Bombay High Court
Rajendra Amrita Gaikwad vs The State Of Mah on 24 February, 2016
Bench: A.V. Nirgude
(1) crap617.12
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 617 OF 2012
Rajendra Amrita Gaikwad .. Applicant
Age. 45 years, Occ. Nil,
R/o. Aurad, Tal. Omerga,
Dist. Osmanabad.
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
Mr. R.D. Biradar, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. S.D. Ghayal, A.G.P. for respondent/State.
CORAM : A.V.NIRGUDE &
INDIRA K.JAIN, JJ.
DATED : 24.02.2016
ORAL JUDGMENT [PER : A.V. NIRGUDE,J.] :-
1. This appeal challenges judgment and order dated
26.09.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Osmanabad, in Sessions Case No.10 of 2011. The
Trial Court convicted the appellant for the offence
punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and
sentenced him to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a
fine of Rs.5000/- with default clause.
2. The appellant is accused of committing murder of
his own daughter. It is stated that the appellant/accused
got annoyed with his daughter because she had eloped with
her boy friend for few days and came back. The
(2) crap617.12
appellant/accused felt insulted and therefore he
committed her murder. The prosecution case mainly
depended on deposition of P.W.5-Muktabai, who is
neighbour of appellant/accused. She said that on the day
of incident at about 8.00 to 9.00 a.m., she saw that the
appellant's wife and their son Akash left their house and
went to hospital at Gunjoti. She said that after they
left, appellant/ accused and deceased Shital were the
only persons in their house. She then said that she heard
noise of assault and abuses. She went to see as to what
was happening. She saw that the accused was assaulting
and abusing his daughter - Shital. She said that she did
not go and intervene because she apprehended that the
accused/appellant would be rude to her. She then said
that after some time noise of quarrel stopped. She also
saw that accused came out of the house closing the door
and sat on the steps of his house. Thereafter, she saw
son of accused Akash and wife of accused Chandrakala came
back to their house. They raised alarm. Hearing it she
went to their house and saw Shital dead. She also noticed
marks of throttling on Shital's neck.
3. Second important witness for the prosecution is
P.W.2-Ravan - Police Patil. He said that on 19.02.2011,
he had gone to Omerga. At about 12o clock he visited
police station and saw his villagers - Satyawan, Ashok,
(3) crap617.12
Pramod etc. present in the police station. He made
enquiry with them. He learnt that Shital was killed.
He, therefore, took police to the house of the
appellant/accused. There all of them saw dead body of
Shital inside the house of the accused. They also found
black mark around neck of Shital. He said that he made
enquiry with the wife of the accused who informed him
that at the time of incident, it was only
appellant/accused and deceased Shital who were present in
the house. He then lodged the complaint. The dead-body
was sent for post-mortem and P.W.1-Dr.Sunanda has opined
that Shital died of asphyxia due to throttling. P.W.1-
Dr.Sunanda also confirmed that besides mark of
throttling, there were about 10 injuries all over
Shital's body.
4. There are other witnesses such as spot panch
etc. The accused also examined his son Akash as defence
witness No.1, who gave completely different story about
the incident.
5. The question that arises for our consideration
is - whether depositions of P.W.5-Muktabai and P.W.2-
Ravan deserve to be believed.
6. We found no reason why we should disbelieve
(4) crap617.12
them. They are natural witnesses. The incident took
place in broad day light. Due to noise of the quarrel,
attention of neighbours would certainly get attracted and
so witness Muktabai got curious. She went close to the
house of the accused and saw appellant/accused having
quarrel with the victim. She even saw him assaulting the
victim. This witness [P.W.5-Muktabai] did not exaggerate
to state that she saw appellant/ accused throttling his
daughter, but she simply stated that after some time the
quarrel stopped and she saw the accused coming out of the
house. She stated very clearly that during the incident,
there were only two persons present in the house of the
accused and they were the appellant/accused and the
victim-Shital. Soon thereafter Akash and his mother came
and were shocked to find Shital's dead-body in the house.
They naturally raised alarm. Hearing their alarm, the
neighbours rushed to the house of the appellant/accused
and he was almost caught red-handed. Soon thereafter
some villagers went to the police station and informed
the police. Unfortunately for the accused/appellant,
police patil P.W.2 was present in the police station and
subsequently the investigation proceeded as expected.
7. There is one more circumstance against the
appellant/accused. It was admitted fact that Shital had
eloped with her boy-friend. They remained away from the
(5) crap617.12
village for few days and came back. The appellant/accused
could have felt insulted because of this rebellious
conduct of his daughter and therefore he had strong
motive to assault and kill his daughter.
8. We find no reason to interfere in the
appreciation of evidence of the Trial Court. The learned
Judge of the Lower Court has rightly convicted the
appellant for the offence of murder. The appellant
practically does not have any defence in this case. The
evidence of defence witness is utterly unbelievable and
after-thought. If the appellant/accused wanted the Court
to believe that at the time of incident, he was away from
his house and was not responsible for homicidal death of
his daughter, he ought to have brought on record
admissions of witness that they saw him going away from
the house while victim Shital was hospitalized, but such
defence was not raised.
9. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
[INDIRA K.JAIN,J.] [A.V.NIRGUDE,J.]
snk/2016/FEB16//crap617.12
