Adinath Trimbak Varpe vs The State Of Maharashtra
2017 Latest Caselaw 4769 Bom

                                                                 cria293.13
                                        1


                                        
      IN  THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                               BENCH AT AURANGABAD


                     CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.293 OF 2013


 Adinath s/o Trimbak Varpe,
 Age-Major, Occu:Labourer,
 R/o-Nageshwari, Tq-Rahuri,
 Dist-Ahmednagar,
 Presently at Yervada Prison, Pune.
                                 ...APPELLANT
                                 (Ori. Accused) 
        VERSUS             

 The State of Maharashtra   
                                 ...RESPONDENT

                      ...
   Mr.R.D. Sanap Advocate Appointed for  Appellant.
   Mr.K.D. Munde, A.P.P. for Respondent - State. 
                      ...

               CORAM:   S.S. SHINDE AND
                        S.M. GAVHANE, JJ.

DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT : 13TH JULY, 2017.

DATE OF PRONOUNCING JUDGMENT: 20TH JULY, 2017.

JUDGMENT [PER S.S. SHINDE, J.]:

1. This Appeal is preferred by the

cria293.13

Appellant - Adinath s/o Trimbak Varpe challenging

the Judgment and order dated 12th February, 2013,

passed by the Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar in

Sessions Case No.215 of 2011, thereby convicting

original accused/Appellant for the offence

punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal

Code (in short "I.P. Code") and sentencing him to

suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of

Rs.1000/-, and further convicting the accused for

the offence punishable under Section 309 of the

I.P. Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for six months. The substantive

sentences were directed to be run concurrently.

2. The prosecution case, in nut-shell, is as

under :-

A) The prosecution case is that on 11th May,

2011 in between 12.30 to 1.00 p.m. at Nagar-Manmad

road in front of Pallavi Dhaba, at the residential

house of Smt. Sarika Rambhau Daule, accused

cria293.13

Adinath Trimbak Varpe, intentionally and knowingly

committed murder of Smt. Sarika Rambhau Daule by

causing her death and consequently attempted to

commit suicide thereby committing an offence

punishable under Sections 302 and 309 of the I.P.

Code.

B) Rambhau Dnyandeo Daule, the husband of

deceased Sarika, lodged First Information Report

at police station, Rahuri. He informed the police

that he was residing along with his wife Sarika

and two daughters, namely Nimisha and Samiksha,

opposite Pallavi Dhaba at Nagar-Manmad road of

Rahuri Bk. His brother's wife Sangita Bhaskar

Daule and his nephew Dnyaneshwar and Akshay and

niece Renuka were also residing in the said

premises. The informant Rambhau was having cordial

relations with Adinath Trimbak Varpe, and they

were friends from more than ten years prior to the

incident. His wife used to treat accused as her

Guru-brother. The accused used to drive a goods

cria293.13

rickshaw and used to bring fodder for the cattle

in his rickshaw for the informant. Due to their

friendly relations, the informant gave

Rs.3,00,000/- to accused Adinath Varpe as a hand-

loan six months prior to the incident. The

informant was asking the accused to repay said

amount since two months prior to the incident.

C) On 11th May, 2011 the accused came to

informant Rambhau's house at about 10 a.m. The

wife of informant told the accused that she was in

need of money and therefore the accused shall

return the hand-loan amount of Rs.3,00,000/-. The

accused told that he will return the amount in the

afternoon, and thereafter he left the house. The

informant had been to Jogeshwari Akhada to attend

marriage. At about 11.30 to 12.00 p.m. one Sachin

Pandurang Sarode came to the informant and told

that number of persons are gathered near his

house. Therefore, the informant Rambhau came back

to home in an auto rickshaw. He found number of

cria293.13

persons surrounding his house. His brother's wife

Sangita told him that, at about 12.30 to 1.00 p.m.

the informant's daughter Nimisha told her that

accused had assaulted her mother with a knife.

Therefore she immediately rushed to the

informant's house and tried to pacify the accused,

but the accused Adinath assaulted himself and fell

down. When Sangita went inside the house, she

found Sarika lying dead in injured condition in a

pool of blood.

D) The informant Rambhau informed the police

that the accused had committed murder of his wife

Sarika, as she demanded hand-loan amount of

Rs.3,00,000/- and as he got annoyed due to said

demand. The accused also got himself injured by

self inflicting injuries and tried to commit

suicide.

E) On the basis of complaint lodged by

Rambhau Dnyandeo Daule, Rahuri police registered

cria293.13

Crime No.147 of 2011 against the accused and

investigated into the said crime.

F) The police inspector Isamuddin Nasir

Pathan investigated into the crime. He recorded

the panchnama of place of incident in presence of

panchas. The inquest panchnama was already

recorded by PSI Parmar and dead body of Sarika was

sent for post-mortem. The knife used in the crime

was lying in the shed near spot of incident, and

the same was seized in presence of panchas. The

auto rickshaw of accused, bearing No.MH-17-K-9717

was found opposite Pallavi Dhaba nearby house of

the deceased and the same was seized in presence

of panchas.

G) The accused was admitted in Civil

Hospital, Ahmednagar by his relatives. The clothes

of accused were seized in presence of panchas

after his arrest. Similarly, the clothes of

deceased were also seized in presence of panchas

cria293.13

and all the seized articles were sent to C.A.,

Nasik. The PSI Isamuddin Nasir Pathan recorded

statement of the witnesses, and after due

investigation, came to the conclusion that the

accused committed murder of Sarika, as he got

annoyed by the demand of Rs.3,00,000/- which was

given to him as a hand-loan, and in the said

incident attempted to commit suicide. It was also

found that the incident was witnessed by Smt.

Sangita Bhaskar Daule and Renuka Bhaskar Daule.

After due investigation, a charge-sheet was filed

in the Court of J.M.F.C. Rahuri. In due course,

case was committed to the Court of Sessions.

H) A charge Exhibit-7 for an offence

punishable under Sections 302 and 309 of the I.P.

Code was framed against the accused and the same

was explained to him. The accused pleaded not

guilty and claimed to be tried, with the defence

of total denial.

cria293.13

3. After recording the evidence and

conducting full fledged trial, the trial Court

convicted accused for the offence punishable under

Section 302 of the I.P. Code and sentenced him to

suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine, as

afore-stated. The trial Court also convicted

accused for the offence punishable under Section

309 of the I.P. Code and sentenced him to suffer

rigorous imprisonment for six months, as afore-

stated. Hence this Appeal by the accused.

4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the

Appellant and learned A.P.P. appearing for the

State, at length. With their able assistance, we

have carefully perused the entire notes of

evidence so as to find out whether the findings

recorded by the trial Court are in consonance with

the evidence brought on record or otherwise.

5. The prosecution examined PW-5 Dr. Sudhir

Radhaji Kshirsagar. He deposed that on 11th May,

cria293.13

2011 he was on duty, he performed post-mortem of

Sarika Rambhau Daule, a female aged about 30

years, brought by police of Rahuri police station.

Post-mortem was carried out in between 5.10 p.m.

to 6.00 p.m. He found following external injuries

on the person of deceased Sarika:

"(i) Incised wound over left chest in 2nd intracostal space 4 X 2 X 14 cm. towards heart,

(ii) Incised wound over left arm, anterior aspect 4 X 2 X 3 cms.

(iii) Incised wound over left axilla anterior border 4 X 2 X 3 cms.

(iv) Incised wound over neck posterior aspect 4 X 2 X 14 cms.

(v) Incised wound over parotid region on right side 4 X 2 X 5 cms.,

(vi) Incised wound over right shoulder 4 X 2 X 2 cms.

(vii) Incised wound over left side at the base of thumb 4 X 3 X 1 cms.

. PW-5 Dr. Sudhir deposed that all injuries

were caused by sharp and hard object and all

injuries were ante-mortem. The age of the injuries

cria293.13

were within six hours. He found following internal

injuries:-

(i) left lung was perforated through and through,

(ii) Similarly pericardium was also perforated,

(iii) Left Atrium and left ventricle,

(iv) Clots were noted in large vessels,

(v) About 250 ml. blood clots were seen in thoracic cavity.

. PW-5 Dr. Sudhir further deposed that the

death was due to shock due to major injuries to

vital organs like lungs, heart due to stabbing

with sharp and hard object.

. Thus, it is clear from the deposition of

PW-5 Dr. Sudhir that death of Sarika was

homicidal.

. PW-5 Dr. Sudhir further deposed that he

cria293.13

has also examined Adinath Trimbak Varpe (accused).

The history was of self inflicted injuries while

attempting suicide. He found following injuries on

the person of accused Adinath Varpe:

(i) Cut incised wound over throat tracheal region having size 7 X 3 X 2 cms. Trache was perforated and air leakage was present,

(ii) Cut incised wound over abdomen 5 cms. above umbilicus, having size 5 X 1 X 1 cms.,

(iii) Cut incised wound over abdomen 7 cms. above and lateral at right side of umbilicus having size 6 X 1 X 1 cms.,

(iv) Cut incised wound over sternum area having size 3 X 1 X 1 cms.

. PW-5 Dr. Sudhir deposed that all the

above injuries were grievous and might have been

caused due to sharp and hard object. The age of

injuries was within three hours.

. Thus, it is clear form the evidence of

PW-5 Dr. Sudhir that accused also sustained self

inflicted injuries, by sharp and hard weapon.

cria293.13

6. The prosecution examined PW-1 Smt.

Sangita w/o Bhaskar Daule. She deposed that

informant Rambhau resides adjacent to her house.

She knows accused Adinath Trimbak Varpe. He is

friend of Rambhau. Accused used to visit Rambhau's

house frequently. Rambhau's wife Sarika (deceased)

was treating accused as her Guru-brother.

. About the incident, PW-1 Smt. Sangita

deposed that on 11th May, 2011 she did her routine

work and gave water to the sugarcane crop at about

12.00 noon and came back home at about 12.30 p.m.

She was viewing T.V. in her veranda (Padhvi). She

heard the cry of Sarika. She came out and found

Sarika's daughter Nimisha coming towards her

house. Nimisha told her that accused Varpe was

assaulting her mother by knife. She therefore

rushed towards Sarika's house from backdoor. She

found accused Adinath Varpe assaulting Sarika with

knife. She asked him why he was assaulting on

cria293.13

which accused rushed towards her. She therefore

rushed towards field, towards the house of cousin

brother of her husband viz. Yeshwant Daule and

Shanker Daule. Shankar Daule and his son Yeshwant

came out hearing her cry. She herself, Yeshwant

and Shankar came back towards the house of Sarika

and they found Sarika lying in injured condition

in the door and Adinath was also found injured

nearby her. She further deposed that Rambhau gave

Rs.3,00,000/- as hand-loan to accused Adinath and

Rambhau and Sarika were insisting him to give back

the said amount. As accused was not willing to

repay the amount, he committed murder of Sarika.

This witness was extensively cross-examined by the

defence, but nothing useful to the defence has

been elicited.

. Thus the prosecution has brought on

record through the evidence of Smt. Sangita (PW-1)

that, when the incident of assault on Sarika by

accused was going on, she went to the spot and

cria293.13

witnessed the incident and thus she is eye-witness

to the incident. She categorically stated that

Sarika's daughter Nimisha came to her house and

told her that accused Varpe was assaulting her

mother by knife and therefore she rushed towards

Sarika's house from back-door and she saw that

accused Adinath Varpe was assaulting Sarika with

knife.

7. The prosecution examined PW-2 Rambhau

Dnyandeo Daule, who is informant in this case. He

deposed that accused Adinath is his friend. He had

given Rs.3,00,000/- to the accused as a hand-loan

six months prior to the incident and since two

months prior to the incident he was insisting

accused to repay the said amount. He further

deposed that on the day of incident at about 10.00

a.m. Adinath came to his house, his wife Sarika

asked him to pay the said amount of hand-loan and

accused in reply told that, he will bring the

amount in the afternoon and left the house. PW-2

cria293.13

Rambhau further deposed that thereafter he went to

Jogeshwari Akhada for attending marriage and while

he was in marriage ceremony, his relative Sachin

Pandurang Sarode came there and told him that

number of persons gathered outside his house. He

immediately came back to his house and came to

know from Sangita that accused assaulted his wife

with a knife. Thereafter he went inside the house

and found dead body of his wife, she was injured,

having injuries on chest, hand, neck and all over

body. He went to the police station and lodged the

FIR.

. During the course of cross-examination,

PW-2 Rambhau stated that there is nothing in

writing as regards giving of loan of Rs.3,00,000/-

to the accused. He was unable to state the exact

date of payment of loan to accused. There was no

quarrel between himself and accused on non-payment

of loan amount prior to the day of incident. He

denied that Sangita and Renuka told him that there

cria293.13

was altercation between his wife and accused. He

denied all the suggestions put to him by the

defence.

. Thus it is clear from the evidence of

PW-2 Rambhau that he has given the amount of

Rs.3,00,000/- to the accused as hand-loan. He was

insisting the accused to repay the said amount. On

the date of incident, in the morning he has asked

accused to repay the amount, and accused told him

that, he will repay the amount in the afternoon.

When he came to know about the incident, he

immediately went to his house and seen the dead

body of his wife.

8. The prosecution examined PW-3 Renuka d/o

Bhaskar Daule. She deposed that deceased Sarika

was her aunt and her neighbourer also. She knows

accused. Accused usd to come to the house of her

uncle Rambhau and aunt Sarika.

cria293.13

. About the incident, PW-3 Renuka deposed

that on 11th May, 2011 at about 10.00 a.m. accused

had been to Sarika's house in auto rickshaw. At

about 12.00 to 12.30 p.m. she was viewing T.V.

After keeping Samikha, daughter of Sarika, in the

swinging to the cot, Sarika went to her house.

Within five minutes she heard the cry of Sarika

and therefore she rushed towards her house. She

found accused Varpe assaulting Sarika with a

knife. She got frightened and ran away. She went

towards house of her uncle Yeshwant Daule and

Shankar Daule to call them for help. She herself,

her uncles Yeshwant, Shankar and her mother

Sangita went near the house of Sarika. Sarika was

lying in the pool of blood and accused was also

lying there in injured condition. Sarika was no

more. During the cross-examination of PW-3 Renuka,

nothing contrary was brought on record.

. Thus, from careful perusal of the

evidence of PW-3 Renuka, it is clear that she is

cria293.13

also eye witness to the incident. She witnessed

the incident when accused was assaulting Sarika

and due to fear she ran away. Immediately after

the incident she visited the spot of incident and

found that Sarika died on the spot and accused was

also lying there in injured condition.

9. PW-4 Isamuddin Nasir Pathan, Police

Inspector, is the investigating officer in this

crime. He deposed about the manner in which he

carried out the investigation of the crime.

10. Thus upon careful perusal of the entire

evidence brought on record, it reveals that the

informant Rambhau and accused Adinath were friends

and Rambhau had given an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-

to accused by way of hand-loan. Rambhau and his

wife Sarika (deceased) were insisting the accused

to repay the said amount and accused was not

willing to repay the said amount, and he was

annoyed due to persistent demand of the said

cria293.13

amount by Sarika and her husband, and thus the

prosecution has brought on record the motive for

commission of the offence through the prosecution

witnesses PW-2 Rambhau and PW-1 Sangita. PW-1

Sangita and PW-3 Renuka are the eye witnesses to

the incident. They have specifically stated that

after hearing cries of Sarika, they rushed to the

house of Sarika and saw that accused Adinath was

assaulting Sarika with knife, due to fear they ran

away from the incident. Soon after the incident

they both visited the spot and found that Sarika

died on the spot and accused was also lying there

in injured condition. The prosecution has brought

on record through the evidence of PW-4 Isamuddin

Pathan, investigating officer that the knife,

which was used as a weapon to commit the offence,

was lying in the shed, near the spot of incident

and the same was seized. It has also come on

record that PW-4 Isamuddin Pathan also seized

Rickshaw of the accused bearing No.MH-17-k-9797

standing near the spot of incident. The said

cria293.13

rickshaw was owned by the person namely, More and

the same was being driven by the accused. The

blood group of Sarika was "A" and the C.A. report

discloses that said blood was found on the knife

used by the accused for assaulting Sarika, which

was seized from the spot of incident. The

prosecution has brought on record through the

evidence of PW-5 Dr. Sudhir Kshirsagar that death

of Sarika was homicidal and accused also sustained

grievous injuries, which were self inflicted

injuries. Thus the prosecution has proved beyond

reasonable doubt that the accused committed an

offence punishable under Section 302 and 309 of

the I.P. Code.

11. The trial Court has considered the entire

evidence brought on record and observed in Para-35

of the impugned Judgment that, on a conspectus of

discussions in foregoing paras, it will be thus,

crystal clear that the prosecution has proved

beyond all reasonable doubt that accused committed

cria293.13

murder by assaulting Sarika on vital part of her

body and inflicted injuries were not only on vital

part but also multiple in nature and it were so

grievous that Sarika died on the spot. The trial

Court further observed that, it is also proved

that the accused in order to raise self-defence

got himself injured and attempted to commit

suicide, and both the offences charged have been

proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.

The trial Court has convicted the

Appellant/accused for the offence punishable under

Section 302 and also under Section 309 of the I.P.

Code and sentenced him, as afore-stated.

12. In the light of discussion herein above,

on independent and in-depth scrutiny of entire

evidence, we are of the opinion that the trial

Court has considered all the evidence brought on

record in its proper perspective and recorded the

findings which are in consonance with the evidence

on record and convicted the Appellant/ accused.

cria293.13

The conclusions reached by the trial Court are in

consonance with the evidence brought on record by

the prosecution. There is no perversity as such.

13. In the light of discussion herein above,

we are of the opinion that there is no merit in

the Appeal. The Criminal Appeal stands dismissed.

14. Since, Mr. R.D. Sanap, learned counsel is

appointed to prosecute the cause of the Appellant

- Adinath s/o Trimbak Varpe, his fees and expenses

are quantified at Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five

Thousand).

[S.M. GAVHANE, J.] [S.S. SHINDE, J.] asb/JUL17