Bombay High Court
Rajendra Sham Waghele vs The State Of Maharashtra on 29 October, 2021
Bench: S.S. Shinde, Surendra Pandharinath Tavade
1/15 APPEAL-737-2013 (J).doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 737 OF 2013
Rajendra Sham Waghele
Age: 51 years, Occ: Nil,
R/o Room No. B-38, N.M.C. Building,
Kathada, Bhadrakali,
Nashik.
At present confned at
Nashik Road Central Prison
Nashik. ...APPELLANT
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
At the instance of
Bhadrakali Police Station,
Nasik. ...RESPONDENT
...
Mr. Hitesh Shah for appellant.
Mr. S.S. Hulke APP for State.
...
CORAM : S. S. SHINDE &
S.P. TAVADE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 20th OCTOBER, 2021.
PRONOUNCED ON: 29th OCTOBER, 2021.
JUDGMENT: [PER S.S. SHINDE, J.]
1. This appeal takes an exception to the impugned
judgment and order dated 30.11.2012 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge-4, Nasik in Sessions Case No.
30.11.2012.
Bhagyawant Punde
2/15 APPEAL-737-2013 (J).doc
2. In the present case the appellant herein has lodged the
FIR and stated thus:-
That, Sau. Meena Rajendra Waghele (hereinafter referred
to as deceased) was his wife, their marriage was solemnized in the
year 1986. He has two sons namely Prashant and Ganesh and one
married daughter Sau. Komal, who is residing at Upnagar, Nashik.
According to the appellant prior to one year back of the incident he
took voluntary retirement from the service.
After the marriage for few days Meena (deceased) they
cohabited, however, according to him, during cohabitation period
behaviour of deceased was not proper and frequent quarrels used to
held in between them. Ten years back on one occasion deceased on
her own accord alongwith son and daughter went at her parents
home and stayed there for three months. Thereafter, appellant
convinced the deceased and brought her back for cohabitation.
According to the appellant, at the time of Diwali in last year quarrel
was held with the deceased and at the same time the deceased
uttered obscene words as well as blamed him as impotent.
3. It is the case of the appellant that on 13.11.2011 at about
10.00 p.m. he came to home and at that time only the deceased was
present in the house. On his reaching home again quarrel took
Bhagyawant Punde
3/15 APPEAL-737-2013 (J).doc
place with the deceased and at that time also the deceased called
him as impotent. He stated her that she is at liberty to leave him.
On that the deceased pulled his collar and started beating him. At
the relevant time he picked up a knife lying in the home and
assaulted her by said knife and cut her neck and ultimately killed
her.
4. On registration of FIR, investigating machinery was set in
motion. The then API Raju Rasede at Bhandrakali Police Station
went at the spot and prepared spot panchnama. He also prepared
inquest panchnama of dead body of deceased vide Exh. 25. He then
forwarded the dead body for postmortem. At the relevant time of
preparation of spot panchnama API Rasede seized on broken chain
having four beads of yellow metal, one knife having red colour fber
shaft, one blue colour Saree, one bed sheet as well as pillow cover
having blood stains. The then PI Barvkar formally arrested the
accused and prepared arrest panchnama. He then seized clothes of
the accused and prepared seizure panchnama vide Exh. 14. During
investigation head constable Aswale brought the clothes of deceased
from the hospital, thereafter PI Bhadrakali Police Station seized
those clothes vide panchnama Exh. 15. He has further collected
blood sample of accused from the hospital and prepared its
Bhagyawant Punde
4/15 APPEAL-737-2013 (J).doc
panchnama as well as blood sample of the deceased and prepared
its panchmana vide Exh. 16 and 17. PI Bhadrakali Police Station
recorded statements of witnesses. During investigation he has
further forwarded seized property for chemical analysis by
requisition at Exh. 24. He has further got recorded statement of
witness Prashant Waghele from the Magistrate. On receiving
postmortem report and C.A. report it revealed that suffcient
material is available against the accused showing his involvement in
commission of offence and hence he forwarded chargesheet against
the accused.
5. As the offence under Section 302 of IPC is exclusively
triable by Sessions Court, learned Magistrate has committed the
matter for trial to the Sessions Court.
6. In the light of prosecution case charge punishable under
Section 302 of IPC was framed and the same was read over and
explained to the accused vide Exh. 4, to which he pleaded not guilty
and claimed to be tried. The said plea was recorded at Exh.5. In the
light of evidence of prosecution witnesses statement of accused
under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. at Exh. 30 wherein the accused denied
his involvement in commission of alleged offence.
Bhagyawant Punde
5/15 APPEAL-737-2013 (J).doc
7. So as to bring the guilt at home of the accused
prosecution has led direct as well as other evidence. In the light of
direct evidence and particularly to prove motive, the prosecution has
examined Ramesh Sana Teji who is brother of the deceased at Exh.
8 as PW 1. In the same line, the prosecution has further examined
Leela Ramesh Rabadiya- neighbourer of the deceased as PW 3 at
Exh. 10. So as to prove conduct of the accused as well as
circumstance of last seen, the prosecution did examine Jaggu
Jagdish Pawar- neighbourer as PW 2 at Exh. 9. In the same line the
proseuction has further examined Prashant Rajendra Waghele- son
of the deceased at Exh. 18 as PW 5.
So as to prove spot panchnama as well as seizure
panchnama of the articles, the prosecution examined Sunil
Daryasingh Kalyani- panch at Exh. 12 as PW 4. In order to prove
cause of death the prosecution has led evidence of Dr. Rajendra
Dusane (PW-6) at Exh. 20. The prosecution did examine PI
Chandrakant Barvkar at Exh. 21A as PW 7. Part of the investigation
was carried out by API Raju Rasede and hence prosecution also
examined him at Exh. 24 as PW 8. The prosecution brought on
record suffcient evidence but the accused refrained himself from
entering into the witness box or led any defence evidence.
Bhagyawant Punde
6/15 APPEAL-737-2013 (J).doc
8. After a full fedged trial the trial Court convicted the
appellant- accused. Hence, this appeal.
9. The prosecution in order to prove whether the death was
homicidal, suicidal or accidental examined Dr. Rajendra Dusane
(PW6), working as a medical offcer, Civil Hospital, Nashik, at the
relevant time. In his examination in chief he stated that on
14.11.2011, Bhadrakali Police Station forwarded the dead body of
Meena Rajendra Wagile for autopsy at about 9.30 a.m. He
commenced the autopsy and complete the same at about 10.00 a.m.
The dead body was of female aged about 40 years. On an medical
examination he found the following injuries:
A. Incise cut throat would around neck admeasuring 10 cm
X 5 cm, cutting vital blood vessels and trachea.
B. Incise would on chest on right side measuring 10 cm. In
length.
C. Incise wound on right cheek measuring 7 cm X 2 cm,
also at right breast measuring 7 cm X 2 cm.
D. Multiple stab wound on right arm and left hand.
He further stated that all the injuries were anti mortem,
likely to be caused by any sharp object. On internal examination of
thorax, cut throat injury cutting trachea reveals. He has opined that
Bhagyawant Punde
7/15 APPEAL-737-2013 (J).doc
the cause of death of the deceased is hemorrhagic shock due to cut
throat injury. Accordingly, he prepared the postmortem report and
has verifed his signature at Exh. 21. The injury to the deceased
were suffcient to cause her death in ordinary course of nature. He
has stated that at the relevant time, the police forwarded inquest
panchnama and letter along with the dead body.
10. In his cross examination the medical offcer has stated
that the injuries are not self inficted injuries, except on the neck. It
is possible that the injury can be self inficted over the neck. Merely
because the medical offcer has expressed an opinion that the
injury can be self inficted, no plausible conclusion can be reached
that the injury on the neck was self inficted. Though, the medical
offcer was not in a position to tell the time of death, nevertheless
the prosecution has collected other evidence which suggest an
approximate time of death. The medical offcer has recorded the
defnite fndings that the Meena Waghele- victim died due to
homicidal death.
11. The prosecution has examined Ramesh (PW1). He is
brother of the deceased. According to his evidence, in 1986 marriage
of deceased was solemnized with the accused. The deceased then
Bhagyawant Punde
8/15 APPEAL-737-2013 (J).doc
begotten two sons Prashant, Ganesh and one married daughter
Komal. Further accused always used to raise quarrel with deceased
on monetary demands and subjected her with cruelty. He further
stated that in the year 2005 accused severely beat the deceased as
well as both the sons by raising quarrel on account of demand of
money. At the relevant time deceased and her sons were admitted in
Civil hospital, Nashik and on discharge she and the sons went at
the home of another sister Asha and stayed there for 15 days. The a
marriage was held, the accused assured fair treatment and her sons
and executed bond vide Article A.
Thereafter Meena (deceased) again resumed
cohabitation, but there was no change in the behaviour of the
accused.
12. In order to prove guilt of the accused the prosecution has
examined neighbour of the appellant namely Jaggu Jagdish Pawar
(PW2). In his examination in chief he stated that he is the neighbour
of the accused. The quarter of the accused is next to his quarter. He
stated that he knows family of accused. He further stated that there
were frequent quarrels between accused and his wife. They could
hear them shouting and quarreling. He also stated that after such
quarrels victim used to go to her parental home. He stated that at
Bhagyawant Punde
9/15 APPEAL-737-2013 (J).doc
the relevant day and time of incident he was at home. He had gone
out for an outing at about 12 noon. He returned to home at about
5.30 to 6.00 p.m. On that day he was at home till 10.00 p.m. He
further stated that between 10.30 and 11.00 p.m, when he went for
a walk, he saw the accused closing the door of house. The accused
scared after seeing him. The accused was wearing a light green shirt
and there were blood stains on his sleeves. The front area of shirt
was also had blood stains. He then saw the accused going out after
he closed the front door of his house. Thereafter, PW2 went back to
home. After some time, he heard sound of crying. When he came
out of house he was Prashant (PW5) was crying loudly in front of his
house. The front door of the house was opened. He saw dead body
of victim through open door. Her throat was cut. One vegetable knife
was lying nearly which had a red handle.
13. In his cross examination Jaggu Pawar (PW2) stated that
the police had called him at the police station for recording his
statement. Accordingly, on 16th he had been to the police station. He
was not aware that the accused lodged the complaint regarding
murder of victim. He stated that at the relevant day and time of the
incident he heard the sound of weeping and hence he came out of
house. He stated that at the relevant time of incident he saw the
Bhagyawant Punde
10/15 APPEAL-737-2013 (J).doc
accused having blood stains on his shirt, but he still went to his
house. He denied the suggestion that had not seen the accused on
13th while proceeding out his house, by wearing blood stained
clothes.
14. The prosecution has further examined Leela (PW3).
According to her evidence, she is neighbourer of accused and infact
they have common wall in between their houses. There were
frequent quarrels and fghts between accused and deceased. Leela
(PW3) stated that deceased used to proceed at her parental home
frequently whenever she used to get fade up with such quarrels.
According to her further evidence, on 13.11.2011 she was present at
her home at 7.30 p.m. When she was cooking she heard sound of
quarreling from the house of accused and thinking that it was usual
quarrel, she had ignored. After some time she heard sound of
weeping of the son of deceased, hence she came out to see as to
what happened. At the relevant time she had seen the deceased
lying in a pool of blood with cut throat injury.
15. Sunil Kalyani (PW4) was examined by the prosecution.
He is panch witness over spot panchnama Exh. 13, seizure
panchnama of the clothes of accused Exh. 14, clothes of deceased
Bhagyawant Punde
11/15 APPEAL-737-2013 (J).doc
Exh. 15 as well as panchnama regarding collecting blood samples at
Exh. 16 and Exh. 17. On going through his over all evidence it revals
that Sunil is residing in the same area where incident happened
and also acquainted with family of accused and the witnesses in the
present matter. Sunil (PW4) while under examination categorically
stated about preparation of above discussed panchnamas in his
presence as well as identify concerned property vide Articles A1 to
A11.
16. The star witness of the prosecution is son of the
appellant Prashant Wagile (PW 5), who in his examination in chief
stated that at the relevant time his family consisted of father
Rajendra, mother Meena and elder brother Ganesh. His father was
in municipal service and he got voluntary retirement in August,
2010. In the place of his father municipal council provided job to
him. His mother used to perform household work. His father during
life time of his mother used to quarrel with her, abuse her and it
was continued upto the date of the incident. On 13.11.2011 he was
on duty from 2.00 p.m upto 10.00 p.m, and hence about 12.30 p.m,
he left the home to attend the duty. At about 7.15 hrs, he came at
home. He took the dinner and went to take a walk and accordingly
informed his mother. At about 11.00 to 11.15 p.m. he returned at
Bhagyawant Punde
12/15 APPEAL-737-2013 (J).doc
home, at that time he found his father hurriedly leaving home and
at the relevant time, he noticed blood stains on the clothes of his
father. He then opened the door and entered into the home and
found his mother lying in a pool of blood and the injury was on her
neck. The knife was also lying there. He then raised shouts. The
people then came there. He has confrmed that his father killed his
mother. The police came and prepared panchnama and forwarded
the dead body for postmortem. He learnt from the police that his
father himself lodged the complaint to the effect that he killed his
wife by causing injury to her neck. He stated that he can identify
the knife well as clothes of his father, if shown. He stated that the
knife Article A-1 is the same and Article A-6 and A-7 i.e. clothes are
the same. He has identifed the accused who is before the Court.
17. He stated in his cross examination that, on the relevant
date he came home prior to his duty hours and for that he did not
apply for leaving offce before the duty hours. He stated that he did
not apply in writing seeking permission to leave offce before duty
hours, however, he informed his superior orally that he want to
leave offce before working hours are completed. He denied the
suggestion that he has falsely narrated that he has seen his father
hurriedly leaving home at the relevant time and there were blood
Bhagyawant Punde
13/15 APPEAL-737-2013 (J).doc
stains over his clothes. He also denied the suggestion that he has
narrated falsely that his father subjected his mother with ill
treatment up-till her death.
The evidence of this witness who is son of the appellant
is clinching, cogent and directly connects the appellant with the
commission of offence. His evidence, so far presence of the accused
at home on relevant date and time, gets corroboration from the
evidence of Jaggu Pawar (PW2).
18. Conjoint reading of evidence of prosecution witnesses it
clearly surfaced on record that there used to be frequent quarrels
between the accused and Meena (deceased). The accused used to
harass and ill-treat her. The evidence of Ramesh (PW1) shows that
even after arriving at settlement and assurance by the accused that
he will not harass or ill-treat Meena (deceased), and to that extent
even bond was executed by him, however, he continued ill-treatment
to Meena (deceased). The evidence of other witnesses who were
residing in nearby vicinity clearly discloses that there were frequent
quarrels and on the date of incident such quarrels were heard by
them at about 7.30 pm. The evidence of son of the accused namely
Prashant clearly shows that at the relevant time the accused was
present in the house and when he returned from his work. After
Bhagyawant Punde
14/15 APPEAL-737-2013 (J).doc
dinner Prashant (PW5) went for a walk and on returning he found
that the accused-appellant hurriedly leaving the house and blood
stains were also noticed on his clothes. Aforesaid version of
Prashant gets corroboration from the evidence of Jaggu Pawar
(PW2). Therefore, the evidence brought on record by the prosecution
clearly suggested involvement of the appellant in commission of
murder of his wife Meena (deceased), beyond reasonable doubt. It is
not the case of single injury but the multiple injuries were noticed
by the witnesses and also it is evident from the medical evidence
that the accused had clear intention to kill Meena (deceased), and
therefore, no leniency can be shown to the accused.
19. It is not necessary to elaborate further reasons, suffce it
to say that the fndings recorded by the trial Court are in
consonance with the evidence brought on record by the prosecution.
The trial Court has taken a plausible view and the circumstances
and evidence brought on record unequivocally indicate the guilt of
the accused.
20. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered view
that the judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court deserves
no interference. Hence, the appeal stands dismissed.
Bhagyawant Punde
15/15 APPEAL-737-2013 (J).doc
21. The copy of the judgment shall be sent free of costs by
the Registry of this Court to the Superintendent of Nashik Central
Prison, where the accused is undergoing his sentence and in turn
the Superintendent of Nashik Central Prison Jail shall forthwith
serve the copy of the judgment to the appellant-accused.
( S.P. TAVADE, J.) (S. S. SHINDE, J.)
Bhagyawant Punde
