Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 2154 (BOM)

Gourishankar v. State of Maharashtra

2015-09-11

V.M.DESHPANDE

body2015
JUDGMENT V.M. Deshpande, J. 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-9, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No. 342 of 2012. By the said judgment and order, appellant is convicted for an offence punishable under Section 304, Part-II of the Indian Penal Code and directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for two months. Heard Mr. C.R. Thakur, leaned counsel for the appellant and Mr. S.S. Doifode, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent State. With their able assistance, I have gone through Record and Proceedings as well as notes of evidence. 2. The prosecution case is as under: Deceased is Sandhya Gudadhe. Her husband is Dilip Gudadhe (PW 2). He lodged oral report (exhibit 13) with Police Station, Panchpaoli, Nagpur on 6.5.2012. As per his FIR, Sarita Kolte is the sister of his wife. Sarita was married to Gourishankar Kolte, the appellant, in the year 2002. They resided in the same locality where Dilip, the first-informant resides. Along with appellant Gourishankar, his brother Jageshwar also resides. Appellant Gourishnakar was addicted to gambling and also used to drink liquor. He was not doing any regular work. The cumulative effect of the same was the frequent quarrels between appellant Gourishankar and his wife Sarita. Ultimately, Sarita along with her two daughters left the house with Jageshwar, her brother-in-law. 3. The First Information Report further states that appellant Gourishankar came near his house and accosted deceased Sandhya. He started alleging that Sandhya was responsible for running away of his wife, picked up quarrel with her and assaulted her by fists and kicks blows on her stomach and chest due to which health of Sandhya was deteriorated and she was required to be admitted in the hospital. 4. Shankarsingh Rajput (PW 9) was on duty as a Day officer on 3.5.2012. Sandhya (deceased) came to the Police Station and lodged oral report against appellant that prior to five days the wife of appellant had eloped with Jageshwar and he is suspecting that Sandhya had induced her sister to elope with Jageshwar and, therefore, he is extending threats to her. On the basis of report of deceased Sandhya, Shankarsingh registered non-cognizable case bearing No. 542/2012 (exhibit 56). On the basis of report of deceased Sandhya, Shankarsingh registered non-cognizable case bearing No. 542/2012 (exhibit 56). On the same day, at about 06.20 pm, he received telephonic information from Head Constable Anil (PW 10) that Sandhya is admitted in Mayo Hospital. The entry of said information was taken in Station Diary. The extract of Station Diary is at exhibit 58. During the admission in Mayo Hospital, Sandhya died and crime was registered as Crime No. 105/2012 as per report (exhibit 13). The investigation was entrusted to PSI Pravin Padvi (PW 8). He completed investigation and filed charge-sheet. 5. The appellant was tried for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. After a full-dress trial, the appellant was acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. However, he was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II IPC and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years, as aforesaid. It is reported that the State has not filed any appeal questioning acquittal of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. P.W. 7 is Dr. Narendra Kumar. He conducted autopsy on 6.5.2012. He noticed the following external injuries: "(i) Contusion present over left hypochondriac region of abdomen which was confirmed on cut section situated 9 c.m. below left nipple and 3 c.m. from midline of size 11 c.m. x 6 c.m., bluish in colour. (ii) Contusion present over lateral aspect of left thigh in lower 1/3rd region of size 4 c.m. x 3 c.m., bluish in colour confirmed on cut section. (iii) Sutured wound present over front of abdomen in midline having 15 sutured in situ. On opening sutures, laparatomy would (therapeutic) present of size 20 c.m. x 2 c.m. (iv) Therapeutic surgically incised drainage wound present over left lumber region of abdomen of size 1.5 c.m. x 1 c.m. (v) Therapeutic intravenous injection mark present over dorsum of right hand and right supra clavicular region of neck. All above injuries were ante-mortem." Dr. Narendra also noticed the following internal injuries: "No internal damage was seen in column No. 19 i.e. of head. Column No. 20 thorax extravasations of blood was present in 7 to 11 intercostal space muscles. Column No. 21 abdomen - Spleen was intact, pale, 800 grams in weight, a branch of splenic artery supplying hilum of spleen was torn. Narendra also noticed the following internal injuries: "No internal damage was seen in column No. 19 i.e. of head. Column No. 20 thorax extravasations of blood was present in 7 to 11 intercostal space muscles. Column No. 21 abdomen - Spleen was intact, pale, 800 grams in weight, a branch of splenic artery supplying hilum of spleen was torn. About 300 ml of blood was present in abdominal cavity. All the organs of the body were pale." According to the doctor, the cause of death was haemorrhage and shock. He also proved post-mortem report (exhibit 29). Thus, it is clear that Sandhya died homicidal death. 7. The question is, whether the appellant can be held responsible for such homicidal death. Prosecution witness No. 3 is Ravi Chavan. He is eye witness. According to him, the incident took place on 3.5.2012 and on that day he had been to the house of his tenant Santosh Usarbarse for collecting rent. He noticed a quarrel between appellant and deceased Sandhya. Appellant was abusing Sandhya and started giving fist and kick blows on her abdomen, chest etc. He with Puniyabai and Kalabai rushed there and rescued Sandhya. Puniyabai and Kalabai turned hostile. The evidence of Ravi Chavan (PW 3) has remained unshattered during the course of his cross-examination. His evidence thus clearly shows that appellant was found to be giving kick and fist blows on the vital parts of deceased Sandhya. 8. The evaluation of the prosecution case shows that on the day of incident, initially on the report of deceased Sandhya, a non-cognizable offence was registered against the appellant. It shows that the appellant was nursing grudge against the deceased that she is responsible for eloping of his wife with his own brother Jageshwar. On that count, Ravi's evidence inspires confidence that initially quarrel took place and in that Sandhya was assaulted. PW 11 Dr. Ambarish Khatod proved that Sandhya was having history of anemia. 9. In my view, the learned Judge of the Court below was right in reaching to the conclusion that the case of prosecution squarely falls within the ambit of offence punishable under Section 304, Part-II of the Indian Penal Code since it is clinchingly proved that the appellant is the author of the injuries which the deceased Sandhya had suffered. Hence, there is no merit in the appeal. In the result, appeal is dismissed.