Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1650 (BOM)

SURYAKIRAN SHRIPAT CHAVAN v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2014-07-28

A.S.GADKARI, V.K.TAHILRAMANI

body2014
Judgment : V. K. TAHILRAMANI, J. The Appellant / original accused has preferred this Appeal against the judgment and order dated 10th May 2012 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Dindoshi, Mumbai. By the said judgment and order the learned Sessions Judge convicted the Appellant under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default simple imprisonment for one month. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated is as under : i) The Appellant was the son of Shailabai and P.W.1 - Shripat. Shailabai is deceased in the present case. The Appellant was residing with his mother Shailabai and his father P.W.1 - Shripat at room No.1, Nutan Colony at Malad. The room was 10 ft x 10 ft in size. The Appellant was jobless. ii) The incident occurred on 20th August 2011. At about 8 p.m. Shailabai, Shripat and the Appellant - Suryakiran were present in the house. The Appellant was asking for dinner, whereupon Shailabai told him how she can provide dinner to him as he was not working or earning. Immediately thereupon the Appellant inflicted blows with pata (i.e. grinding stone) on the head of his mother Shailabai. The Appellant also gave slaps to Shripat. Due to injuries caused to Shailabai on her head, she expired on the spot. Shripat then ran out of the house and shouted for help, whereupon people from the neighbourhood came to the spot and caught hold of the Appellant. One of these persons was P.W.2 - Machindra. P.W.1 - Shripat then lodged F.I.R. Exhibit 11. Thereafter investigation commenced. The dead body of Shailabai was sent for post-mortem. P.W.5 Dr. Birhade conducted the post-mortem on the body of Shailabai. He observed various injuries on the head of Shailabai. In his opinion cause of death of Shailabai was head injury, unnatural. After completion of investigation, 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 the Indian Penal Code. The Appellant pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed to be tried. The defence of the Appellant is that of total denial and false implication. 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 the Indian Penal Code. The Appellant pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed to be tried. The defence of the Appellant 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, the Appeal. 4. We have heard the learned advocate for the Appellant and the learned APP for the State. We have carefully considered their submissions, the judgment and order passed by the Learned Sessions Judge and the evidence in this case. After carefully considering the matter, we are of the opinion that the Appellant assaulted his mother Shailabai on the head with a pata i.e. grinding stone. 5. The conviction of the Appellant is mainly based on the evidence of P.W.1 - Shripat who is the father of the Appellant and husband of deceased Shailabai. Shailabai was the mother of the Appellant. The Appellant, his mother Shailabai and his father Shripat were residing in Nutan Colony at Malad. The Appellant was jobless. Shripat has stated that on 20th August 2011 he returned home at about 8 p.m. At that time his wife Shailabai and his son i.e. the Appellant were present in the house. The Appellant was asking for dinner. His mother Shailabai told the Appellant as to how she will provide dinner to him when he was not working or earning anything. Thereupon the Appellant immediately inflicted blows on the head of Shailabai with a pata i.e. grinding stone. The Appellant also gave slaps to his father Shripat. Due to injuries caused to Shailabai on her head, she immediately expired. Shripat ran out of the house and shouted, whereupon neighbouring persons came to the spot. They caught the Appellant when he tried to run. 6. P.W.2 - Machindra was the neighbour of the Appellant and the deceased. Machindra has stated that the Appellant was jobless. He has stated that on 20th August 2011 while he was taking dinner, he heard shouting from the house of the Appellant. The father of the Appellant was shouting. Machindra then came out of his house. At that time the Appellant started to run away. Machindra and others caught the Appellant. Machindra has stated that the Appellant was jobless. He has stated that on 20th August 2011 while he was taking dinner, he heard shouting from the house of the Appellant. The father of the Appellant was shouting. Machindra then came out of his house. At that time the Appellant started to run away. Machindra and others caught the Appellant. Police reached on the spot. Machindra saw that the mother of the Appellant was lying in a pool of blood. Stone slab (pata) was also found at the spot. 7. The prosecution case that the Appellant assaulted his mother Shailabai on the head with a grinding stone is also supported by the spot panchanama as well as the medical evidence. P.W.3 - Santosh is the panch witness to the spot panchanama. He has deposed about finding of stone slab (pata) at the spot. Santosh has stated that the stone slab (pata) was stained with blood. P.W.5 - Dr. Birhade conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of Shailabai. On external examination, Dr. Birhade found the following injuries on the dead body of Shailabai : "i) CLW over left side parietal and occipital region (parietal - occipital junction) size 5 cm x 3 cm vertical. There was fracture of left parietal and occipital bones. ii) Contusion present over right side of forehead, 0.5 cm above right eyebrow, size 2 cm x 2 cm. iii) Contused abrasion over right side of forehead. iv) Abrasion over middle of forehead." Under the scalp the following injuries were noticed : i) Contusion seen on left parietal occipital region size 8 cm x 4 cm. ii) Scalp contusion on right temporal region anterior posterior, 6 cm x 5 cm. iii) Skull injury 1. communitted displaced fracture of left parietal and occipital bones. 2. Undisplaced fissure fracture seen over right temporal occipital and frontal bone. It is continuous fracture. Injuries to brain : 1) Subdural hemorrhage with blood clot seen over left cerebral hemisphere. 2) Small multiple, pin point petechial hemorrhage seen over white matter of brain. 8. In the opinion of Dr. Birhade the cause of death is head injury unnatural. Dr. Birhade has further stated that injuries mentioned in Post-mortem Report are possible by stone slab (Article 1). Thus, it is seen that the medical evidence also supports the prosecution case. 9. 2) Small multiple, pin point petechial hemorrhage seen over white matter of brain. 8. In the opinion of Dr. Birhade the cause of death is head injury unnatural. Dr. Birhade has further stated that injuries mentioned in Post-mortem Report are possible by stone slab (Article 1). Thus, it is seen that the medical evidence also supports the prosecution case. 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 mother Shailabai by assaulting her on the head with a stone slab/grinding stone (pata). Thus, we find no merit in the Appeal. The Appeal is dismissed. At this stage, we must record our appreciation for Advocate Ms. Rupali Shinde, 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/-.