Bombay High Court
Ramdas Keruba Salve vs The State Of Maharashtra on 7 September, 2021
Bench: V.K. Jadhav, Shrikant Dattatray Kulkarni
1 criappln 1359.2021.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
906 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1359 OF 2021
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.320 OF 2021
RAMDAS KERUBA SALVE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Bobde Sopan G.
APP for Respondent : Mr. R D Sanap
...
CORAM : V.K. JADHAV & SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ.
Dated : September 07, 2021
...
PER COURT :-
1. Pending criminal appeal no.320 of 2021 preferred
against the judgment and order of conviction passed by
the Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad dated
20.5.2021 in Sessions Case No.36 of 2015, convicting
thereby the applicant/accused for the offence
punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code
and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and
to pay a fne of Rs.3,000/-, in default of payment of fne,
to suffer S.I. for six months, the applicant/accused has
fled this application for suspension of the substantive
part of the sentence and bail.
aaa/-
::: Uploaded on - 07/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2021 08:17:26 :::
2 criappln 1359.2021.odt
2. Learned counsel for the applicant/accused
submits that the prosecution case entirely rests upon
the circumstantial evidence and there is no direct
evidence in this case. Learned counsel submits that, on
the other hand, the applicant/accused had given
intimation about missing of his wife. However, his
original missing complaint was not produced before the
court and only xerox copy was produced. Learned
counsel submits that deceased Jyoti was residing alone
alongwith her son in Arbar colony and the
applicant/accused though residing with her, thereafter
shifted his household articles from the residence of
Arbar colony to Rajivnagar area. Deceased Jyoti was
thus residing alone with her son in the rented room.
Learned counsel submits that there is no chain of
circumstantial evidence and PW 14 Sunil Jagtap, who
has deposed on the circumstances of last seen together
is not a reliable witness. Learned counsel submits that
the applicant/accused is in jail since the date of his
arrest. He was not on bail during the trial. Thus,
considering the evidence led by the prosecution, the
aaa/-
::: Uploaded on - 07/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2021 08:17:26 :::
3 criappln 1359.2021.odt
applicant may be released on bail by suspending
substantive part of the sentence.
3. Learned APP has strongly resisted the application
on the ground that, though, the prosecution case rests
upon the circumstantial evidence, there is satisfactory
evidence about the motive and the prosecution has
established the chain of circumstantial evidence. The
applicant/accused has tried to mislead the police by
fling missing report. Though, dead body of his wife was
found in the rented room situated in Rajivnagar area
where the applicant/accused was residing, the
applicant/accused has failed to give any explanation
about death of deceased Jyoti in his residential house
situated in Rajivnagar area. Learned APP submits that
the prosecution has proved homicidal death in this case
and since it was a custodial death, it was incumbent
upon the applicant/accused to give some reasonable
explanation about death of deceased Jyoti. There is no
substance in this application. The application is liable to
be rejected.
aaa/-
::: Uploaded on - 07/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2021 08:17:26 :::
4 criappln 1359.2021.odt
4. PW 1 Ashabai Deelip Dhanraj is the real sister of
the deceased Jyoti. On 15.11.2014 at about 11.00 hours
her brother Sunil Jagtap had informed to her on mobile
phone that on that day at about 10.00 am accused and
their sister deceased Jyoti went to his room at
Rajivnagar. At that time, son of the deceased Jyoti was
with the parents of PW 1 Ashabai, however.
Applicant/accused took away said son from her parents.
Thus, PW 1 Ashabai alongwith other family members
went to the residence of applicant/accused at
Rajivnagar in search of deceased Jyoti. At that time, the
room was found locked. There was one curtain of
clothes, from which they looked inside the said room. In
the said room, they saw deceased Jyoti was lying on the
floor and blood was ooiing from her nostrils and ears.
Accordingly, husband of PW 1 Ashabai informed to the
police and police arrived on the spot.
5. We have also gone through the evidence of PW 14
Sunil Jagtap. He is brother of deceased Jyoti. On
15.11.2014 he had come to the house of his parents. He
aaa/-
::: Uploaded on - 07/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2021 08:17:26 :::
5 criappln 1359.2021.odt
was standing on the Terrace and at that time he saw
Jyoti and Ramdas going towards Rajivnagar. Thus, PW
14 Sunil Jagtap has lastly seen the deceased Jyoti in the
company of the applicant/accused Ramdas.
6. It has come in the prosecution evidence that the
applicant/accused was suspecting about character of
deceased Jyoti. In consequence thereof, the
applicant/accused started residing in Rajivnagar area
and deceased Jyoti was residing alongwith her son in
Arbar colony.
7. Prosecution has also examined PW 10 Dr. Sachin
Darandale, Medical Offcer, who has conducted
postmortem examination on the dead body of deceased
Jyoti. In his opinion, probable cause of death of
deceased Jyoti is "manual strangulation with head
injury." Thus, there is evidence about homicidal death.
Prima facie, it appears that though dead body of
deceased Jyoti was lying in the room possessed by the
applicant/accused in Rajivnagar area, he had mislead
the police by fling missing report about his wife.
aaa/-
::: Uploaded on - 07/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2021 08:17:26 :::
6 criappln 1359.2021.odt
Further, after the commission of the crime, the
applicant/accused took custody of his son from the
parents of deceased Jyoti. Prosecution has also
established the motive. Prima facie, there is evidence
against the applicant/accused. Moreover, the applicant
was not on bail during the trial. We are thus not
inclined to release the applicant on bail by suspending
the substantive part of the sentence. Thus, considering
the entire aspect of the case, we proceed to pass the
following order.
ORDER
Criminal application is hereby rejected.
( SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J. ) ( V.K. JADHAV, J. )
...
aaa/-
