Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1639 (BOM)

Vilas Ananda Kalel v. State of Maharashtra

2014-07-25

A.S.GADKARI, V.K.TAHILRAMANI

body2014
JUDGMENT : V.K. Tahilramani, J. 1. The appellant, original accused, has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 15th June 2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vaduj, Satara in Sessions Case No. 60 of 2010. By the said judgment and order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant for the offence under Sections 302 and 506(2) of IPC. For the offence under 302, the appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine further R.I. for 6 months. For the offence under Section 506(2) the appellant was sentenced to S.I. for 3 years. The learned Sessions Judge directed all substantive sentences to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated, is as under: (i) Deceased Kusum was the wife of the appellant. At the time of the incident, Kusum was residing with her husband-appellant and son i.e. PW-1 Vijay at village Valai, Taluka-Man, District-Satara. PW-1 Vijay is the first informant in the present case. Though Vijay has one brother and one sister, they were residing elsewhere. The appellant is addicted to liquor and he used ask his wife Kusum to give money for liquor. When Kusum refused to give the appellant money, he used to beat her. On 31.1.2010, there was quarrel between the appellant and his wife Kusum as the appellant wanted dinner of mutton. Their neighbour PW-2 Venutai gave them egg curry, then appellant, his wife Kusum and his son Vijay went to sleep. Vijay woke up on hearing the sound of quarreling of his mother and father. His father was asking for money from Kusum for drinking liquor. Kusum refused to give money. The appellant then took out a scythe which was used for cutting sugarcane and said that he will not leave Kusum alive. Then he gave blow with scythe on Kusum's face. Vijay fell on the body of his mother to save her. Thereupon the appellant took Vijay aside and again gave blows with scythe on Kusum. The appellant then went out. Vijay tried to give water to his mother, however, she could not drink water due to blows on her mouth. Again the appellant came inside and gave blows with scythe on Kusum's mouth. The appellant told Vijay that he will murder him also. Vijay got frightened and went and hid in the field. (ii) PW-2 Venutai also saw the incident. Vijay tried to give water to his mother, however, she could not drink water due to blows on her mouth. Again the appellant came inside and gave blows with scythe on Kusum's mouth. The appellant told Vijay that he will murder him also. Vijay got frightened and went and hid in the field. (ii) PW-2 Venutai also saw the incident. However, she also ran away due to fear. The appellant then went away carrying the scythe with him. Venutai saw that Kusum had expired. Venutai called the neighbours. Meanwhile, the police also came to the spot and they took Kusum to the hospital. PW-1 Vijay lodged FIR. Thereafter investigation commenced. The dead body of Kusum was sent for postmortem. PW-5 Dr. Kondankar performed postmortem on the dead body of Kusum. In the opinion of Dr. Kondankar, the cause of death was due to hypovolemic shock with vital organ injury (cerebral) due to multiple sharp injuries. After completion of investigation, chargesheet came to be filed. 3. Charge came to be framed against the appellant vide Exhibit 3. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed to be tried. The defence of the appellant was 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 para 1 above, hence, this appeal. 4. We have heard Ms. Dandekar, the learned Advocate for the appellant and Mrs. Pai, the learned APP for the respondent-State. We have carefully considered their arguments, the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge and the evidence in this case. After carefully considering the matter, for the below mentioned reasons, we are of the opinion that the appellant assaulted his wife Kusum with scythe which resulted in her death. 5. The conviction of the appellant is mainly based on the ocular evidence of PW-1 Vijay and PW-2 Venutai. Vijay was the son of the appellant and deceased. The deceased, appellant and Vijay were all residing together in village Valai. Vijay stated that the appellant is addicted to liquor and he used ask his wife Kusum to give money for liquor. When his mother Kusum refused to give the appellant money, the appellant used to beat her. On 31.1.2010, there was quarrel between the appellant and his wife Kusum as the appellant wanted dinner of mutton. Vijay stated that the appellant is addicted to liquor and he used ask his wife Kusum to give money for liquor. When his mother Kusum refused to give the appellant money, the appellant used to beat her. On 31.1.2010, there was quarrel between the appellant and his wife Kusum as the appellant wanted dinner of mutton. Their neighbor PW-2 Venutai gave them egg curry. Then the appellant, his wife Kusum and his son Vijay went to sleep. Vijay woke up on hearing sound of quarreling of his mother and father. His father was asking for money from Kusum for drinking liquor. Kusum refused to give money. The appellant then took out a scythe which was used for cutting sugarcane and said that he will not leave Kusum alive. Then the appellant gave blows with scythe on Kusum's face. Vijay fell on the body of his mother to save her. Thereupon the appellant took Vijay aside and again gave blow with scythe on Kusum. Then the appellant went out. Vijay tried to give water to his mother, however, she could not drink water due to blows on her mouth. Again the appellant came inside and gave blows with scythe on Kusum's mouth. The appellant told Vijay that he will murder him also. Vijay got frightened and went in the field. Thereafter Vijay lodged FIR. 6. PW-2 Venutai was the neighbour of the appellant and the deceased. She has stated that the appellant, the deceased and their son Vijay were residing adjacent to her house. Venutai has stated that the appellant always used to ask his wife Kusum for money for consuming liquor and for mutton. There used to be quarrels between the appellant and his wife Kusum. At about 5 a.m. she heard the appellant waking up his wife Kusum and asking for money. Kusum refused to give him money. Then the appellant said that he will not leave her alive. The appellant assaulted his wife Kusum with scythe. There was wire-mesh partition between the house of the appellant and the house of Venutai. She saw the incident through this partition. On seeing the incident, Venutai got frightened and ran towards crop of Jawar. Venutai has identified the appellant as the same person who assaulted his wife with scythe. 7. That the deceased died a homicidal death is borne out by the medical evidence and other evidence on record. PW-5 Dr. She saw the incident through this partition. On seeing the incident, Venutai got frightened and ran towards crop of Jawar. Venutai has identified the appellant as the same person who assaulted his wife with scythe. 7. That the deceased died a homicidal death is borne out by the medical evidence and other evidence on record. PW-5 Dr. Kondankar performed the postmortem on the dead body of Kusum. Dr. Kondankar noticed the following injuries on the dead body of Kusum:- 1. CLW of 4 cm x 2 cm x deep to bone on (left) dorsum of wrist Á lar to radius and ulna. 2. CLW of 8 cm x 2 cm x deep to bone cut of 3 cm x 1/2 cm on the right side forehead. 3. Complete damage of scalp and skull bone on left side forehead and parietal bone. 4. 3 cm x 1 cm skull injury on left forehead. Parallel to eyebrow. 5. Multiple sharp injuries with skull damage. Injury from left parietal bone, left eyebrow, left cheek up to tip of nose, both upper and lower jaws, up to throat. 6. Mashed brain protruded outside the injuries. Complete damage of forebrain due to injuries. 6. Tracha is cut at hyoid bone. Dr. Kondankar observed that both jaws are damaged hence teeth are not identified. Tongue, mouth, left ear are damaged due to multiple shape cutting injuries. Bucal cavity, teeth, tongue and Pharynx damaged due to multiple injuries. In the opinion of the Doctor Kondankar, her death may be caused due to Hypovolemic shock with vital organ injury (cerebral) due to multiple sharp injuries. Thus the medical evidence shows that, multiple blows were given with scythe on the face and head of Kusum, due to which mashed brain protruded and there is complete damage of scalp, skull bone, upper and lower jaw upto throat. 8. In addition to the ocular evidence of PW-1 Vijay and PW-2 Venutai which we find entirely believable and trustworthy, the prosecution is relying on the evidence of recovery of blood-stained scythe and blood-stained clothes at the instance of the appellant. Panch-witness PW-4 Shamrao deposed on this aspect. He has deposed about recovery of blood stained scythe, paijama, full shirt, pant and cap of the appellant. These articles were sent to the Chemical Analyzer. Panch-witness PW-4 Shamrao deposed on this aspect. He has deposed about recovery of blood stained scythe, paijama, full shirt, pant and cap of the appellant. These articles were sent to the Chemical Analyzer. As per CA report Exhibit 34, scythe was stained with blood of "A" group, so also the clothes of the appellant were stained with blood of "A" group. The clothes of deceased were also stained with blood of "A" group. This shows that the blood group of the deceased is "A" group. Thus, the finding of the same blood group as that of the deceased on the scythe and clothes of the appellant which were recovered at his instance, is a strong incriminating circumstance against the appellant. 9. On going through the record, we find that there is sufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant committed the murder of his wife Kusum by assaulting her with a scythe. Thus, we find no merit in the appeal. Hence, the Appeal is dismissed. 10. At this stage, we must record our appreciation for Advocate Ms. Dandekar who is on the 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. 5000/-. 11. This order be communicated to the appellant who is undergoing his sentence in jail.