Bombay High Court
Gupta vs The State Of Maharashtra on 5 December, 2012
Bench: V.K. Tahilramani, A. R. Joshi
PPD
1
APEAL.964-05JUDGMENT.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.964 OF 2005
[THROUGH JAIL]
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1055 OF 2011
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.964 OF 2005
Rameshchandra Dwarkaprasad ]
Gupta, Convict Prisoner No.C/2770, ]
Kolhapur Central Prison. ] ..Appellant
[Orig.Accused]
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ] ..Respondent
....
Smt. Rohini Dandekar, Advocate (appointed) for the Appellant.
Mrs. S.V. Gajare - Dhumal, APP for the Respondent - State.
....
CORAM : SMT. V. K. TAHILRAMANI, &
A. R. JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : 05th DECEMBER, 2012
JUDGMENT: [PER A. R. JOSHI, J.]
1. Heard rival submissions on this Criminal Appeal
preferred by the appellant/orig.accused challenging the
judgment and order of conviction dated 11 th January, 2005
1 / 8
APEAL.964-05JUDGMENT.doc
passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in
Sessions Case No.122 of 2004. By the said judgment and order,
the appellant/accused was convicted for the offence punishable
under Section 302 of IPC and was sentenced to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to
suffer imprisonment for six months.
2. The case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is as under :-
Appellant/accused along with his wife Usha (since
deceased) and his three children was residing together at
Jogeshwari. PW-1 Mrs. Urmila Sharma was his neighbour. PW-2
Vishnu Tak was also a neighbour of appellant/accused. PW-4
Bhjarat Jaiswal was his earlier neighbour when
appellant/accused along with his family was staying at other
place. PW-3 is Chandan Gupta, a young son of
appellant/accused. Said PW-3 Chandan Gupta was then aged 13
years at the time of the incident.
3. Appellant/accused was doubting the character of his
wife who used to do some minor labour work. He was doubting
2 / 8
APEAL.964-05JUDGMENT.doc
that his wife Usha @ Kalawati (since deceased) had illicit
relations with one Bhujarath Jaiswal (PW-4). On that count,
there used to be quarrels between appellant/accused and his
wife and at times appellant was assaulting his wife. This factum
of quarrel between the couple was known to the neighbours of
appellant/accused.
4. The incident occurred at about 10:15 a.m. on 6 th
October, 2003 when the accused came from outside and when
his wife Usha and his son Chandan were present at home, he
inflicted knife blows on the chest and other parts of the body of
Usha. Usha sustained severe bleeding injuries. The assault was
witnessed by PW-3 Chandan - son of the accused and victim.
Later part of the incident i.e. victim Usha lying in front of her
house in an injured condition and accused leaving the spot was
witnessed by PW-2 Vishnu Tak a neighbour of appellant/accused.
Injured woman was taken to the hospital for treatment. Police
recorded the statement of PW-2 Vishnu Tak which was treated as
First Information Report (Exh.16). It was recorded at about 2:00
p.m. on that day. It is also the case of prosecution that PW-3
3 / 8
APEAL.964-05JUDGMENT.doc
Chandan Gupta - son of appellant, after witnessing the incident
rushed to the police station and brought one police constable
with him. However, on reaching back he did not see his injured
mother as by that time she was removed from the place for
medical treatment. Chandan narrated the incident to other
persons and also to PW-2 Vishnu. He also narrated the incident
to the police. He found his father (appellant/accused) in the
said locality on the same afternoon and reported the police and
accordingly appellant/accused was arrested at 3:00 p.m. on the
same day. His blood stained clothes were recovered.
5. Initially the victim Usha was alive while being taken to
hospital. At the hospital, she gave the history as to assault by her
husband but within a short-while she succumbed to the injuries.
Then the FIR of PW-2 Vishnu Tak was recorded, as mentioned
above, and investigation started. Inquest panchnama was done
on the dead body of the victim. Even spot panchnama was
conducted after visiting the scene of offence i.e. house of the
accused. As mentioned earlier, appellant/accused was put under
arrest at 3:00 p.m. on the same day and his blood stained clothes
4 / 8
APEAL.964-05JUDGMENT.doc
were recovered. Seized articles were sent for chemical analysis.
On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed and the
matter was committed to the Court of Sessions. Sessions Case
was heard and disposed of by the Additional Sessions Judge,
Greater Bombay convicting the appellant/accused for the offence
punishable under Section 302 of IPC. This is the judgment and
order which is challenged in the present appeal.
6. As we have gone through the substantive evidence of
prosecution witnesses and mainly that of PW-3 Chandan Gupta,
PW-2 Vishnu (first informant), and PW-4 Bhujarat Jaiswal, in our
considered view there is overwhelming evidence incriminating
against the appellant/accused, more so his young son - aged
about 13 years (PW-3 Chandan Guptal) has completely deposed
against him as to witnessing the incident of assault and then
finding appellant/accused and handing him in the custody of
police. There is nothing brought on record during the cross-
examination of PW-3 Chandan Gupta and other witnesses so as
to dilute the case of prosecution.
5 / 8
APEAL.964-05JUDGMENT.doc
7. We have also gone through the substantive evidence of
PW-4 Bhujarat Jaiswal. He deposed regarding his acquaintance
with the family of appellant/accused and at occasions his visits
to the house of appellant/accused for chitchatting and taking
tea. Said witness further deposed that due to such visits
appellant/accused had entertained a suspicion regarding some
relations between said PW-4 Jaiswal and the wife of
appellant/accused. Such suggestions were put to PW-4 Jaiswal
during his cross-examination. However, in answer to questions
while recording statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.,
appellant/accused had categorically denied that he had
entertained a suspicion regarding illicit relations between PW-4
Bhujarat Jaiswal and his wife. However, he did admit that he
was against the visits of his wife to the house of PW-4 Jaiswal,
and as such there used to be disputes and quarrels between him
and wife Usha.
8. During the arguments, it is tried to submit on behalf of
the appellant by learned Advocate Smt. Rohini Dandekar
appointed through Legal Services Committee that
6 / 8
APEAL.964-05JUDGMENT.doc
appellant/accused had not intended to kill his wife and in fact it
was the grave and sudden provocation that had prompted him to
assault his wife. Though this argument was advanced, there was
no much force in the same, inasmuch as, there was nothing
brought on record so as to so gravely provoke the
appellant/accused to commit the offence of assaulting his wife
on the chest. In this context, the injuries sustained by the victim
are self-explanatory. Dr. Rajaram Marathe (PW-7) conducted the
postmortem on the deceased and the injuries observed by him
are recorded by him in the postmortem notes, which are detailed
as under :
(1) stab wounds 3 cm x 1 cm by cavity deep. Single edged
on right anterior axillary line 6 space.
(2) stab wound 1.5 cm x 1 cm cavity deep single edged
on right nipple line 8th space.
(3) slicing incised wound on right thumb terminal
phalynx 3 cm.
(4) incised wound 5 cm on left shoulder.
. All the above injuries were antemortem. According to
Doctor the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage
following unnatural injuries.
7 / 8
APEAL.964-05JUDGMENT.doc
9. In any way, considering the overwhelming material
available on record, it cannot be said that the learned Sessions
Judge had erred in coming to the conclusion of guilt of the
appellant/accused. In other words, there is nothing to interfere
with the judgment and order, and hence there is no merit in the
present appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed and disposed
of. Criminal Application No.1055/2011 is also disposed of as
infructuous.
10. This judgment and order be communicated to the
appellant who is presently lodged in jail, through concerned jail
authorities.
(A. R. JOSHI, J.) (SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.)
8 / 8
