Bombay High Court
Pravin Vasantrao Thakare vs The State Of Maharashtra on 31 August, 2021
Bench: Nitin Jamdar, C.V. Bhadang
9 ia 2097-21.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2097 OF 2021
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 485 OF 2017
SNEHA Pravin Vasantrao Thakare ..Applicant
NITIN V/s.
CHAVAN
Digitally signed by
The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent
SNEHA NITIN
CHAVAN ----
Date: 2021.09.01
17:55:27 +0530 Mr. Aniket Vagal for the Applicant.
Mrs. M.M. Deshmukh, APP for the Respondent/State.
----
CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND
C.V. BHADANG, JJ.
DATE : 31 AUGUST 2021
P.C.
. By this application, the Applicant (accused No.1) is seeking
an order of suspension of sentence and for release on bail.
2. The Applicant along with co-accused Amol Karanjule was
tried for the offence punishable under Section 302 and 201 of
IPC for having intentionally caused the death of his wife Roshni.
The learned Sessions Judge, Pune by a Judgment and Order
dated 20 February 2016 in Sessions Case No. 56 of 2013 has
convicted the Applicant under both the sections. The Applicant
has been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a
Sneha Chavan page 1 of 4
9 ia 2097-21.doc
fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment
for six months under Section 302 of IPC . The Applicant has
been further sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three
years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default to suffer
rigorous imprisonment for two months for the offence
punishable under Section 201 of IPC. The co-accused Amol
Karanjule has been acquitted of the charge.
3. The prosecution case is that the Applicant got married to
Roshni and they were blessed with a child. The Applicant was
earlier residing at Vapi (Gujarat) where the Applicant got
acquainted with PW-3 Priyanka Muknak, her brother Prakash
Muknak and other family members. Subsequently, the Applicant
shifted to village Tamhane Vasti, Pune and called the family
members of Priyanka Muknak on the assurance of providing a job
to her brother Prashant Muknak. Further, according to the
prosecution, the deceased Roshni was doing a job in a private
company and minor son of the Applicant and Roshni was being
looked after by Priyanka Muknak in the absence of the deceased.
The Applicant, who was doing job of a painter used to be at
home, whenever he was unable to get work. Further, according
to the prosecution, the Applicant developed intimacy with
Priyanka Muknak and they had illicit relations which were
noticed by the deceased.
Sneha Chavan page 2 of 4
9 ia 2097-21.doc
4. On 25 September 2012, the deceased found the Applicant
and Priyanka cosying with each other, upon which a quarrel
ensued in which the Applicant is alleged to have assaulted the
deceased and strangulated her to death.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the Applicant and
the learned APP. With the assistance of the learned counsel for
the parties, we have gone through the record.
6. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and
perusal of the record, we find that the deceased had met with
homicidal/unnatural death at her matrimonial house where she
was residing along with her husband i.e. the Applicant. The
medical evidence shows that there were as many as 26 injuries on
the person of the deceased including contusions and abrasions
which includes nail marks. The cause of death is shown to be
manual strangulation with multiple contusions (unnatural).
Prima facie, it appears that according to the prosecution, the
deceased had found the Applicant and Priyanka Muknak together
after which a quarrel ensued between Applicant and the deceased.
The learned APP pointed out that the Applicant ought to have
explained the circumstances leading to the death of his wife as
required under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act.
7. We have carefully considered the circumstances and the
submissions made. This is not a stage to examine or appreciate
Sneha Chavan page 3 of 4
9 ia 2097-21.doc
the evidence in details. Suffice it to mention that the deceased is
shown to have met unnatural/homicidal death on account of
manual strangulation with multiple injuries on her person in her
matrimonial house where she was residing with the Applicant.
The prosecution has also shown motive for the commission of the
offence. The Applicant was in custody during the trial. The
Applicant has not offered to give any explanation as to the
circumstances leading to the death of his wife. Thus, having
regard to the submission made on behalf of the prosecution,
based on Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act, we do not find that
this is a fit case for exercise of discretion.
8. In the result, the Criminal Application is hereby dismissed.
(C.V. BHADANG, J.) (NITIN JAMDAR, J.)
Sneha Chavan page 4 of 4
