Bombay High Court
Janu Bendu Wagh vs The Stata Of Maharashtra on 7 March, 2016
Bench: V.K. Tahilramani
jdk 1 of 10 8.cri.apeal.546.14.j.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 546 OF 2014
Janu Bendu Wagh ]
C.6122, Circle No. 1/4 ]
Kolhapur Central Prison, ]
Kalamba, Kolhapur 416007. ].. Appellant
[Ori. Accused ]
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra ig ]
Through Jawhar Police Station) ].. Respondent
....
Mrs. Farhana Shah Advocate appointed for the Appellant
Smt. V.R. Bhonsale A.P.P. for the State
....
CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI AND
SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ.
DATED : MARCH 07, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT: [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.]
1 The appellant-original accused has preferred this
appeal against the judgment and order dated 11.11.2013
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Thane in
Sessions Case No. 476 of 2011. By the said judgment and
order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant
jdk 2 of 10 8.cri.apeal.546.14.j.doc
under Section 302 for causing the death of his wife Manjula,
under Section 326 for causing injuries to his brother Babu and
under Section 325 for causing injuries to his nephew Kisan. For
the offence under Section 302, the appellant was sentenced to
life imprisonment and fine of Rs.5000/- in default S.I. for five
months. For the offence under Section 326, the appellant was
sentenced to R.I. for five years and fine of Rs.3000/- in default
S.I. for three months and for the offence under Section 325, the
appellant was sentenced to R.I. for three years and fine of
Rs.2000/- in default S.I. for two months. The learned Sessions
Judge directed that all the substantive sentences shall run
concurrently.
2 The prosecution case, briefly stated, is as under:
(i) The appellant was residing with his wife Manjula and
six children at Masnewadi in Taluka Jawhar in District Thane.
The first informant PW 1 Babu was the brother of the appellant.
PW 1 Babu was residing near the house of the appellant. PW
12 Kisan was the nephew of the appellant as well as PW 1
Babu. His house was one house away from the house of the
jdk 3 of 10 8.cri.apeal.546.14.j.doc
appellant. The appellant was addicted to liquor. The appellant
used to suspect that his wife was having illicit relations with
some other person.
(ii) The incident occurred on 18.8.2010. At that time, the
appellant along with his wife Manjula and children were in the
house. The appellant started beating his wife Manjula. The
appellant then inflicted blows with axe on his wife Manjula
including a blow on the neck. Manjula fell down. Thereafter,
the appellant started chasing his children with axe in his hand.
Therefore, his daughter PW 8 Sunita and son PW 9 Rama went
to the house of their paternal uncle PW 1 Babu along with one
more brother. The appellant followed them to the house of
Babu. Babu asked the appellant why he his beating his
children. Thereupon, the appellant inflicted blows with axe on
the head of PW 1 Babu. In the meanwhile, PW 12 Kisan who
was the nephew of the appellant, came to the spot. Kisan told
the appellant not to beat anybody. Then the appellant inflicted
blow with sickle on the hand of Kisan. Manjula died on account
of assault. PW 1 Babu lodged F.I.R. Thereafter investigation
commenced. The dead body of Manjula was sent for post-
jdk 4 of 10 8.cri.apeal.546.14.j.doc
mortem. The appellant was arrested. After completion of
investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed. In due
course, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.
3 Charge came to be framed against the appellant.
Appellant pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed to
be tried. His defence is that of total denial and false
implication. After going through the evidence adduced in this
case, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the
appellant as stated in paragraph 1, hence, this appeal.
4 We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant
and the learned A.P.P. for the State. After giving our anxious
consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case,
arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties,
the judgment delivered by the learned Judge and the evidence
on record, for the below mentioned reasons, we are of the
opinion that there is no merit in the appeal.
5 The star witness in the present case is PW 8 Sunita.
Sunita was the daughter of the appellant and deceased
jdk 5 of 10 8.cri.apeal.546.14.j.doc
Manjula. Sunita has stated that on 18.8.2010 she, her brother
Rama, her siblings and her parents were at home. Sunita has
stated that the appellant used to consume liquor and he used
to suspect her mother and at about noon time, her father
started beating her mother. Her father inflicted blows with axe
on her mother. Her mother fell down. Thereafter her father
started chasing her and her siblings with axe in hand.
Therefore, they went to the house of their uncle (PW 1 Babu).
Their father came there. Their uncle told their father that why
he was beating the children. Thereupon, her father inflicted
blow with axe on the head of her uncle. At that time, Kisan
(PW 12) came there and told their father not to beat anybody.
Her father then inflicted blow on the hand of Kisan. Meanwhile,
their uncle had hidden the children. Thereafter, their father
went away.
6 PW 9 Rama is the son of the appellant and the
deceased. He has also stated that his father used to suspect
his mother. Rama has stated that the incident took place at
about noon. His father was saying that he would kill his
mother. His father then inflicted blows with axe on his mother
jdk 6 of 10 8.cri.apeal.546.14.j.doc
including a blow on the neck. His mother fell down. Rama has
stated that his father also inflicted blow with axe on the head
of his uncle (PW 1 Babu) and on the hand of Kisan (PW 12).
7 PW 12 Kisan was the nephew of the appellant. Kisan
was staying one house away from the house of the appellant.
Kisan had stated that on the day of the incident, he was
present in his house.
ig In the afternoon, the children of the
appellant came to his house crying and informed him that their
father had killed their mother with an axe. Kisan then went to
the house of the appellant to see whether the appellant had
really killed his wife. He saw Manjula lying dead. At that time,
the appellant assaulted him with sickle on his right arm, due to
which, he sustained bleeding injury.
8 PW 1 Babu is the brother of the appellant. Babu has
stated that the appellant is his brother. Manjula (deceased)
was wife of the appellant. The appellant was residing in the
village along with his wife and children. Babu has stated that
on the day of the incident, he was at home. The children of the
appellant came to his house and told him that their mother was
jdk 7 of 10 8.cri.apeal.546.14.j.doc
assaulted by their father. Then Babu went towards the house
of the appellant. The appellant then inflicted blow with axe on
the forehead of Babu.
9 The prosecution case is corroborated by the medical
evidence. PW 10A Dr. Khot conducted the post mortem on the
dead body of Manjula. On external examination, he found two
injuries on her person i.e. (1) chop wound between right
shoulder and base of neck which was 12 cms. x 8 cms. 1st, 2nd
and 3rd rib cut and in between intercostal muscle and
neurovascular bundles were cut. Crack to upper border of
scapula 3 x 2 cm. Traperius muscle cut. Subclavin artery and
vein cut, Apex of the lung seen. (2) Chop wound over back
between left 11th and 12th rib, horizontal elliptical in shape
margin sharp length 8 cm. medial end 5 cm. from vertebral
column lateral end upto midaxillary line breadth 3 cm. depth 5
cm. upto spleen, underlying spleen seen, 11th rib cut 5 cm.
from its attachment to vertebra, 12th rib cut at 8 cm. from its
attachment to vertebra. According to Dr. Khot, causeof death
was due to hypovolumic shock as consequence of massive
hemorrhage. In the opinion of Dr. Khot, the injuries can be
jdk 8 of 10 8.cri.apeal.546.14.j.doc
caused with an axe. Thus, we find that the medical evidence
corroborates the prosecution case.
10 The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that
the prosecution case cannot be believed because PW 10A Dr.
Khot has stated that injuries are also likely to be caused by
sword. This solitary sentence in the cross-examination by itself
is not sufficient to overthrow the prosecution case because, in
examination-in-chief, Dr. Khot has categorically stated that the
injuries can be caused by axe. The eye witnesses have clearly
stated that the appellant assaulted Manjula with an axe. We
see no reason to discard their testimony especially in view of
the evidence of Dr. Khot that the injuries can be caused by
axe.
11 It is further the prosecution case that the appellant
had also assaulted PW 1 Babu with an axe and PW 12 Kisan
with sickle. This is corroborated by the evidence of PW 11
Kawale. Dr. Kawale has stated that on 18.8.2010 at about 3.40
p.m. he examined Kisan (PW 12). On examining Kisan, he
noticed one injury i.e. CLW over right elbow anterior aspect 3 x
jdk 9 of 10 8.cri.apeal.546.14.j.doc
2 x 1.5 cm with underlying vessels cut. According to Dr.
Kawale, the nature of injury was grievous. He gave primary
treatment and sutured vessels which were cut under
anesthesia. He advised and referred the patient to higher
center for surgical treatment.
12 Dr. Kawale also examined PW 1 Babu. On
examination of Babu, he noticed one injury i.e. CLW over
forehead 3 x 1.5 x 1 cm. with underlying frontal bone fracture.
According to Dr. Kawale, the nature of injury was grievous. He
advised and referred the patient to higher center for CT scan of
brain. Dr. Kawale has specifically stated that both the patients
came to the hospital with history of assault. After examining
Kisan and Babu, he issued certificates Exhs. 40 and 41. Thus,
the evidence of Dr. Kawale also corroborates the prosecution
case.
13 We are of the opinion that the evidence of PW 8
Sunita, PW 9 Rama, PW 1 Babu and PW 12 Kisan taken
together, clearly establishes that it was the appellant who
assaulted Manjula, Babu and Kisan, hence, we do not find it
jdk 10 of 10 8.cri.apeal.546.14.j.doc
necessary to advert to any other evidence. In our opinion, the
evidence of these four witnesses is sufficient to sustain the
conviction of the appellant. The evidence of these four
witnesses proves beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant
assaulted and caused the death of Manjula and he also
assaulted Kisan and Babu and caused them grievous injuries.
Thus, we find no merit in the appeal. Appeal is dismissed.
14 We quantify legal fees to be paid to the appointed
Advocate Mrs. Farhana Shah by the High Court Legal Services
Committee at Rs. 5000/-.
[SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.] [ SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J. ]
kandarkar
