Shriniwas Narayan Kairamkonda vs The State Of Maharashtra
2017 Latest Caselaw 6993 Bom

                                                                             10. cri apeal 653-15 (j).doc


RMA      
                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 653 OF 2015


            Shrinivas Narayan Kairamkonda
            Aged about 35 Years, Occ. : Labour
            Resident of 231, Nilam Nagar 1,
            Solapur, Dist. Solapur.

            [ Presently lodged at Kolhapur Central
              Prison, Kalamba. Convict No. C/6281
              Circle 7/3 ]

                                                                            .. Appellant
                                                                               (Org. Accused)

                                 Versus
            The State of Maharashtra
            Through M.I.D.C. Police Station in
            C.R. No. 216/2013, Dist. Solapur.                               .. Respondent

                                                  ...................
            Appearances
            Mr. Abhaykumar Apte Advocate (appointed) for the Appellant
            Mr. Arfan Sait      APP for the State
                                                   ...................



                              CORAM       : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI &
                                              M.S. SONAK, JJ.

DATE : SEPTEMBER 11, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] :

1. This appeal is preferred by the appellant-original

accused against the judgment and order dated 26.11.2014

passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Solapur in Sessions

jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 13

10. cri apeal 653-15 (j).doc

Case No. 41 of 2014. By the said judgment and order, the

learned Session Judge convicted the appellant under

Sections 302 and 504 of IPC. For the offence punishable

under Section 302 of IPC, the learned Sessions Judge

sentenced the appellant to suffer life imprisonment and to

pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default, RI for six months. For the

offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC, the appellant

was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and to

pay fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default, RI for three months. The

learned Sessions Judge directed that both the sentences of

imprisonment shall run concurrently.

2. The prosecution case briefly stated, is as under:

(a) Deceased Sarita was the daughter of PW 6

Devidas. The marriage of Sarita and the appellant

took place in the year 2001. They had two

children i.e Yogesh and Namrata. Yogesh was

about 9 years old at the time of the incident. The

appellant was addicted to liquor and used to

jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 13

10. cri apeal 653-15 (j).doc

frequently demand money from his wife Sarita.

He also used to assault Sarita. Devidas was

residing about 10-12 houses away from the house

of the appellant and Sarita. Whenever Sarita

complained to Devidas, Devidas used to advise

the appellant, however, there was no change in

behaviour of the appellant.

(b) The incident occurred on 15.9.2013. On that day

at about 3.00 p.m., the appellant assaulted his

wife Sarita with a scissor on the neck, chest, back,

hands, abdomen etc. This was witnessed by PW 5

Yogesh who was the son of Sarita and the

appellant. On seeing the incident, Yogesh

shouted and assaulted his father with a steel pot

(chambu). Yogesh ran outside the house shouting

"Raktam Raktam (blood)". This was heard by PW

7 Sanjay who was the brother of the appellant. On

hearing shouts, Sanjay entered in the house.

jfoanz vkacsjdj 3 of 13

10. cri apeal 653-15 (j).doc

Sanjay saw Sarita lying in a pool of blood in the

kitchen. When he entered into the house, he saw

the appellant running outside the house. Sanjay

then along with others took Sarita to hospital. In

the hospital, Sarita was declared dead on

admission.

(c) At about 4.00 p.m., PW 6 Devidas, the father of

Sarita was informed that the appellant inflicted

blows with scissor on Sarita. Devidas then went to

the Civil Hospital. In the hospital, he came to

know that Sarita had expired. Police recorded the

complaint of Devidas in the hospital. Thereafter,

investigation commenced.

(d) The dead body of Sarita was sent for postmortem.

PW 1 Dr. Bhoi conducted the postmortem on the

dead body of Sarita. He found 22 injuries on the

dead body of Sarita. According to him, the

jfoanz vkacsjdj 4 of 13

10. cri apeal 653-15 (j).doc

probable cause of death was due to stab injury to

the abdomen.

(e) Meanwhile, the appellant came to be arrested. At

the time of arrest, the clothes on the person of the

appellant were found stained with blood. They

were seized under panchnama Exh. 27. During

investigation, the blood stained scissor came to

be recovered at the instance of the appellant

under memorandum and panchnama Exh. 38 and

39. 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 -

original accused under Sections 302 and 504 of IPC. The

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

jfoanz vkacsjdj 5 of 13

10. cri apeal 653-15 (j).doc

this case, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and

sentenced the appellant as stated in paragraph 1 above,

hence, this appeal.

4. We have heard the learned Advocate for the appellant

and the learned APP 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 Sessions Judge and

the evidence on record, for the reasons stated below, we are

of the opinion that the appellant assaulted his wife Sarita

with a scissor and caused her death.

5. The conviction of the appellant is mainly based on the

evidence of PW 5 Yogesh who is an eye witness to the

incident. Yogesh was the son of the appellant and deceased

Sarita. Yogesh has stated that at the time of the incident, he

was studying in 4th standard in Bavi English Medium School,

Solapur. He was staying with his mother Sarita (deceased),

jfoanz vkacsjdj 6 of 13

10. cri apeal 653-15 (j).doc

father (appellant), Sister Namrata, his uncles Vinod and Vikas

and his paternal aunt Uma. Yogesh has stated that his

mother used to do the work of rolling bidis. His father used

to constantly quarrel with his mother on account of money to

consume tobacco. His father used to assault his mother.

Yogesh has stated that the incident occurred on 15.9.2013 in

the afternoon. Yogesh was in the house at that time. He

heard the shouts of his mother calling out to him, hence, he

went to the kitchen. He saw his father assaulting his mother

with scissor. His father assaulted his mother on her neck,

chest, back, hands and abdomen with scissor. Yogesh

shouted and assaulted his father with a steel pot (chambu).

Yogesh then went running out of the house shouting

"Raktam, Raktam (blood)". Sanjay (PW 7) who was another

uncle of Yogesh rushed to the spot and brought his mother

Sarita outside the house and took her to the hospital. Sanjay

shouted "Pakda, Pakda" (Catch, Catch) when his father ran

out of the house. Yogesh has identified his father as

the person who assaulted his mother. He has also

jfoanz vkacsjdj 7 of 13

10. cri apeal 653-15 (j).doc

identified the scissor which was used by his father to assault

his mother and stated that the said scissor was used by his

mother in cutting the bidi leaves. Nothing has been elicited

in cross-examination of Yogesh so as to cause us to

disbelieve his testimony. We are of the opinion that his

testimony inspires implicit confidence, hence, we have no

hesitation in relying on the same.

6. The evidence of PW 7 Sanjay also corroborates the

evidence of Yogesh to a little extent. Sanjay was the brother

of the appellant. Sanjay has stated that Sarita was the wife

of the appellant. She used to do the work of rolling bidis.

The appellant used to quarrel with his wife Sarita frequently.

The quarrel used to be on account of money. The appellant

also used to assault Sarita with fist blows. The appellant was

consuming liquor and assaulting Sarita under the influence of

liquor. His mother, elder brother and others used to advise

the appellant not to behave in such a manner, however,

there was no change in the behaviour of the appellant.

jfoanz vkacsjdj 8 of 13

10. cri apeal 653-15 (j).doc

7. PW 7 Sanjay has further stated that on 15.9.2013 at

about 3.30 to 4.00 p.m., he heard shouts of Yogesh coming

from his house. Yogesh was shouting "Raktam Raktam" and

Yogesh came out of the house. Sanjay then entered into the

house and saw Sarita lying in a pool of blood in the kitchen.

When Sanjay entered in the house, he saw the appellant

running away from the house. Thus, the evidence of PW 7

Sanjay not only corroborates the evidence of Yogesh to a

little extent, in addition, it shows the conduct of the

appellant. The conduct of the appellant in running away

while his wife lay in a seriously injured and profusely

bleeding condition in the house, also points out to the mens

rea of the appellant.

8. The next circumstance against the appellant is that he

was arrested on the very same day of the incident i.e on

15.9.2013. At the time of arrest, the clothes on the person of

the appellant were found soaked with blood. This has been

stated by PW 7 Sanjay. Sanjay has stated that the clothes

jfoanz vkacsjdj 9 of 13

10. cri apeal 653-15 (j).doc

which were on the person of the appellant were soaked with

blood. These clothes were seized under panchnama Exh. 27.

He has identified the said clothes. The clothes were sent for

chemical analysis. As per C.A. report Exh. 42/1, the pant and

shirt of the appellant were stained with blood of "O" group.

The C.A. report Exh. 42/2 shows that the blood group of

deceased Sarita was "O". Thus, finding of blood of "O" group

which is the blood group of deceased Sarita on the clothes

of the appellant at the time of his arrest is a strong

incriminating circumstance against the appellant. It is

pertinent to note that the appellant has not given any

explanation for presence of blood stains on his clothes.

9. Another circumstance against the appellant is recovery

of scissor Article 11. Panch witness PW 11 Mukund has

stated about recovery of scissor at the instance of the

appellant. Mukund has stated that on 17.9.2013 at about

9.15 a.m., he was called to the Police Station. At that time, in

his presence, the appellant has expressed his desire to

jfoanz vkacsjdj 10 of 13

10. cri apeal 653-15 (j).doc

produce a weapon before the police. The said statement

was reduced into writing (Exh. 38). Thereafter, the appellant

led the police and panchas to a room from where he

produced the scissor from a loft. The appellant used a ladder

for the said purpose. The scissor was found stained with

blood. The said scissor was seized under panchnama Exh.

39. This scissor was sent for chemical analysis. The CA

report Exh. 42/1 shows that the scissor was stained with

blood of "O" group which is the same blood group as that of

Sarita which is seen from C.A. report Exh. 42/2.

10. That Sarita died a homicidal death is seen from the

evidence of PW 1 Dr. Bhoi. Dr. Bhoi conducted the

postmortem on the dead body of Sarita. Dr. Bhoi noticed 22

injuries on the body of Sarita. They are two stab injury on

the face next to the left eye, stab injury on the neck, two

stab injuries on the left side of the head, two stab injuries on

the back of the head, three incised wound on the back of the

head, two stab injuries on the left shoulder, stab injury on

jfoanz vkacsjdj 11 of 13

10. cri apeal 653-15 (j).doc

the chest right side, stab injury in the umbilicus region, stab

wound on the abdomen, chop wound on the right knee, two

incised wounds on middle finger of right hand, stab injury on

right arm and two stab injuries on the left forearm. In

addition, there were contusions on the face below left eye

and on the abdomen on left lateral side. In the opinion of Dr.

Bhoi, the probable cause of death was due to stab injuries to

the abdomen. According to Dr. Bhoi, all the injuries noticed

on the dead body of Sarita were sufficient to cause the death

of the deceased. Dr. Bhoi has further stated that all the

incised wounds and stab injuries seen by him on the dead

body of Sarita were possible by scissor Article 11 before the

Court. Thus, the medical evidence also supports the ocular

evidence.

11. On going through the evidence on record, we are of the

opinion that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable

doubt that the appellant assaulted his wife Sarita with a

scissor on various parts of the body and caused her death.

jfoanz vkacsjdj                                                             12 of 13





                                                        10. cri apeal 653-15 (j).doc




Thus, we find no merit in the appeal.                      The appeal is

dismissed.




[ M.S. SONAK, J. ]                    [ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. ]




jfoanz vkacsjdj                                                          13 of 13