Bombay High Court
Dhaya Gomya Paradhi vs The State Of Maharashtra on 7 December, 2012
Bench: V.K. Tahilramani, A. R. Joshi
PPD
1
APEAL.967-05JUDGMENT.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.967 OF 2005
Dhaya Gomya Paradhi, ]
Age : 25 years, ]
R/o. Pachgani, Thakurwadi, Tal. Pen, ]
Dist. Raigad. ]..Appellant
ig [Orig.Accused]
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ] ..Respondent
....
Smt. Rohini Dandekar, Advocate (appointed) for the Appellant.
Mr.J.P. Kharge, APP for the Respondent - State.
....
CORAM : SMT. V. K. TAHILRAMANI, &
A. R. JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : 07th 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 27 th April, 2005 passed
by the Sessions Judge, Raigad-Alibag in Sessions Case No.47 of
1 / 7
APEAL.967-05JUDGMENT.doc
2005. By the impugned judgment and order the
appellant/accused was convicted for the offence punishable
under Section 302 of IPC and was sentenced to suffer
imprisonment for life
2. The case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is as under :-
Marriage between appellant/accused and his wife
victim Nagi (since deceased) took place some time in the year
2001. Appellant/accused was quarreling with the victim his
wife and was beating her at times on the ground that she was
frequently visiting her parents. In the year 2004, though there
was custom that a woman should visit the house of her parents
on the occasion of Sarvapitra Amavasya, she did not visit and as
such her father Balya Pingla had been to the house of
appellant/accused. That time, he found that his daughter Nagi
was beaten by her husband and she was unable to walk. As such
by arranging a palanquin she was brought to the house of Balya
Pingala. This happened about 10 days prior to the fateful
incident. The incident of assault occurred on 4.11.2004. After
2 / 7
APEAL.967-05JUDGMENT.doc
coming to the house of her parents, victim Nagi has started
residing in the nearby house of her paternal grandmother i.e.
PW.5 Tai Pingala. As such on the night of the incident, victim
Nagi was sleeping with her grandmother at her house. In the
midnight, appellant/accused entered the house and assaulted the
victim on her face and head by means of wooden log. Noticing
the commotion in the house, Tai Pingala (PW-5) woke up and
noticed that appellant/accused was assaulting victim Nagi. PW-5
Tai Pingala tried to apprehend appellant/accused by catching
hold of him. However, he pushed Tai away and ran away by
backside door. When initially Tai Pingla noticed the incident of
assault, she raised shouts and as such one neighbour Ganpat
Khema (PW-2) reached there and saw appellant/accused
running away from the house of Tai Pingala. Appellant/accused
could not be found for four days and he was subsequently
arrested on 8.11.2004 under the panchnama.
3. According to the case of prosecution, when after the
assault appellant/accused ran away from the spot, people
gathered there. Intimation was given to PW-3 Balya Pingala
3 / 7
APEAL.967-05JUDGMENT.doc
(father of the victim) and PW-1 Nagya Pingla (paternal uncle of
victim). Apparently due to the assault, victim had died on the
spot on receiving severe bleeding injuries on her head and neck.
PW-1 Nagya Pingala lodged a complaint with the police against
appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 302
of IPC. Investigation was started. Inquest panchnama was
conducted. Clothes from the person of the dead body were
taken charge of. Spot panchnama was also conducted. Dead
body was sent for postmortem and postmortem report (Exh.16)
was obtained. The external Injuries observed by the Dr.Waman
Suryawanshi (PW-4) are as under :-
1) Contused lacerated wound coupled with fracture
mandible, right side cheek 3 cm x 2 cm x 1.5 cm.
2) Contusion on right ear pinna with bleeding
present from the ear.
3) contusion behind neck 6 cm x 3.5 cm oblique,
coupled with fracture of underline bone.
4) fracture of spine second survical vertibra.
. All the above injuries were ante-mortem. The Doctor
noticed following internal injuries :
1) fracture on right mandible.
2) Fracture of right maxilla.
4 / 7
APEAL.967-05JUDGMENT.doc
3) subdural haemetoma on right side.
All the injuries were ante-mortem.
4. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was
filed against appellant/accused. During the trial, total five
witnesses were examined. Out of them, important witnesses are
PW-5 Tai Pingala who is an eye witness. Part of the incident as
to appellant/accused running away from the spot, is witnessed
by PW-2 Ganpat Khema. As such, there is corroboration to the
substantive evidence of PW-5 Tai Pingala by the substantive
evidence of PW-2 Ganpat Khema. There is also evidence of PW-1
Nagya Pingala (uncle of victim) and PW-3 Balya Pingala (father
of victim). Their evidence and also the evidence of PW-5 Tai
Pingala goes to show regarding the visit to the house of
appellant/accused about 10 days prior to the incident of assault
and taking victim Nagi to the house of her parents when she was
in rather injured condition even unable to walk due to assault by
appellant/accused. The evidence of these prosecution witnesses
has gone unchallenged, as has been observed by us on going
through their testimonies in the cross-examination.
5 / 7
APEAL.967-05JUDGMENT.doc
5. There is no doubt that victim died homicidal death and
it has been substantiated by the medical evidence of PW-4 Dr.
Waman Suryawanshi, as detailed above. The weapon of assault
i.e. wooden log was thrown away in the house of Tai Pingale by
appellant/accused when he ran away from the spot.
6. During the arguments, though it is submitted that
appellant/accused has been falsely implicated in the matter,
there was no much force in the argument so also there was no
any plausible explanation given on behalf of appellant/accused
for his abscondance for four days when his wife had homicidal
death when she had gone to the house of her paternal
grandmother Tai Pingala. Even nothing is brought on record on
behalf of appellant/accused by way of cross-examination or
while answering the questions as per Section 313 of Cr.P.C., so as
to appreciate such material on preponderance of probabilities to
ascertain whether the defence of appellant/accused is probable
one. In other words, it must be said that on one side there is
overwhelming and corroborated testimony of eye witness PW-5
Tai Pingala and which has not been controverted, on the other
6 / 7
APEAL.967-05JUDGMENT.doc
side there is no explanation forthcoming from appellant/accused
as to his abscondance for four days.
7. Considering the above circumstances and the material
available on record, we are of the considered view that there is
nothing to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of
conviction and as such there is no merit in the present appeal
and the same is accordingly dismissed and disposed of.
8. 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.)
7 / 7
