Ramdas Keruba Salve vs The State Of Maharashtra
2025 Latest Caselaw 28 Bom

Bombay High Court

Ramdas Keruba Salve vs The State Of Maharashtra on 1 April, 2025

Author: R.G. Avachat

Bench: R.G. Avachat

2025:BHC-AUG:9620-DB
                                                              Cri.Appeal No.320/2021
                                              :: 1 ::




                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                             CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.320 OF 2021


                Ramdas s/o Keruba Salve,
                Age 47 years, Occ. Labour,
                R/o Balkheda, Tq. Kannad,
                District Aurangabad
                (presently in jail)                       ...APPELLANT

                        VERSUS

                The State of Maharashtra
                Police Station, Kranti Chowk,
                Aurangabad
                (Copy to be served on Public
                Prosecutor, High Court of Bombay,
                Bench at Aurangabad)                      ...RESPONDENT

                                            .......
                Mr. S.G. Bobde, Advocate for appellant
                Mrs. S.N. Deshmukh, A.P.P. for respondent
                                            .......

                                        CORAM : R.G. AVACHAT AND
                                                NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ.

                            Date of reserving judgment : 10th February, 2025
                            Date of pronouncing judgment : 1st April, 2025


                J U D G M E N T (PER : R.G. AVACHAT, J.) :

The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment

and order of conviction and consequential sentence, dated

:: 2 ::

20/05/2021, passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge,

Aurangabad in Sessions Case No.36/2015. Vide impugned

judgment and order, the appellant has been convicted for the

offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal

Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay

fine of R.3000/-, in default to suffer S.I. for six month.

2. The facts giving rising to the present appeal are as

follows :-

The appellant had married Jyoti (deceased). Both

of them were residing as husband and wife for long. The

couple was blessed with a child. Both Jyoti and the appellant

were previously married. Jyoti had, however, deserted her first

husband Vilas for some reason.

3. The appellant along with Jyoti and children would

reside initially at Rajiv Nagar, Aurangabad. Then they shifted

their residence to Abrar Colony. The appellant started

suspecting fidelity of his wife. Their used to be frequent

quarrels between the two. The appellant again took a room at

Rajiv Nagar on rent. It was just few days before the incident

:: 3 ::

dated 15/16th November 2014, the appellant went to his earlier

room. Took Jyoti with him. After some hours, he alone came

back to the house of his parents-in-law at Abrar Colony itself

and told that Jyoti left him midway. A search was made for

Jyoti. Her dead body was found in the room taken on rent by

the appellant at Rajiv Nagar. There were multiple injuries on

her person.

4. P.W.1 Ashabai, sister of Jyoti, therefore, lodged

F.I.R. (Exh.17) against the appellant with Kranti Chowk Police

Station, Aurangabad. A crime vide C.R. No.544/2014 was

registered for offence punishable under Section 302 of the

Indian Penal Code. A crime scene panchanama (Exh.26) was

drawn. Inquest (Exh.34) and autopsy (Exh.117) were

conducted on the mortal remains of Jyoti. The appellant was

arrested. Pursuant to the disclosure statement made by him, a

scarf/ dupatta was seized with which he allegedly strangled

Jyoti. Statements of persons acquainted with the facts and

circumstances of the case were recorded. Clothes on the

person of the deceased and the appellant were seized. The

seized articles were submitted to Forensic Science Laboratory.

:: 4 ::

On completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed

against the appellant.

5. The Trial Court framed the Charge (Exh.10). The

appellant pleaded not guilty. His defence was that, someone

else committed murder of his wife. He made search for her.

He even lodged missing person's report with a Police Station.

His son Aditya is with his maternal grandparents. His daughter

from first wife has been kept in Residential School in Camp,

Aurangabad.

6. To bring home the charge, the prosecution

examined 15 witnesses and produced in evidence certain

documents. On appreciation of the evidence in the case, the

Trial Court passed the order impugned herein.

7. Heard. Learned Advocate for the appellant would

submit that, the case is based on circumstantial evidence. The

appellant had no motive to commit murder of his wife. Jyoti

had been previously married. She deserted her first husband.

Her first husband was relative of her sister's husband. He

used to visit Aurangabad and even meet Jyoti. His first

:: 5 ::

husband might have committed the crime. The appellant had

made frantic efforts to search for his wife. He even

approached the Police Station and lodged missing person's

report. Most of the witnesses are relatives of the deceased

Jyoti. A false cast of last seen together has been introduced.

Mere fact of last seen would in no way lead the Court to

conclude the appellant to be the culprit. The learned Advocate

relied on the judgment in case of Ashok Vs. State of

Maharashtra (2015) 4 SCC 393 and Nagendra Sah Vs. State

of Bihar (2021) 10 SCC 725 and ultimately urged for allowing

the appeal.

8. The learned A.P.P. would, on the other hand,

submit that, the appellant cried wolf. He would suspect fidelity

of his wife Jyoti. There used to be frequent quarrels between

the two. The appellant had taken a room on rent at Rajiv

Nagar. On the morning of the fateful day, he took Jyoti with

him to the said room. He banged her head against a wall and

strangled her with Dupatta. He did assault her as well. The

appellant then went to the house of his parents-in-law and

informed Jyoti to have left him midway. According to learned

:: 6 ::

A.P.P., it is for the appellant to explain where did he leave his

wife when she was in his company. Jyoti's dead body was

found in the room of the appellant. This speaks in volumes,

suggesting the appellant to be the perpetrator of the crime.

According to learned A.P.P., there is no reason to interfere with

the order impugned herein.

9. Considered the submissions advanced. Perused

the impugned judgment and order. Let us advert to the

evidence on record and appreciate the same.

Jyoti met with homicidal death is a fact not in

dispute. P.W.10 Dr. Sachin conducted autopsy on the mortal

remains of Jyoti on 17/11/2014. He noticed following 8 injuries

on her person.

(i) Contused abrasion of size 1.5 cm. vertically placed over

right forehead region of face, reddish in colour.

(ii) Abrasion of size 2x1 cm. over right nasal ala, reddish.

(iii) Abrasion of size 3x2 cm. over right side of neck, placed 6

cms. from right mastoid and 8 cms. from midline, reddish.

:: 7 ::

(iv) Abrasion of size 5x1 cm. over left angle of mandible,

placed obliquely downwards and backwards, reddish.

(v) Abrasion of size 6x1 cm. horizontally placed over sub-

mental and right sub-mandibular region, reddish.

(vi) Multiple abrasion of size ranging from 4x1 cm. to 0.2x0.2

cm. over left elbow and upper 1/3rd of left forearm,

whitish in colour.

(vii) Multiple abrasion of size ranging from 1x1 cm. to 0.2.x0.2

cm. over right arm and elbow, whitish in colour.

(viii) Multiple abrasion of size 0.2x0.2 cm. over left flank and

back whitish in colour.

The injuries noted under injury No.(i) to (v) were

ante mortem in nature and injuries noted under (vi) to

(viii) are post mortem injuries.

In the opinion of P.W.10 Dr. Sachin, the cause of

death of Jyoti was manual strangulation with head injury.

According to him, the death occurred within 36 to 48 hours

next before commencement of autopsy.

:: 8 ::

10. P.W.1 Ashabai was the younger sister of Jyoti. She

testified that, her parents were residing at Abrar Colony,

Aurangabad. The appellant would also reside in the nearby of

her parent's house. Jyoti had 1½ year old son of her first

marriage. The appellant would harass and beat her up,

suspecting her character. The appellant too was married. He

has a daughter of first marriage. Then both the appellant and

Jyoti shifted their residence to Rajiv Nagar. She further

testified that, on 15/11/2014 by 11.00 in the morning, her

brother Sunil (P.W.14) informed her to have seen the appellant

taking with him Jyoti to Rajiv Nagar by 10.00 in the morning

Thereafter her sister-in-law Lalita made enquiry with her as to

whether Jyoti came to her house. Thereafter the appellant had

been to the house of Jyoti's parents at Abrar Colony. He

enquired with them about the whereabouts of Jyoti. He took

away his son from the custody of Jyoti's parents. Thereafter

she (P.W.1) along with her husband, brother, his wife went to

the room of the appellant in search for Jyoti. The room was

found locked. There was one bed sheet (Chadar) placed as a

curtain. She looked into the room by lifting the said Chadar.

She noticed Jyoti lying on the floor. Blood was oozing from her

:: 9 ::

ears and nostrils. She (P.W.1) broke down. Her husband

called the police. Police arrived. Jyoti was rushed to Ghati

Hospital, Aurangabad. Jyoti was declared dead there. Then

P.W.1 Ashabai lodged the F.I.R.

11. During her cross-examination, it was brought on

record that, Jyoti was heighted than the appellant. She,

however, denied that Jyoti was stronger than the appellant.

She admitted that, Jyoti was previously married. She had

stayed with her first husband in Mumbai for 6-7 years. As she

did not conceive, she left her first husband and came back to

her parents. She admitted to have had no occasion to visit

Jyoti's room at Rajiv Nagar. This admission must be taken in

the sense that she had no such occasion prior to the fateful

day. The appellant was working as a Mason. She denied to

have not known location of appellant's room at Rajiv Nagar.

She admitted to have not been on good terms with the

appellant. She, however, admitted to have grudge against the

appellant. We have to take this fact, since according to the

witness, it was the appellant who killed her sister.

:: 10 ::

12. She further testified that, at Kranti Chowk police

Station, her husband narrated the incident to the police. It was

reduced into writing. She put her thumb impression below the

same. After having elicited this admission, she was again

suggested that she lodged the false F.I.R. against the

appellant. She flatly denied the same. The witness appears to

be illiterate and rustic. The evidence was recorded three years

after the incident.

13. P.W.2 Deelip is the husband of P.W.1 Ashabai. He

gave evidence on the lines of evidence of P.W.1 Ashabai.

According to him, the appellant would suspect character of

Jyoti. Six month prior to the death of Jyoti, the appellant had

quarreled with her. He along with his father-in-law and brother-

in-law had, therefore, reasoned with the appellant and

requested to be kind enough with Jyoti. The appellant,

however, did not listen. He further testified that, 15 days

before the incident, the appellant shifted his residence to Rajiv

Nagar from Abrar Colony. He alone went to reside in that

room. Jyoti along with her son continued to stay in a room at

Abrar Colony. He testified that, his brother-in-law Sunil

:: 11 ::

informed him on phone on 15/11/2014 that he saw the

appellant and Jyoti and told that Jyoti left him midway. All of

them, therefore, made a search for Jyoti. They even

overpowered the appellant and took him to the police station.

The officials of Satara Police Station asked them first to take

search for Jyoti.

14. This witness too was subjected to a searching

cross-examination. He admitted that, Jyoti was previously

married. Her first husband was his relative. He would visit his

residence at Aurangabad. The witness has, however, flatly

denied that Jyoti and her first husband would meet each other

at Aurangabad. The defence wanted to suggest that it was

that fellow and not the appellant who might have committed

the crime.

15. It was suggested to this witness that both Jyoti and

appellant would reside at Rajiv Nagar area until the date of the

incident. It was also admitted by the appellant that both, he

and Jyoti would reside at Abrar Colony (suggestion to P.W.2,

para 7). The witness further testified that, he had been to the

house of appellant's in-laws. The appellant had come there in

:: 12 ::

the morning of 16 November. He along with the appellant and

his brother-in-law went to the Police Station. From Police

Station they came back to Abrar Colony. At the Police Station,

missing person's report was lodged. He, however, flatly

denied that the appellant was in their company all along, but

they have falsely doubted the appellant's involvement.

16. P.W.3 Vijay is a witness to the crime scene

panchanama (Exh.26). He did not stand by the prosecution.

He acknowledged his signatures on the panchanama (Exh.26).

17. P.W.4 Sachin is a witness to the inquest

panchanama (Exh.34). While P.W.5 Gautam is a witness to

the panchanama as to seizure of clothes of the deceased

(Exh.40). He is also a witness to the disclosure statement

made by the appellant (Exh.41) on 18/11/2014, pursuant to

which a scarf, a blue colour Jean Pant and full shirt came to be

seized from Rajiv Nagar hutment area.

18. The cross-examination of P.W.3 Vijay indicates that

he would assist the police as and when required. We,

:: 13 ::

therefore, do not propose to place much reliance on the

evidence of this witness.

19. P.W.6 Sanjay was a Police Head Constable

attached to Satara Police Station. It is in his evidence that, on

15/11/2014 the appellant had come to the Police Station and

stated that his parents-in-law were threatening him. He further

informed that his wife left home. Whatever was reported by

him was reduced into writing. A station diary entry was also

made. He then went to Abrar Colony. This witness further

testified that, the appellant that time was under influence of

liquor.

20. During his cross-examination, he stated to have not

taken any action against the appellant on account of having

visited the Police Station in drunken state. A suggestion was

given to this witness, denying the appellant to have visited the

Police Station and lodged such report.

The fact is that the report is on record and before

this Court, has been relied on.

(NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.)                    (R.G. AVACHAT, J.)


fmp/-