Bombay High Court
Sanjay Pandurang Gaikwad (C-8923) vs The State Of Maharashtra on 7 August, 2024
Author: R.G. Avachat
Bench: R.G. Avachat
2024:BHC-AUG:18640-DB
Cri.Appeal No.72/2020
:: 1 ::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.72 OF 2020
Sanjay s/o Pandurang Gaikwad
Age 49 years, Occ. Carpenter
R/o Indiranagar, Latur
Tq. & District Latur
At present Convict No.C-8923,
Central Jail, Harsool,
Aurangabad ... APPELLANT
(Orig. Accused)
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra
through Police Station Officer
Latur, Tq. & District Latur
(Copy to be served on
Public Prosecutor, High Court of
Judicature of Bombay,
Bench at Aurangabad) ... RESPONDENT
.......
Mr. M.P. Kale, Advocate for appellant (appointed)
Mrs. S.N. Deshmukh, A.P.P. for respondent
.......
CORAM : R.G. AVACHAT AND
NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ.
DATE : 7th August, 2024
JUDGMENT (PER R.G. AVACHAT, J.) :
The challenge in this appeal is to a judgment and
order of conviction and consequential sentence dated
26/10/2018, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Latur in
Sessions Case, No.11/2016. Vide impugned judgment and
:: 2 ::
order, the appellant was convicted for committing murder of his
wife and therefore, sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life till
his entire life
2. The prosecution case in short before the Trial Court
was that, the appellant along with his wife -Sagarbai
(deceased) would reside along with their two grown up children
at Indiranagar, Latur. The appellant was carpenter by
profession. Sagarbai (deceased) would work as a maid in a
hospital at Latur. The appellant did not like his wife to do
service. He would suspect her loyalty to him. On the fateful
night particularly by 4.15 a.m. on 26/9/2015, both the
appellant, his wife Sagarbai and one of the sons were at their
residence. Another son had been at his work place in Market
Yard. The residence in which they were residing was a two
room premises.
The appellant picked up quarrel with Sagarbai and
brutally murdered her. He assaulted her with a grinding stone.
He even caused her injuries with hacksaw. On hearing her
cries, the son Ajay (P.W.4) woke up. He was sleeping in the
front room. The incident took place in the kitchen room. The
appellant had bolted the door from inside. P.W.1 Babita, wife
of brother of the appellant woke up on hearing cries.
:: 3 ::
Neighbours too gathered. All of them peeped into the room to
see the appellant assaulting Sagarbai. Efforts to break open
the door went futile. A police van on patrolling duty arrived.
Somebody had also informed the police.
Before arrival of the police, the appellant had come
out of the room. He was armed with an iron bar and hacksaw.
His face was smeared with blood. He was behaving
abnormally. He again entered the house and bolted the room
from inside. He agreed to come out of the room if a local
leader Mr. Chikate (P.W.9) comes to the place. P.W.9 Chikate
in turn came. The room was opened. The appellant was
overpowered. It appears that, he too was injured.
3. P.W.1 Babita lodged the F.I.R. (Exh.24) at the
concerned police station. Inquest (Exh.35) and autopsy
(Exh.58) were conducted on the mortal remains of Sagarbai.
The weapons used in commission of the offence were seized.
Those were sent to the office of Chemical Analyser for analysis
and report. Statements of persons acquainted with the facts
and circumstances of the case were recorded. Upon
completion of the investigation, the appellant was proceed
against by filing a charge sheet.
:: 4 ::
4. Learned Additional Sessions Judge-2, Latur framed
the charge (Exh.18). The appellant pleaded not guilty. What
was his stand in his examination under Section 313 of the
Cr.P.C. would be referred to while appreciating the evidence.
5. The case then was tried and decided by learned
Sessions Judge, Latur (Trial Court). The prosecution
examined 13 witnesses and adduced in evidence certain
documents. On appreciation of the same, the Trial Court
convicted the appellant and consequently sentenced as stated
above.
6. Heard. Learned Advocate for the appellant would
submit that, Indiranagar locality, wherein the appellant was
residing, is a slum. Various crimes would take place in that
area. On the given night, thieves had entered the house of the
appellant and they caused injuries to appellant and even
committed murder of his wife. According to him, P.W.1 Babita
and others gave evidence against the appellant since Babita
wanted to deprive the appellant of his property. According to
him, a smaller portion had come to the share of her husband in
partition of the family property. He ultimately urged for allowing
the appeal.
:: 5 ::
7. The learned A.P.P. would, on the other hand,
submit that, it is an open and shut case. She took us through
the evidence on record and the reasons given by the Trial
Court. She ultimately urged for dismissal of the appeal.
8. Let us advert to the evidence on record and
appreciate the same.
9. Admittedly, the appellant was the husband of Smt.
Sagarbai (deceased). The couple was blessed with two sons
and a daughter. The daughter was married and residing at her
matrimonial home. The incident took place by 4.15 a.m. on
26/9/2015 in the kitchen room of the house of the appellant in
Indiranagar is also not in dispute.
10. P.W.8 Dr. Indrajeet conducted autopsy on the
mortal remains of Sagarbai. He noticed 22 external injuries on
her person. Most of them were incised injuries besides stab
wounds. He also noticed 10 internal injuries. In his opinion,
Sagarbai died due to shock due to multiple injuries. Post
mortem examination report is at Exh.58.
11. P.W.2 Shivaji was a witness to the inquest
panchanama (Exh.35). The same too indicates number of
injuries on the person of Sagarbai.
:: 6 ::
12. P.W.3 Sahebrao is a witness to the crime scene
panchanama (Exh.39). His evidence indicates that, he was a
Talathi. On the direction of the Tahsildar, he remained present
at the crime scene. It is in his evidence that, it was a premises
consisting of two rooms. There was one door intervening the
two rooms. The inside room was a kitchen room. The kitchen
had a small window. The door was of iron. Household articles
like gas stove, water jar etc. were there in the kitchen room.
He saw a muller lying on the spot, which was stained with
blood. He also noticed one blood stained Sabbal (iron rod)
and one hacksaw in the kitchen room. Both these articles too
were stained with blood. The police collected blood with cotton
swab. A full sleeve shirt stained with blood was also seized in
his presence. In his cross-examination, it has been brought on
record that, on the northern side of the house of the appellant,
there was house of P.W.1 Babita. From his further cross-
examination, nothing helpful to the appellant could be brought
on record.
13. P.W.1 Babita was the wife of appellant's brother
Vijay. It is in her evidence that the appellant was her elder
brother-in-law. The appellant would reside with his wife and
two children in her immediate neighbourhood. The wife of the
:: 7 ::
appellant was serving with the hospital of Dr. Deshmukh at
Latur. There used to be frequent quarrels between the couple.
The appellant did not like his wife serve to earn living. He
would suspect her loyalty with him. For 5-6 days next before
the incident, Sagarbai had not attended her duties.
14. It is further in her evidence that, by 4.15 a.m. on
26/9/2015, she heard shouts of Sagarbai. On hearing the
cries, she along with her husband and both children came
outside the house of the appellant. The appellant was
requested to open the door. He did not listen. Both, her
husband and son peeped into the room. Her son Ajay (P.W.4)
saw the appellant assaulting Sagarbai. It is further in her
evidence that, she too peeped in the room through a window.
It is further in her evidence that, she saw the appellant to have
tied a towel around the neck of Sagarbai and pulling her back.
She, therefore, started shouting. Neighbours, namely Khandu
Shirsat, Eknath Kamble, Pintu Kakane and others gathered on
the spot. All of them tried to open the door of the house. The
appellant too was requested to open the door. The appellant
came out of the room for a while holding a hacksaw in his
hand. He proclaimed to have killed his wife. Then he started
behaving abnormally. The appellant started singing a song.
:: 8 ::
"Kurbani Kurbani Allah Ko Pyari Kurbani". Then he again
behaved disorderly on road and entered his house. The
appellant then closed the door from inside, she again heard
sound of something being hit on the tile. She peeped into the
room. She saw her co-sister Sagarbai to have been lying in a
pool of blood. The appellant was sitting by the side of her
body. The appellant collected the blood, applied the same to
his face. He also sipped some of the blood of his wife. Then
he started assaulting himself. When the appellant was asked
to open the door, he told that he would open the door only if
Chandrakant Chikate (local leader) comes there. It is further in
her evidence that, thereafter police arrived. They too tried to
open the door. Shri Chandrakant Chikate then came. The
appellant then opened the door. The police took him into
custody. P.W.1 Babita entered the house. She saw Sagarbai
to have suffered multiple injuries and lying motionless. She
then went to the police station and lodged the F.I.R. (Exh.24).
15. In her cross-examination, she testified that,
Chandrakant Chikate and she were active in local politics.
Whenever any dispute occurs in any family residing in the
vicinity, they would settle the same. She admitted that the
house she was residing in, was allotted to her husband in
:: 9 ::
partition. She admitted that, there was a window to the front
room of the house of the appellant. The appellant's house was
not well built. The police arrived at 6.00 a.m. She denied that,
thieves had come to commit theft and they assaulted her co-
sister. She denied that, with a view to grab property of the
appellant she lodged a false report (Exh.24) and given false
evidence as well. She admitted that, in the incident the
appellant too suffered grievous injuries. Rest of her evidence
in examination-in-chief was denied by putting suggestions to
her.
16. P.W.4 Ajay is the son of the appellant. It is in his
evidence that, he along with his parents went to sleep in their
house on the night of 25/9/2015. His brother was away at his
work place. By 3.45 a.m., he heard noise of his parents. He
woke up. The appellant had taken his mother in the kitchen
room and bolted the door from inside. A quarrel was on
between the two. Both of them were beating each other. He
was asking his father to open the door. Due to his shouts, his
uncle Vijay and his wife Babita (P.W.1) arrived. Their son
Vikas too was with them. Some neighbours had also
gathered. Their efforts to break open the door proved futile.
The appellant was assaulting his mother. He saw the same
:: 10 ::
through the window. After half an hour, the father came out.
His mother was lying injured in the kitchen. According to him,
his father (appellant) was armed with iron rod and hacksaw.
He, therefore, went away with fright. The father roamed in the
lane and again went back in the house. He bolted the door
from inside. The police then arrived.
The learned A.P.P. put some leading questions to
this witness as he was not supporting to some extent to the
prosecution. He denied to have seen his father sipping blood
of his mother. To some other questions, his answers were
positive.
Although he was subjected to a searching cross-
examination, nothing could be elicited which would be helpful
to the prosecution. He denied each and every suggestion put
to him during his cross-examination by the defence lawyer.
17. P.W.5 Vikas is the son of P.W.1 Babita. It is in his
evidence that, on hearing shouts of mother of his cousin Ajay,
he woke up. He joined his parents to the house of the
appellant. Some villagers had gathered there. The door
separating the two rooms was closed. His aunt Sagarbai was
shouting "Wachwa - Wachwa". The door was tried to be broke
:: 11 ::
open, but in vain. He peeped into the kitchen room through a
small opening of a window. He witnessed the appellant
assaulted his wife with muller. Then he gave Sagarbai blows
with hacksaw. The appellant gave her further blows with iron
rod. He sipped Sagarbai's body. Then he opened the door
and came out for a while. He told the people gathered that he
was a Cub (Wagacha Baccha). He then again entered the
kitchen room and closed the door from inside.
18. In his cross-examination, he denied to have not
seen anything or heard voice of Sagarbai. To none of the
questions put to him in cross-examination he gave in.
19. P.W.6 Laxmibai was one of the neighbours of the
appellant. It is in her evidence that, she woke up by 4.00 a.m.
on hearing noise of her son. P.W.1 Babita was there. She was
shouting to save Sagarbai. She therefore went close to the
house of the appellant. Some persons were present outside.
She peeped into the house of the appellant. She saw the
appellant assaulting his wife Sagarbai with pestal (grinding
stone) and crow bar. It is further in her evidence that, after a
while the appellant came out of the room and confessed to
have killed his wife. He again went back to his house and
bolted the door from inside.
:: 12 ::
20. In her cross-examination, she stated that, when
she had come out of the house, many persons had gathered.
She did not give in to any of the questions put to her during
cross-examination.
21. P.W.7 Shirish was a Police Head Constable who
carried seized articles to Forensic Science Laboratory,
Aurangabad.
22. P.W.9 Chandrakant Chikate testified that he arrived
at the house of the appellant by 5.00 a.m. i.e. post incident.
He asked the appellant to open the door. The appellant
obliged. The police took him into custody. The appellant had
suffered injuries to his neck.
23. P.W.10 Dr. Swapnil had examined the appellant
and noticed following three injuries on his person :-
(1) Injury No.1 :- C.L.W. 4 cm. below chin on central neck on
anterior side, of size 4 x 3 x 4 cm., age of injury within 24
hours, the weapon used is hard and blunt object and
nature of injury was simple.
(2) Injury No.2 :- Contusion on left foot, of size 2 x 2 cm.,
age of injury within 24 hours, the weapon used is hard
:: 13 ::
and blunt and nature of injury was simple.
(3) Injury No.3 :- Multiple linear abrasions over trunk, over
abdomen and on both forearms, of variable sizes, age of
injuries 24 hours, the weapon used is hard and blunt and
nature of injury was simple.
The appellant's injury certificate is at Exh.65.
24. P.W.11 Dashrath was one of the investigating
officers. He drew inquest panchanama (Exh.35). He drew the
crime scene panchanama (Exh.39). He sent the seized
articles to Forensic Science Laboratory, Aurangabad, the office
copy of forwarding letter whereof is at Exh.72. It is further in
his evidence that, he arrested the appellant after he was
discharged from the hospital. The arrest panchanama is at
Exh.76.
During cross-examination, he admitted to have had
not referred the appellant to Psychiatrist.
25. P.W.12 Madhuri was another police officer. She
was on patrolling duty. She reached house of the appellant
pursuant to the message received on wireless. People had
gathered there. It is further in her evidence that, one Chikate
arrived. On his arrival, the appellant opened the door. The
:: 14 ::
police took him into custody. The appellant had suffered
injuries. She placed on record relevant station diary entries
vide Exhs.85 and 86.
26. P.W.13 Navnath was a Police Head Constable on
patrolling duty. He too arrived at the crime scene in response
to a wireless message. His evidence is consistent with the
evidence of P.W.12 Madhuri.
27. Appreciation of the aforesaid evidence would
indicate that the crime scene is the kitchen room of the
residence of the appellant. The incident took place little past
4.15 a.m. on 26/9/2015. The appellant's son Ajay too testified
against his own father. The evidence of Babita (P.W.1) and her
son Vikas (P.W.5) undoubtedly indicate that the appellant
assaulted and killed his wife, brutally. P.W.1 Babita's evidence
indicates that, the appellant would suspect character of his
wife. While appreciating the evidence and even while hearing
the appeal, a thought came to our mind as to whether the
appellant was sane while he committed the gruesome murder.
We, therefore, scrutinised each and every paper in the file to
find neither defence of insanity was raised nor any paper
relating to the appellant taking treatment of a Psychologist was
on record. We talked to him online. He gave rational answers
:: 15 ::
to our queries. True, the question whether he was in a mental
frame at the time of commission of crime was very much
relevant. The Medical Officer serving in jail informed us the
appellant to have no such medical history. His behaviour is
normal for the last 7 years. The appellant even did not raise
the defence of insanity either before the Trial Court or before
us as well. True, if on appreciation of the evidence in the case
the same is made out, we cannot ignore the same. The act of
the appellant smearing the blood of his wife to his face and
even he sipped her blood do not lead us to suspect that he
was not sane while the crime was committed. We have a
reason to say so, in his examination-in-chief under Section 313
of the Cr.P.C., he gave rational answers. To 4-5 questions he
gave positive replies. He admitted that, he refused to open the
door until Mr. Chandrakant Chikate (P.W.9) had come there.
He admitted to have opened the door on Chikate's arrival. The
defence that thieves had come and assaulted the appellant
and his wife appears to be taken for the sake of defence and
nothing more.
28. The appellant placed on record his side of the story
in writing, before the Trial Court (Exh.38). We have perused
the same. It has been stated therein that he had married
:: 16 ::
Sagarbai (deceased) 25 years before. They were blessed with
3 children, 2 sons and a daughter. One of the sons and the
daughter have been married. He was working as a Carpenter
to earn his living. His elder son was working to earn living.
Some times he would not get carpentry work. Sagarbai was,
therefore, insisting him to allow her to work. He would say her,
"You should not work, we will pull on as it is." According to
him, she joined the duty as a Nurse with the hospital of
Deshmukh against his wish. She would report on duty by
10.00 in the morning and return by 5.30 in the evening. He
would accompany her to reach her to her work place. He then
would go to his work. Such things happened 4-6 months,
thereafter she started telling him that she would be required to
do night shift at the hospital. He was opposed to the same.
He asked her to leave the job. She did not listen. She started
doing night shift. For some days, he would accompany her to
reach her to her work place. Thereafter she started asking him
not to accompany her. After some days, he realised a
substantial behavioural changed in her. She started picking up
quarrel with him. She would not listen to him.
According to the appellant, on the fateful night, she
was about to leave the house for night shift. He asked her to
:: 17 ::
not go. She, therefore, picked up quarrel with him. They went
to sleep in the front room. She, however, picked quarrel with
him. She threatened the appellant to commit suicide. He
asked her to fetch drinking water. She entered the kitchen
room. He too followed her. She refused to give him water.
She started assaulting him. She then said the appellant that
she would die that night. She then removed hacksaw and
other articles from his tool bag and assaulted herself therewith.
According to the appellant, she then picked up a grinding stone
and caused self-inflicted head injury therewith. When he tried
to resist her, she assaulted him with hacksaw. He, therefore,
suffered a neck injury. He covered his neck injury with a towel.
After having seen her to have suffered multiple self-inflicted
injuries, he was mentally disturbed. Son started asking them
to stop the quarrel. After his wife became silent, the son got up
and started shouting that he (appellant) killed his mother. The
neighbours thereby gathered. He did not open the door
because he thought that he would be killed by the persons
gathered outside. Somebody made a hole to the wall of his
residence with a crowbar. He started wiping the floor stained
with blood. His hands thereby got blood stained. After a while
police arrived. He got more frightened. He, therefore, asked
outsiders to call Mr. Chandrakant Chikate and then only he
:: 18 ::
would come out of the house. Chikate thereafter arrived.
Then he opened the door. Nobody allowed him to tell his side
of the story.
29. True, the injury certificate of the appellant indicates
him to have suffered some injuries. It is, however, reiterated
that, the appellant's son had no reason to speak against his
own father. The neighbours too witnessed the appellant
assaulted his wife. Although P.W.1 Babita was the co-sister of
the deceased, there is nothing to indicate her to have any
reason to grind an axe against the appellant. On appreciation
of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, we are not
inclined to buy the defence version put up by the appellant in
writing before the Trial Court. In our view, the evidence on
record proved the appellant to have committed murder of his
wife brutally. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the
order of conviction passed by the Trial Court.
30. So far as regards sentence part is concerned, we
are inclined to withdraw the words "till his entire life" appearing
in clause (1) of the operative order. Hence the order :-
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Appeal is disposed of in following terms :-
:: 19 ::
(ii) The order dated 26/10/2018, passed by learned
Sessions Judge, Latur in Sessions Case, No.11/2016,
convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to
suffer life imprisonment is maintained. However, the words "till
his entire life" in clause (1) of the operative order are hereby
withdrawn.
(NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.) (R.G. AVACHAT, J.)
fmp/-
