Bombay High Court
Sukhram S/O. Jyotiram Bhil vs The State Of Maharashtra on 1 February, 2024
Author: R.G. Avachat
Bench: R.G. Avachat
2024:BHC-AUG:2503-DB
APEAL-1251-19.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1251 OF 2019
Sukhram Jyotiram Bhil
Age: 38 years, Occu.: Labour,
R/o Titwi, Tq. Parola, Dist. Jalgaon ..APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. State of Maharashtra
2. Bhavadu Gulab Bhil
Age: 33 years, Occu.: Labour,
R/o Titwi, Tq. Parola, Dist. Jalgaon ..RESPONDENTS
....
Mrs. V.S. Shinde-More, Advocate for appellant
Mr. S.D. Ghayal, A.P.P. for respondent no.1 - State
Mr. S.G. Bobade, Advocate for respondent no.2 (appointed)
....
CORAM : R.G. AVACHAT AND
NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ
DATE : 01st FEBRUARY, 2024
ORAL JUDGMENT ( PER : R.G. AVACHAT, J. ) :
1. The appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and therefore, sentenced to suffer life
imprisonment and pay fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation, vide order
dated 04th May, 2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Amalner in
Sessions Case No. 16 of 2016. The appellant is, therefore, before this Court
in appeal.
APEAL-1251-19.odt
2. Facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows :-
First Information Report ('F.I.R.') (Exh.8) was lodged by P.W.1 -
Dhanraj. It is his case that his agricultural land at village Titwi is adjacent to
the land of one Sahadu Bhil. Sumanbai (deceased) would cultivate Sahadu's
land. It was 02:30 p.m. of 25th November, 2015. He was working in his field.
Sumanbai was in the field of Sahadu. He saw the appellant proceeding
towards Sumanbai. The appellant was armed with a wooden bed leg. He
heard shouts of Sumanbai. He, therefore, looked in that direction to see the
appellant to have been assaulting Sumanbai with the wooden bed leg. The
appellant had mounted on her person. The appellant then throttled
Sumanbai. Having realised P.W.1 - Dhanraj to have been approaching
towards him, the appellant fled. P.W.1 - Dhanraj immediately informed the
same to P.W.3 - Raju Patil on phone. He came. Sumanbai was rushed to the
hospital, where she was declared dead.
3. Based on the F.I.R. lodged by P.W.1 - Dhanraj, crime was
registered, vide C.R. No. 185 of 2015 against the appellant. On completion of
investigation, the appellant was proceeded against by filing the charge-sheet.
4. The Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Parola committed the
case to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Amalner ('trial Court'). Trial
Court framed the charge (Exh.3). The appellant pleaded not guilty. His
defence was of false implication.
APEAL-1251-19.odt
5. The prosecution examined eight witnesses and produced in
evidence certain documents, to bring home the charge. Trial Court, on
appreciation of evidence in the case, convicted the appellant and
consequently sentenced as stated above.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that it is a case
based on sole eye witness. The appellant was inimical with the informant.
No blood was found on the clothes of the appellant. The victim too, did not
suffer any bleeding injury. P.W.1 - Dhanraj, informant had an axe to grind
against the appellant. He, therefore, urged for not relying on the evidence of
the sole eye witness. Learned counsel ultimately urged for allowing the
appeal.
7. Learned A.P.P. and learned counsel representing Respondent No.2
would, on the other hand, submit that it is an open and shut case. The
appellant was seen committing murder of Sumanbai. The informant did not
have any reason to falsely implicate him. The informant's presence has been
admitted in view of evidence of P.W.3 - Raju. Both the learned counsel,
therefore, urged for dismissal of the appeal.
8. Considered the submissions advanced. Perused the evidence
relied on.
APEAL-1251-19.odt
9. Postmortem report (Exh.17) indicates the deceased died of cardio-
pulmonary arrest due to asphyxia due to throttling of neck. As such, its a
case of homicide. It is undisputed that land of P.W.1 - Dhanraj is situated at
village Titwi. Adjacent to the said land, was the land of one Sahadu.
Sumanbai (deceased) would cultivate Sahadu's land. It was about 02:30 p.m.
on 25th November, 2015. P.W.1 - Dhanraj, being agriculturist, was naturally
present at his field. Same is the case of deceased - Sumanbai. P.W.1 -
Dhanraj testified to have had seen the appellant assaulted Sumanbai with a
wooden bed leg. He had also seen the appellant throttling Sumanbai. Having
realised to have been seen by P.W.1 - Dhanraj, the appellant left the place. It
was suggested that P.W.1 - Dhanraj had lend some money to the appellant
and the same was not returned. He had, therefore, grudge against him
(appellant).
10. True, it is a case based on sole eye witness account. Evidence of
P.W.1 - Dhanraj gets reinforced by evidence of P.W.3 - Raju, who testified
that P.W.1 - Dhanraj informed him on phone that the appellant committed
murder of Sumanbai. He, therefore, rushed to the field to find Sumanbai
dead. In the cross-examination of P.W.3 - Raju it was suggested that when
he reached the field, except P.W.1 - Dhanraj no one was present. Same
suggests the appellant to have admitted presence of P.W.1 - Dhanraj at the
scene of offence. Nothing has been brought on record to disbelieve the
APEAL-1251-19.odt
evidence of both these witnesses. We, therefore, do not find any reason to
interfere with the impugned order and consequential sentence.
11. In view of above, appeal fails. Same is dismissed. Fees of Mrs.
V.S. Shinde-More, learned counsel, appointed to represent the appellant
through Legal Aid, is quantified to Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand).
Also, fees of Mr. S.G. Bobade, learned counsel appointed to represent
Respondent No.2, is quantified to Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand).
( NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J. ) ( R.G. AVACHAT, J. )
SSD
