Bombay High Court
Indrajit Hiraman Nikalje vs The State Of Maharashtra on 3 January, 2022
Bench: V.K. Jadhav, Sandipkumar Chandrabhan More
(1)
44 criappln-3182.2021 + 2.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
44 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3182 OF 2021
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 666 OF 2021
KAMALBAI W/O. DILIP BANSODE AND ANOTHER
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3183 OF 2021
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 666 OF 2021
SUNITA RAJU SALVE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3322 OF 2021
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 695 OF 2021
INDRAJIT HIRAMAN NIKALJE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
...
Mr. N.S. Ghanekar, Advocate for the applicants.
Mr.R.D. Sanap, A.P.P. for respondent - State.
...
CORAM : V.K. JADHAV AND
SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, JJ.
DATE : 03-01-2022.
::: Uploaded on - 05/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2022 00:10:05 :::
(2)
44 criappln-3182.2021 + 2.odt
ORDER :
1. Pending Criminal Appeal No. 666 of 2021 preferred by
original accused Nos.1 to 3 and Criminal Appeal No. 695 of 2021
preferred by original accused No.4 against judgment and order of
conviction passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Aurangabad dated 30.11.2021 in Sessions Case No. 4/2019,
convicting thereby applicants Kamalbai w/o Dilip Bansode and
Khirnabai @ Shakuntalabai w/o Jagannath Gaikwad for the offence
punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 and sentencing
them to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.4,000/-
each, in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for
six months, convicting the applicants Kamalbai w/o Dilip Bansode,
Khirnabai @ Shakuntalabai w/o Jagannath Gaikwad, Sunita w/o
Raju Salve and Indrajit Hiraman Nikalje for the offences punishable
under Sections 201 read with Section 34 and 120-B of I.P.C. and
sentencing them to suffer simple imprisonment for one year and to
pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default of payment of fine to suffer
simple imprisonment for two months for the offence punishable
under Section 201 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and to suffer simple
imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each, in
default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for one
month for the offence punishable under Section 120-B of I.P.C.,
convicting applicant Kamalbai w/o Dilip Bansode for the offences
punishable under Sections 182 and 506 (1) of I.P.C. and sentencing
her to suffer simple imprisonment for two months and to pay fine of
44 criappln-3182.2021 + 2.odt
Rs. 200/- in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment
for seven days for the offence punishable under Section 182 of I.P.C.
and to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of
Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment
for 15 days for the offence punishable under Section 506 (1) of
I.P.C., the applicants - accused have preferred these applications for
suspension of substantive part of sentence and for bail.
2. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicants - original
accused Nos.1 to 4 submits that all the applicants - accused were on
bail during the trial. Learned Counsel submits that the incident had
taken place on 15.04.2018, however, for the first time on 04.09.2018
wife of the deceased has made allegations against the applicants
and accordingly applicants - accused came to be implicated in
connection with the present crime. Learned Counsel submits that
PW-1 Rama Bansode (wife of the deceased) claims to be the eye
witness to the incident. It appears from her evidence that the
incident had taken place as of sudden without any pre-meditation in
the heat of anger. Learned Counsel submits that even if the
prosecution evidence is accepted as it is, it is a case of culpable
homicide not amounting to murder.
3. Learned Counsel submits that the applicant - original
accused No. 4 is convicted for the offences punishable under
Sections 201 read with Section 34 and 120-B of I.P.C. He was on
bail during trial.
44 criappln-3182.2021 + 2.odt
4. Learned A.P.P. submits that it's a case of direct
evidence. Applicant - original accused No.1 is the real mother of
deceased, whereas applicants - original accused Nos.2 and 3 are
neighbours and distant relatives of applicant No.1. Applicant -
original accused No. 4 is not related to accused Nos.1 to 3, however,
he is residing in the same locality. Learned A.P.P. submits that PW-1
Rama Bansode is daughter-in-law of applicant - original accused
No.1. Thus, the delay has occurred in lodging the complaint and
which has been rightly considered by the trial Court. Learned A.P.P.
submits that the allegations made by PW-1 Rama Bansode are duly
corroborated by medical evidence. As per the Expert's opinion, the
deceased died due to compression of neck. Learned A.P.P. submits
that PW-1 Rama Bansode has witnessed the incident and deposed
before the Court that the applicant - original accused No. 1 has
constricted the neck of the deceased with the help of rope. Learned
A.P.P. submits that thereafter all the applicants have hatched
conspiracy to cause disappearance of evidence by throwing the
dead body in the water of well. Learned A.P.P. submits no case is
made out for bail and for suspension of substantive part of the
sentence. All the applications are, thus, liable to be rejected.
5. We have carefully gone through the testimony of PW-1
Rama Bansode. There is an inordinate delay in making the
allegations against the applicants - accused before us, implicating
44 criappln-3182.2021 + 2.odt
them as an accused in connection with the crime. It further appears
that on the basis of the complaint lodged by the applicant - accused
original accused No. 1, crime was registered against unknown
person as an assailant - murderer. However, after the belated
allegations, the applicants - accused persons came to be implicated.
It appears from the evidence of PW-1 Rama Bansode that the
incident had taken place on 15.04.2018 at about 6.00 p.m. in the
house. Deceased Rahul had returned to house by consuming liquor.
Deceased Rahul was abusing his mother (applicant - original
accused No.1) for the reason as to why she has not cooked the
chicken. Deceased Rahul had abused the applicant - original
accused No.1 in filthy language. Prima facie, it appears that in the
heat of anger without any pre-meditation all of sudden, the applicant
- original accused No. 1 had taken one rope and tied it on the neck
of deceased Rahul. PW-1 Rama Bansode has referred the said
abuses in her evidence. The meaning of the said abuses is that the
mother is in habit to slip with other persons.
6. All the applicants were on bail during trial. Except
applicant Nos.1 and 2, the other applicants are convicted and
sentenced to suffer imprisonment maximum to one year in totality.
Thus, considering the entire aspect of the case, since the applicants
were on bail during the trial, we are inclined to release all the
applicants on bail by suspending the substantive part of the
sentence. Hence, the following order.
44 criappln-3182.2021 + 2.odt
ORDER
(i) Criminal Application No.3182 of 2021, Criminal
Application No.3183 of 2022 and Criminal
Application No. 3322 of 2021 are hereby allowed.
(ii) Pending Criminal Appeal No. 666 of 2021 and
Criminal Appeal No. 695 of 2021, preferred
against the judgment and order of conviction
passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,
Aurangabad dated 30.11.2021 in Sessions Case
No. 4/2019, the substantive part of the sentence is
hereby suspended and till then applicants (1)
Kamalbai w/o Dilip Bansode (2) Khirnabai @
Shakuntalabai w/o Jaggnath Gaikwad (3) Sunita
w/o Raju Salve and (4) Indrajit s/o Hiraman Nikalje
be released on bail on furnishing P.B. of
Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) each with
one surety each of the like amount.
(iii) Criminal Applications are accordingly disposed of.
(SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J.) (V.K. JADHAV, J.)
VD_Dhirde
