Bombay High Court
Jagdish S/O Kamalchand ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 16 September, 2016
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
J-Cri.Apeal-310-15 1/8
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.310 OF 2015
Jagdish s/o Kamalchand Deshbhratar
Aged : 32 years, R/o Pandharabodi,
Tahsil & District Gondia ... Appellant
-vs-
State of Maharashtra
Through Police Station Officer,
Gondia Gramin Police Station,
Gondia, Tah. & Dist. Gondia. ... Respondent
Shri S.M. Puranik, counsel for the appellant (appointed).
Shri J. Y. Ghurdey, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
CORAM : B. P. DHARMADHIKARI &
A.S.CHANDURKAR, JJ.
DATE : September 16, 2016
Oral Judgment : (Per A. S. Chandurkar, J.)
By this appeal filed under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973, the appellant takes exception to his conviction for having
committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal
Code. The appellant has been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and
to pay fine of Rs.2000/-
2. It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant was married
J-Cri.Apeal-310-15 2/8
with one Sarita. They were residing at village Pandharabodi and had two
children. The appellant was in jail on the ground that he had committed the
murder of his brother Satish. He was released at the time of Diwali in the
year 2008. During said period his wife and children were residing at village
Chargaon with his father-in-law. After his release on bail the appellant came
to his village and inquired about his wife and children. He then went to
Chargaon and came back with his family to Pandharabodi after two days. On
07/11/2008 the police authorities received a message that the appellant and
his wife were missing. In the evening on the same day, the appellant had
come to the village and the villagers had inquired with him about his wife.
The appellant disclosed that he has murdered his wife and had kept her body
on the loft of his house. On that basis report was lodged and investigation
was commenced. After completion of investigation a charge-sheet was filed.
The appellant did not plead guilty and he was accordingly tried. At the
conclusion of the trial, the appellant was convicted in the manner stated here
in above.
3. Shri S. M. Puranik, the learned counsel appointed to represent the
appellant challenged the conviction of the appellant on the ground that the
same was based purely on circumstantial evidence. According to him the
chain of circumstances did not lead to the guilt of the appellant. In absence
of any eye-witness to the incident, the appellant could not have been
J-Cri.Apeal-310-15 3/8
convicted merely on the basis of surmises. There was no evidence to link the
appellant with the murder of his wife and on the contrary it was the
appellant who had brought back his wife and children from Chargaon after
being released on bail. It was therefore submitted that the prosecution had
failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The learned counsel
therefore sought for acquittal of the appellant.
4.
Shri J. Y. Ghurde, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
supported the conviction of the appellant. According to him the prosecution
had proved all the circumstances which pointed to the guilt of the appellant.
The evidence on record indicated that the appellant was last seen in the
company of his wife. The appellant had infact been prosecuted for the
murder of his brother on the ground that his brother was having an affair
with his wife. The same was the motive for committing the murder of his
wife. The extra judicial confession given by the appellant himself alongwith
discovery of the body of his wife on the loft of the house were the
circumstances not explained by the appellant. In absence of any plausible
defence, there was no reason to interfere with the conviction of the
appellant.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and we have
also gone through the records of the case. As per the Post Mortem report at
J-Cri.Apeal-310-15 4/8
Exhibit-18 the death of Sarita occurred due to asphyxia due to throttling.
Her death has been proved to be homicidal. This aspect of the matter has
not been seriously challenged by the appellant.
6. Since the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial
evidence, it would be necessary to consider the various circumstances
brought on record by the prosecution. According to PW-3 Lakhanlal Ukey
who was the father of the deceased, he had received a phone call that the
appellant and his daughter were missing from the village. According to him
the appellant had returned to his village along with his wife and children 2-3
days prior thereto. This witness went to the village and as the appellant and
his daughter were not found, he lodged a report. His report at Exhibit-32
indicates that in the night of 06/11/2008, the appellant and his wife were
missing from their home by leaving the children there.
7. PW-1 Jayendra examined below Exhibit-9, PW-2 Madhu Chauhan
examined below Exhibit-10 and PW-7 Vishnudas Vaidya examined below
Exhibit-10 are residents of the same village and they were residing near the
house of the appellant. These witnesses have deposed that on the night of
06/11/2008 they heard the sons of the accused crying and on making inquiry
they were told by the children that their parents were not at home. After
making a search in the night, this information was given to the father of the
J-Cri.Apeal-310-15 5/8
deceased on the next day. It was then stated that in the evening of
07/11/2008 the appellant had come to the village for drinking water. When
he was seen by these witnesses and other villagers he had tried to run away.
The appellant had then demanded some food and after taking food he told
the villagers that he has committed the murder of his wife and had kept her
body on the loft of his house. Nothing material has been extracted in the
cross-examination of these witnesses. They being neighbours of the
appellant and residents of the same village, their presence at the house of the
appellant after hearing the cries of the children of the appellant appears to be
natural. This evidence indicates that the children of the appellant started
crying after they did not find their parents at home. PW-3 Lakhanlal has
deposed that the appellant had taken his wife and children from Chargaon to
his village. Thus, presence of the appellant at Pandhrabodi at his house and
his subsequently not being found there alongwith his wife stands established.
8. As per spot panchanama at Exhibit-21 dated 07/11/2008, the
body of the deceased was found at the roof of the house of the appellant.
PW-8 the Investigating Officer has stated that after the appellant had
returned to the village in the evening on 07/11/2008 and was being
questioned by the villagers which included PW-1 Jayendra, PW-2 Madhu and
PW-7 Vishnudas, he had stated that after murdering his wife, the appellant
had kept her body on the loft of the house. It was thereafter that the spot
J-Cri.Apeal-310-15 6/8
panchanama came to be drawn. There is nothing on record to doubt this
part of the case of the prosecution. The evidence of the panch witness PW-
7 is consistent with the aforesaid spot panchanama. That the body of the
deceased was discovered at the instance of the appellant when he had
returned to the village is another circumstance that has been proved by the
prosecution.
9.
Another relevant circumstance is that on 07/11/2008, the
appellant had returned to his village in the evening hours. He was hungry
and was demanding food. On seeing the villagers including PW-1, PW-2 and
PW-7, he attempted to run away. This conduct of the appellant indicates
that he was hungry when he came to the village from where he had gone
away in the night of 06/11/2008. He also tried to run away on seeking the
villagers. The said conduct strengthens the case of the prosecution. His
aforesaid conduct is another relevant circumstance in the chain of
circumstances.
10. In so far as the motive on the part of the appellant in committing
the murder of his wife is concerned, PW-7 has deposed that the appellant
had suspected that his wife had illicit relations with his brother Satish. This
aspect has been brought on record by PW-8 the Investigating Officer. The
extract of the crime register at Exhibit-34 indicates that the appellant was an
J-Cri.Apeal-310-15 7/8
accused in Sessions Case No.8/2007 for having committed the murder of his
brother Satish. It has also come on record that after his release from jail in
Diwali-2008, he had returned to his village and had thereafter brought back
his wife and children from Chargaon. These circumstances form another
vital link in the chain of circumstances.
11. On consideration of the entire evidence on record, it can be seen
that all the circumstances brought on record have been duly proved and they
lead to the only conclusion that it was the appellant who had committed the
murder of his wife. The chain of circumstances leading to the guilt of the
appellant has been proved completely and there is no missing link. It is
therefore found that the learned Judge of the Sessions Court was justified in
holding the appellant guilty.
12. In view of above, the following order is passed :
(i) The criminal appeal is dismissed.
(ii) Judgment and order of conviction delivered by learned Sessions
Judge, Gondia on 12/05/2010, is maintained.
(iii) Muddemal property be destroyed after appeal period is over.
(iv) Charges of learned counsel Shri S. M.Puranik appointed for the
appellant are quantified at Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand only).
JUDGE JUDGE
Asmita
J-Cri.Apeal-310-15 8/8
-: C E R T I F I C A T E :-
"I certify that this Judgment/order uploaded is a true and
correct copy of the original signed Judgment/order."
Uploaded by :
Asmita A. Bhandakkar
Personal Assistant
Uploaded on :
20/09/2016
