Satish Raghunath Devkar vs The State Of Maharashtra
2016 Latest Caselaw 3304 Bom

Sherla V.



                                                                          apeal.62.2011 (J).doc


                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                              CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION




                                                                                     
                                    CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.62 OF 2011

            Shri Satish Raghunath Devkar                      )




                                                             
            R/at Majiwada Ward Office Bldg.,                  )
            Flat No.301, 3rd floor, Majiwada, Thane           )
            presently detained at                             )
            Nashik Road Central Prison, Nashik                )       ... Appellant




                                                            
                  Vs.

            The State of Maharashtra                          )
            through PSO, Majiwada Police station              )       ... Respondent




                                                    
                                          
            Mr.V.S. Talkute for the Appellant
            Mrs.U.V. Kejriwal, APP, for Respondent - State
                                         
                                                  CORAM: SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI &
                                                         MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ.

DATE: JUNE 27, 2016

ORAL JUDGEMENT (PER MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.):

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 9th

July, 2010 in Sessions Case No.56 of 2008 passed by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge, Thane, thereby convicting the accused Satish

Raghunath Devkar for the offence punishable under section 302 of the

Indian Penal Code and sentencing to suffer R.I. for life and payment of fine

of Rs.2,000/- and in default to suffer R.I. for six months. The case of the

prosecution in brief is as follows:

apeal.62.2011 (J).doc

Kunda Satish Devkar, wife of the accused, was murdered by the

accused on 22.9.2007. On 4.5.2007, they got married. He was

suspicious about the character of Kunda. On the day of the incident, i.e.,

on the night intervening 21.9.2007 and 22.9.2007 at around 0015 hrs., the

complainant Umar Hasan Shaikh and other persons in the locality had

assembled on account of the visit of one MLA for celebration of Ganesh

Utsav. After his departure, at midnight at around 0015 hrs., they heard

quarrel and shouts from third floor of the building in one office where the

accused was residing. They all went upstairs alongwith the police. The

door was closed from inside. They knocked the door. After some time, the

accused opened the door and came out. He was wearing dhoti and half

sleeve shirt. It was blood stained. He told them that his wife was having

unchaste life and so, he killed her. They all went inside and found that the

body of Kunda was lying on the floor. The accused killed Kunda with

brass utensil i.e.., Khalbatta, knife and a bamboo. She was dead. Then,

Umar gave the information to the police and the offence was registered at

C.R. No.376 of 207 with the Kapurbawdi police station. Thereafter, the

police arrived, carried out the spot panchanama. Post-mortem was

conducted on the next day i.e., 22.9.2007. The police recorded the

statements of the witnesses. The accused was arrested on the same day

and the chargesheet was filed after completion of investigation. The case

was committed to the Court of Sessions. Then charge was framed under

apeal.62.2011 (J).doc

section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He pleaded not guilty. The trial

concluded in conviction. Hence, this appeal.

2. Mr.Talkute, the learned Counsel for the appellant, read over the

evidence of all the witnesses. The prosecution has examined in all 24

witnesses. He submitted that the applicant is innocent. He has not

committed murder of his wife. He submitted that there is no eye witness.

He was not wearing dhoti on his person when he opened the door. The

dhoti which was seized by the police and shown as blood stained is a

manipulated evidence.

ig He challenged the seizure panchanama of the

clothes under exhibit 55 and the C.A. Report (exhibit 59). He submitted

that the accused was a pious person and a follower of 'Warkari' cult who

are believers of non-violence. He submitted that the appellant has not

committed any offence. The case of the prosecution is full of

discrepancies and leniency is to be shown to the appellant.

3. The learned Prosecutor has opposed the appeal and she supported

the judgment and conviction.

4. We have gone through the evidence of the witnesses. The witness

PW1 Umar Hasan Shaikh has given a detailed description of the incident

as to how the incident has occurred. The FIR (exhibit 19) corroborates the

evidence of Umar Shaikh. It is true that the case is based on

circumstantial evidence and nobody has seen the accused assaulting his

apeal.62.2011 (J).doc

wife Kunda on that night. However, the incident has taken place on the

midnight of 21st and 22nd September, 2007 in the closed house of the

accused and the deceased. They were husband and wife, got married on

4.5.2007 and within 4½ months, Kunda was assaulted. Due to Ganesh

festival, many persons were assembled near the building and they all

heard shouts of Kunda and immediately rushed to the house.

PW4 Rohidas Mulundkar has stated in his deposition that on the

night of 21st and 22nd September, 2007, when he returned home at

midnight, he heard cries of Kunda and they all went up. The door was

found locked and the police also arrived. When the door was knocked, the

accused opened the door. There were blood stains on his clothes and

face and his wife was lying in the bedroom. PW6 Bhaskar Gavit, PW9

Jagannath Padwal, police constable, PW10 Firoz Nawaz Shaikh have

corroborated on the point of shouts of Kunda that the door was closed and

when knocked, the accused came out and there were blood stains on his

body and Kunda was lying in the bedroom as the injured and she was

dead. PW13 Vijay Bhikaji Amre who drew spot panchanama marked

exhibit 43 on 22.9.2007, has deposed that the spot panchanama was

carried out at around 2.10am to 4.15am and at that time, blood stained

bamboo, one solid brass metal kitchen utensil (in vernacular language,

'khalbatta'), a solid rod type Khalbatta utensil and one kitchen knife, all

blood stained, were found at the spot. PW14 Dr.Prasannakumar

apeal.62.2011 (J).doc

Krishnarao Deshmukh conducted the post-mortem on 22.9.2007. He has

deposed that the injuries were caused due to hard, blunt and sharp object.

There were many injuries on her body. Her cause of death was due to

haemorrhagic shock due to multiple injuries. Considering the quality of

evidence and the manner in which the incident has taken place and

availability of the witnesses, who were natural and hence, found reliable,

we are of the view that no interference is required in the judgment of the

trial Court. It is a case of conviction under section 302 of the Indian Penal

Code for the offence of murder.ig

5. Hence, we confirm the sentence and dismiss the appeal.

         (MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)                         (V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.)