Bombay High Court
Ashok S/O. Sukram Dabhade vs The State Of Maharashtra on 4 February, 2021
Bench: R.V. Ghuge, B. U. Debadwar
4238.19crapln
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
901 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4238 OF 2019
IN APEAL/91/2020 WITH APEAL/91/2020
ASHOK S/O. SUKRAM DABHADE
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr Ram B. Deshpande (appointed Through
Legal Aid)
APP for Respondent: Mr K. S. Patil
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE
AND
B. U. DEBADWAR, JJ.
DATE : 4th February, 2021
PER COURT:
1. By this application, the applicant/appellant prays for suspending
the substantive sentence of life imprisonment, awarded to him by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shahada, Dist. Nandurbar, vide
Judgment dated 18/08/2017, delivered in Sessions Case No.57 of
2015. The appellant has been convicted for having committed an
offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The learned Counsel, who is holding the brief for the appellant
through the High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee, Aurangabad,
has strenuously contended that, though the prosecution claimed to
have two eye-witnesses, none of the eye-witnesses are believable.
There is no evidence against the appellant. The Police Head Constable
4238.19crapln
Shri. Govind Jadhav, PW1, was the informant and there was no
complaint filed by any independent person or a relative of the
deceased. He further submits that the deceased was the wife of the
appellant. There was no reason or motive to kill her. The appellant
has a very good case and has every hope of acquittal. He relied upon
the appeal paper-book and drew our attention to the deposition of the
various witnesses.
3. The learned Prosecutor has strenuously opposed this application.
He submits that the evidence on record clearly establishes the guilt of
the accused. Quality of the evidence is material and not the quantity of
the witnesses. The quality of the evidence in this case will clearly
indicate the guilt of appellant. He is a habitual offender and there are
cases registered against him. Due to his terror, not a single villager
was willing to come forward to lodge the first information report.
Police Head Constable Shri Govind Jadhav, PW1, mustered courage
and lodged the first information report, vide which, the investigation
was set into motion.
4. We find from the record that the prosecution has examined
eleven witnesses. PW1, Police Constable Govind Jadhav was the
person, who had lodged the first information report. PW2, Kailas
Punju Dabhade, a witness to the 'last seen together alive' theory, has
4238.19crapln
deposed that on 12/07/2015, in between 1.30 pm to 2.00 pm (noon),
the accused dragged his wife Hirkanbai by holding her shoulder from
the courtyard and took her inside the house. Both were together and
there was no other person inside the house. When she was assaulted
and she started screaming, he heard her screams along with other
persons.
5. The deceased was a physically challenged person. Her one leg
was amputated and she used to use crutches. There were multiple
injuries on her body, right from her head till her legs. On account of a
telephone call received at 4.00 pm in the Police Station, the ASI Mr
Bagale, PSI Nikam, Head Constable Kantilal Patil and the police staff
reached the house of the accused at village Hingani. After entering the
house, they found the accused in his house and the deceased was lying
on the ground motionless with a blanket covered over her. Upon
removing the blanket, these persons saw the dead body of Hirkanbai
and saw fresh bleeding injuries. Since no villager dared to register the
complaint, PW1, Police Head Constable Govind became an informant.
6. The panch witnesses have supported the Inquest Panchnama and
the Spot Panchnama. The clothes of the appellant were seized on
14/07/2015 and an axe and a spade was discovered and seized on
15/07/2015 and the Seizure Panchnama was drawn.
4238.19crapln
7. Two witnesses i.e. PW4, Chandrakant Ashok Patil and PW7,
Sunil Bhagwan Patil deposed that when they were seated in the house
of PW7 at around 4.00 pm on 12/07/2015, the accused had come there
and had told them that his wife had died due to injuries sustained by
her while cutting wood and asked them to come to his house. Both of
them visited the house of the appellant and found Hirkanbai lying
motionless with several injuries and blood was oozing from the
injuries on her forehead. The accused and one Shantaram Koli had
dug one pit right in front of his house to bury the dead body of
Hirkanbai. Naturally, Shantaram, PW6, did not support the case of the
prosecution.
8. There are several other witnesses, who have deposed before the
Trial Court. Their testimony has been analyzed by the Trial Court, in
details, in the impugned Judgment.
9. PW9, the Doctor, who performed the post mortem on the body
of the deceased, has mentioned several injuries right from the forehead
of the deceased till her legs. Her ribs were fractured. The liver had
ruptured and the left lung and abdomen were congested with blood. In
the post mortem report, he has noted the cause of death as being
cardio respiratory arrest, hypo volamic shock due to hemorrhage and
4238.19crapln
multiple injuries. He deposed that several injuries noticed can be
caused by the use of an axe, and the wooden handle of the axe could
also lead to some other injuries, noted by him.
10. Another eye-witness, PW8, Bhikubai, has deposed that she was
seated in front of her house below the neem tree. When she heard
screams in between 1.00 p.m to 1.30 pm, she turned around and on her
backside, she saw the accused assaulting Hirkanbai in his courtyard
with an axe. He then dragged her inside the house and continued
beating her which led to the death of Hirkanbai.
11. Considering the above, at this stage, we do not find that the
application preferred by the applicant, deserves consideration. The
same, being devoid of merits, is therefore rejected.
(B. U. DEBADWAR, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
sjk
