Bombay High Court
Tukaram Vithoba Kute vs The State Of Maharashtra on 25 March, 2021
Bench: S. V. Kotwal
1/6 29-BA-726-20.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.726 OF 2020
Tukaram Vithoba Kute .... Applicant
versus
State of Maharashtra .... Respondent
.......
• Mr.Veerdhawal Deshmukh i/b. Jaydeep D. Mane, Advocate for
Applicant.
• Smt. J.S. Lohokare, APP for the State/Respondent.
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 25th MARCH, 2021
P.C. :
1. The Applicant is seeking his release on bail in
connection with C.R.No.80/2019 registered with Islampur Police
Station, on 09/02/2019 under section 302 of the Indian Penal
Code.
2. Heard Mr.Veerdhawal Deshmukh, learned counsel for
the Applicant and Smt.J.S. Lohokare, learned APP for the State.
3. The prosecution case is that the deceased Renuka was
the Applicant's second wife. They had got married on
Nesarikar
2/6 29-BA-726-20.odt
16/02/2016. On 22/02/2016 they entered into an agreement
wherein they had decided that the Applicant had to transfer one
room, 5 acre land and half of his pension in favour of Renuka
and he was to look after Renuka and her son Pradip. He did not
comply with such promises and therefore there used to be
frequent quarrels between the Applicant and his wife Renuka.
On 08/02/2019, between 07.00 to 07.45 p.m. the Applicant
committed Renuka's murder by assaulting her on her head with
sickle.
4. The FIR was lodged by one Ajay Patil, who had broken
open the lock of the room on 09/02/2019 at about 12.00 p.m.
and had found Renuka murdered inside.
5. Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that
though, the first informant has stated in his statement that his
grandfather had seen the Applicant going away at 07.45 p.m. on
08/02/2019 after putting a lock on the room, the grandfather of
the first informant himself has not stated that the Applicant had
3/6 29-BA-726-20.odt
locked the room. He had merely seen the Applicant going away
from that place. He submitted that this variance goes to the root
of the matter. He further submitted that there is difference in
story narrated by the different eyewitnesses. One of the witness
namely Sampatrao Patil had mentioned that there was crowd at
about 12.00 p.m. on 08/02/2019 outside the house of the
Applicant, whereas the other witness Jaywant Suryawanshi
stated that he had seen the crowd at about 06.00 p.m. on
08/02/2019. He submitted that this discrepancy also shows that
the prosecution case is doubtful.
6. The learned counsel submitted that the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Balkrishna Tukaram Angre, Vs.
State of Maharashtra as reported in 2018 ALL MR (Cri.) 898
(SCC) had granted bail to the accused, against whom the
prosecution case was based on circumstantial evidence.
7. Learned APP opposed this application. She submitted
that besides the fact that there was no eyewitness, there is a
4/6 29-BA-726-20.odt
witness who had seen the Applicant going away from that room
with bag in his hand. The victim was staying with the Applicant
and therefore it was for the Applicant to explain the facts within
his knowledge as per section 106 of the Evidence Act. She
further submitted that there is recovery of sickle and blood
stained clothes at his instance.
8. I have considered these submissions. With the
assistance of the learned counsel, I have perused the entire
charge-sheet.
9. The important witness in this case is one Anrao Patil.
He had given that particular room on rent to the present
Applicant. He has stated that there used to be frequent quarrels
between the Applicant and the deceased and therefore this
witness had asked them to vacate the room. On 08/02/2019 at
about 07.00 p.m. the Applicant and the deceased had come
together from some place. They had luggage in their hands. At
around 07.00 p.m., this witness heard their quarrel and shouts.
5/6 29-BA-726-20.odt
He did not pay any attention because it was their every day
affair. At about 07.45 p.m. the Applicant was seen going away
from the room with a bag in his hand. He was in a hurry. On the
next day this witness had seen lock to that room. This witness
had seen the Applicant going away from the room alone. The
deceased was not with him. Therefore he got suspicious and he
told his grandson Ajay, the first informant, to break open the
lock. After that the dead body was found.
10. The post-mortem notes shows that there was stab
wound on the scalp of the deceased and the cause of the death
was 'Intracranial hemorrhage with subdural heamorrhage'. This
is a seriously incriminating circumstance against the present
Applicant. There is considerable force in the submission of
learned APP, that as per section 106 of the Evidence Act, it was
within the special knowledge of the Applicant to explain as to
what had happened, because the deceased was alone in the
room with the Applicant. He had left the room hurriedly without
offering any explanation to the witness i.e. the first informant's
6/6 29-BA-726-20.odt
father. Besides this, the circumstance of recovery of murder
weapon and the blood stained clothes is another circumstance
against the present Applicant. The argument that the witness
Jaywant had seen crowd in the evening on 08/02/2019 has no
substance, because the informant's grandfather and witness
Sampatrao Patil had stated that the lock was broken open at
12.00 p.m. The witness Jaywant had returned from his work at
06.00 p.m. Therefore he was not aware as to what happened at
12.00 p.m. Considering this, there is strong material against the
Applicant.
11. As far the judgment referred to by the learned counsel
for the Applicant is concerned, that judgment will not be helpful
to the Applicant in this particular case in view of the
circumstances mentioned hereinabove. These circumstances
form a complete chain. The application is therefore rejected.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
