thereafter, he came to know that Ratna was murdered and the dead body was found inside the room of the appellant. The evidence of PW 2 Devi as well as PW 4 Bhau establishes that on 24.08.2008, the appellant and his wife Ratna were very much in the house. Ratna was alive at that time. Thereafter, Ratna was not seen alive by anyone and her dead body was found in the house on 27.08.2008 at about 04.30 p.m. 8. The evidence on record shows that the appellant and the deceased were in the house on 07.30 p.m. on 24.08.2008. Thereafter, the deceased was not seen alive and her dead body was found in the house on 27.08.2008. In such case, the accused has to explain how the deceased sustained injuries and died. In this connection, we may refer to Section 106 of the Evidence Act. Thereafter, the deceased was not seen alive and her dead body was found in the house on 27.08.2008. In such case, the accused has to explain how the deceased sustained injuries and died. In this connection, we may refer to Section 106 of the Evidence Act. Section 106 of the Evidence Act provides that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. In several recent decisions, the Supreme Court has held that the principles which underlies Section 106 of the Evidence Act can be applied in such cases. In the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Kashi Ram (2006)12 SCC 254 : AIR 2007 SC 144 : [2007 ALL MR (Cri) 525 (S.C.)], the Supreme Court has observed that if the accused fails to offer an explanation on the basis of facts within his special knowledge, he fails to discharge the burden cast upon him by Section 106 of the Evidence Act. In a case resting on circumstantial evidence if the accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation in discharge of the burden placed on him, that itself provides an additional link in the chain of circumstances proved against him. Section 106 does not shift the burden of proof in a criminal trial, which is always upon the prosecution. It lays down the rule that when the accused does not throw any light upon facts which are specially within his knowledge and which could not support any theory or hypothesis compatible with his innocence, the Court can consider his failure to adduce any explanation as an additional link which completes the chain. 9. It is pertinent to note that the house of the appellant and the deceased was found locked and the appellant was found absconding. This conduct on the part of the appellant also shows his mens rea. The appellant and the deceased were the only two persons in the house. The dead body of Ratna was found in the house and the door of the house was found locked from outside. Since, there were only two persons residing in the house i.e the appellant and the deceased, obviously, the deceased could not have locked the door but it was only the appellant who could have locked the door and gone away. 10. Since, there were only two persons residing in the house i.e the appellant and the deceased, obviously, the deceased could not have locked the door but it was only the appellant who could have locked the door and gone away. 10. Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the deceased was addicted to liquor which is seen from the evidence of PW 7 Senior P.I. Bagban. She submitted that this shows that on account of intoxication, the deceased may have fallen down and injured herself which led to her death. To support this contention, she has placed reliance on the evidence of PW 5 Dr. Jain where he has stated that the injuries found on the body of Ratna were possible if a person who is under the influence of alcohol repeatedly falls on the hard and blunt surface and his/her abdomen comes in contact with that hard and blunt object. It is seen that the deceased had sustained injuries under the scalp, over the left temporal region and on the abdomen; not one hemorrhage but many hemorrhages were found in the abdomen. The postmortem notes show that on the abdomen, irregular hemorrhages were seen at places over the walls. The liver was also found lacerated. These injuries suggests not just one impact but a series of impacts. It does not appear possible that the deceased would fall down to such an extent repeatedly so as to cause her a number of injuries on the abdomen as well as the injury on the head. Thus, we find no merit in this submission. 11. From the evidence on record, it is evident that the appellant and the appellant alone was responsible for the death of his wife Ratna. The death of Ratna was caused due to repeated assault with hard and blunt object. We find there is sufficient evidence to connect the appellant with the crime. Thus, we find no merit in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed. 12. At this stage, we must record our appreciation for Advocate Mrs. Rohini M. Dandekar who is on the panel of Advocates of High Court Legal Services Committee and who was appointed to represent the appellant in this appeal. We found that she had meticulously prepared the matter and she has very ably argued the appeal. The appeal is dismissed. 12. At this stage, we must record our appreciation for Advocate Mrs. Rohini M. Dandekar who is on the panel of Advocates of High Court Legal Services Committee and who was appointed to represent the appellant in this appeal. We found that she had meticulously prepared the matter and she has very ably argued the appeal. We quantify total legal fees to be paid to her in this appeal by the High Court Legal Services Committee at Rs.2500. Appeal dismissed.