Bombay High Court
Sanjaykumar Bhatel Padihari vs The State Of Maharashtra on 26 August, 2025
2025:BHC-AS:36611-DB CrI-Appeal-797-2024-J-F.doc
Shephali
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 797 OF 2024
AND
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2927 OF 2024
Sanjaykumar Bhatel Padihari,
Age: 32 years, Occu: Labour
R/o B/162, Shastri Nagar,
Pratiksha Nagar, Sion, Mumbai
Native Place: At Post Manik Bazar,
SHEPHALI Near Hari Mandir, Beside Three Floor Bldg.,
SANJAY Sarekala, Dist.: Sarekala, Khensua,
MORMARE
State: Jharkhand ...Appellant/
Digitally signed by
SHEPHALI
SANJAY (At present lodged at Mumbai Central Prison) (Orig. Accused)
MORMARE
Date: 2025.08.26
17:33:11 +0530
~ versus ~
The State of Maharashtra,
Through Wadala TT Police Station. ...Respondent
A PPEARANCES
For the Appellant/ Mr Murtuja Najmi, with Sheyash V
Orig. Accused Chaturvedi, Nancy Kanungo &
Ratnesh Dube.
For The Respondent-State Mr KV Saste, Additional PP.
Page 1 of 17
26th August 2025
::: Uploaded on - 26/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2025 21:38:50 :::
CrI-Appeal-797-2024-J-F.doc
CORAM : SUMAN SHYAM &
SHYAM C. CHANDAK, JJ
RESERVED ON : 6TH AUGUST2025.
PRONOUNCED ON : 26TH AUGUST 2025.
JUDGMENT (Per Suman Shyam, J):
-
1. Heard Mr Murtuja Najmi, learned counsel appearing along
with Sheyash V Chaturvedi, Nancy Kanungo & Ratnesh Dube for
the Appellant. Also heard Mr KV Saste, learned Additional PP for
the Respondent-State.
2. This Appeal filed by the sole Appellant, viz., Sanjaykumar
Bhatel Padihari, is directed against the Judgment dated 30 th April
2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater
Bombay, in Sessions Case No. 1622 of 2019 convicting the
Appellant for committing offences punishable under Sections 302,
316, 498A and 319 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 ("IPC") and
sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay
fine of Rs. 5,000/- for committing offence punishable under
Section 302 of the IPC; rigorous imprisonment for a term of seven
years and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/-, for committing offence
punishable under Section 316 of the IPC; rigorous imprisonment
26th August 2025
CrI-Appeal-797-2024-J-F.doc
for a term of one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for committing
offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC and rigorous
imprisonment for a term of six months for committing offence
punishable under Section 309 of the IPC
3. The prosecution case, in a nutshell, is that the Appellant, in a
state of intoxication, has caused death to his wife by causing
cerebral injury upon her. On 19th May 2019, the bypassers had
noticed foul smell emanating from the house of the Appellant. On
further enquiry, the decomposed dead body of the victim was
found in the house of the appellant. It was found that the dead-
body of the deceased was lying on the floor of the house and the
Appellant was sleeping besides the body by putting his hand on the
body of his deceased wife.
4. Complaint was filed at Wadala T. T. Police Station on 21st
May 2019. Thereafter, C.R 158 of 2019 was registered and the
matter was taken up for investigation. On completion of
investigation, the police had submitted charge-sheet against the
Appellant. Based on the charge-sheet submitted by the police, the
learned Trial Court had framed charges under Sections 302, 316,
26th August 2025
CrI-Appeal-797-2024-J-F.doc
498A and 319 of the IPC against the accused. Since the accused
had pleaded not guilty, he was made to face trial.
5. The prosecution side has examined as many as six witnesses,
including the SHO (PW-1), the Doctor, who had conducted the
postmortem on the body of the deceased (PW-3), the Investigating
Officer (PW-4), who completed the investigation and submitted
charge-sheet. The case of the prosecution is entirely based on
circumstantial evidence. The case of the Accused/Appellant is, one
of total denial. However, the Accused/Appellant did not adduce
any evidence in his defence.
6. After taking note of the evidence available on record, the
learned Trial Court had convicted the Appellant under Sections
302, 316, 498A and 319 of the IPC and sentenced him to suffer the
major punishment of life imprisonment.
7. Assailing the impugned Judgment and Order dated 30th
April 2024, Mr Murtuja, learned counsel appearing for the
Appellant has submitted that having regard to the evidence
available on record, it is established beyond doubt that there was
no intention on the part of the Appellant to cause death to his wife.
26th August 2025
CrI-Appeal-797-2024-J-F.doc
According to Mr. Murtuja, the mere fact that the Appellant had
remained lying by the side of the dead-body of his wife for two
days and had actually made an attempt to end his life by cutting
the veins on his wrists by a blade, clearly demonstrates the
remorse on his part. Contending that this is not a case where the
Accused had made any attempt to flee or to remove/conceal the
dead-body of his wife after the incident, further goes to show that
there was lack of intention on the part of the accused to cause
death to his wife. On such count, submits Mr Murtuja, even if it
found that the accused was responsible for the death of his wife,
even then, this case will come under the purview of Section 304,
Part-II. Therefore, submits the learned counsel, the Appellant
deserves a lessor sentence.
8. In support of his above arguments, Mr Murtuja has placed
reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in case of Jagrup
Singh vs State of Haryana,1 as well as the decision in case of Jaggu
& Ors vs State of Punjab,2 to submit that from the material on
record, it is established that the incident took place in a spur of the
moment and without any premeditation on the part of the accused
1 (1981) 3 SCC 616.
2 (1952) 1 SCC 759.
26th August 2025
CrI-Appeal-797-2024-J-F.doc
to cause death to his wife. Hence, the conviction of the Appellant
under Section 302 of the IPC would not be sustainable in Law.
According to Mr. Murtuja, if there is some doubt on the actual
circumstance of the incident, benefit of such doubt must go in
favour the Accused.
9. Resisting the above arguments, Mr Saste, learned APP
appearing for the Respondent-State, has argued that the medical
evidence has clearly established the homicidal death of the
deceased. The Accused was admittedly in his house when the
incident took place, but he has failed to offer any plausible
explanation as to the circumstance under which the victim had
sustained fatal injuries. According to Mr. Saste, the attempt on the
part of the Accused to end his life by committing suicide does not
in any manner, absolved him of the murder charge.
10. Mr Saste has further argued that having regard to the bulk of
evidence brought on record, this is a clear case where the charge
levelled against the Accused/Appellant under Section 302 of the
IPC read with Section 309 had been clearly established by the
prosecution. Contending that the intention of the Appellant to
cause death to his wife is writ large on the face of the evidence
26th August 2025
CrI-Appeal-797-2024-J-F.doc
brought on record, the learned APP has argued that the present is
not a case of conversion of conviction of the Appellant to one
punishable under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC, as has been urged
by the Appellant's counsel.
11. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned
counsel for both the sides and have carefully examined the
material available on record.
12. The circumstances under which the dead-body of the
deceased was recovered, comes out from the testimony of PW-1,
viz. Vishnu Shivaji Tone, who was attached to the Wadala TT Police
Station and was on duty as SHO on the 21st May 2019. PW-1 has
deposed that at round 17.10 hrs on that day, he had received a
phone call, through which, information was given that stinky smell
was emanating from a house at Shastri Nagar, Pratiksha Nagar.
Immediately on receipt of the information, he had informed the
matter to the senior officer and thereafter, rushed to the spot. On
reaching room No. B/162, Ground floor, he found the dead-body of
a lady and he saw that one person was sleeping beside the body by
putting his hand on her body.
26th August 2025
CrI-Appeal-797-2024-J-F.doc
13. PW-1 has further deposed that on inspection of the spot, he
had noticed fresh cut injuries on both the wrists of the person
found near the dead-body. He was immediately taken to Sion
Hospital for treatment. From the Adhaar Card found at the spot,
the Appellant could be identified. PW-1 also came to know that the
dead body was of Suman Wagheri, who was the wife of the
Appellant. This witness has proved the inquest panchanama
(Exh.16), which is admitted by the defence.
14. Shri. Sagar Bhimrao Chavan was examined as PW-2. He has
deposed that on 21st May 2019, at around 12:30 hours, one
person came to his shop and purchased blade. He could identify
the accused as the same person who had purchased the blade.
15. PW-3 Dr. Narendra Baluram Kumar had conducted
Postmortem examination on the deadbody of the victim. He was
working as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Forensic
Medicine, Sion Hospital on 24th May 2019, when the dead body of
the victim was brought to the hospital for postmortem
examination. PW-3 has deposed that the body was in a
26th August 2025
CrI-Appeal-797-2024-J-F.doc
decomposed condition. In the postmortem examination the
following injuries were found on the dead body.
During internal examination, the doctor has found following
injuries:-
1. Underscalp haemorrhage on left fronto-parieto-
temporo-occipital region of size 15cm x 10cm, dark
red.
2. On skull Linear displaced fracture of sella
turcica extending into left middle cranial fossa of
length 4 cm, blood infiltration along margins.
3. In brain duramater-Intact.
Subdural haematoma over left tempro-parietal region
weighing 100 cc dark red.
Diffuse Subarachnoid haemorrhage on whole of
cerebral cortex, dark red.
Brain-Intact, soft.
No internal injury were seen in chest or abdomen.
Her uterus was intact measuring 22 x 8 x10 cm., on
cut section a male fetus was seen in vertex position.
Length of the fetus-33 cm, eyebrows present, nails
reaching beyond tip, lanugo hairs present.
Her viscera, blood and nail clippings were preserved
for chemical analysis.
16. The doctor has opined that the death was due to shock due
to cranio-cerebral injury following hard and blunt impact
(unnatural).
26th August 2025
CrI-Appeal-797-2024-J-F.doc
17. PW-5 Manoj Bharat Merdhekar is the person, who had
initially noticed the foul smell emanating from the house of the
Appellant. PW-5 has stated that he had peeped into the room of
the Appellant on 21st May 2019 at about 5:00 p.m. and noticed
blood on the floor. He could also sense a foul smell. This witness
has deposed that he, along with his two friends, had noticed one
female in decomposed condition and one male person by her side.
Thereafter, he informed the matter to the police.
18. Shri. Dyaneshwar Dattatray Argade (PW-4) was entrusted
with the investigation of the case. On completion of investigation,
he had submitted charge-sheet (Exh.1). PW-4 has deposed as
regards the usual steps taken by him during the investigation of
the case which included recording of statements of the witnesses,
collecting the postmortem report as well as FSL report. PW-4 has
narrated his findings revealed after the investigation, according to
which, the accused person had mercilessly beaten his wife and
committed her murder. Thereafter, he also tried to commit suicide
by inflicting cut injuries on both his wrists.
26th August 2025
CrI-Appeal-797-2024-J-F.doc
19. PW-6 Mithun Sahu is the brother of the deceased. He has
deposed before the Court that deceased Suman got married to the
accused on 21st June 2018, which was about a year before the
incident. According to PW-6, there used to be frequent quarrels
between the accused and the deceased. They had also come to
know that the accused had a habit of drinking alcohol and under
the influence of alcohol, he used to frequently quarrel with the
deceased, which fact was informed to him and his mother by the
deceased.
20. We have carefully examined the evidence on record in the
light of the submission made at the Bar. From the medical evidence
brought on record, there can be no element of doubt about the
fact that the deceased had suffered a homicidal death which took
place around 19th May 2019 in the confines of her home wherein,
she was living with her husband. Evidence on record further go to
show that save and except the Appellant and his deceased wife,
there was no other person present in the house on the date of
occurrence. Notwithstanding the same, the Appellant has failed to
offer any explanation as to the circumstances under which the
deceased had suffered fatal injuries leading to her death.
26th August 2025
CrI-Appeal-797-2024-J-F.doc
21. Be that as it may, from the evidence brought on record, more
particularly, the testimonies of PWs-1, 3 and 4, it is clearly
established that the deceased had died a homicidal death inside
her house wherein the Appellant was present. The evidence on
record also firmly establishes the fact that none other than the
Appellant is responsible for causing the death of his wife. The only
question, that would, therefore, arise for determination in this case
is as to whether, this case would come under any of the exceptions
laid down in Section 300 of the IPC.
22. From the evidence on record, it appears that after the death
of his wife the Appellant had purchased blade and had made an
attempt to commit suicide by cutting his veins on both the wrists,
as a result of which, he had received six stitches on his left wrist
and three stitches on his right wrist. The appellant was admitted in
the hospital as an indoor patient for ten days for receiving
treatment for his above injuries. From the above circumstances, it
is clear that after the death of his wife, the Appellant had
attempted to end his life by committing suicide. Therefore, the
findings recorded by the learned Trial Court on such count, holding
26th August 2025
CrI-Appeal-797-2024-J-F.doc
the Appellant guilty of offence punishable under Section 309, in
our opinion, do not warrant any interference by this Court.
23. Having observed above, we now propose to deal with the
submission made by the Counsel for the Appellant that there was
no intention on the part of the Appellant to cause death to his wife.
24. Medical evidence adduced by the prosecution suggest that
death of the deceased was caused by a single fatal injury on head
caused due to blunt impact. No weapon explaining the injury could
be seized in this case. Therefore, it appears that the deceased, in all
likelihood, had suffered the head injury due to banging of her head
against the wall. It is possible that in a state of inebriation, the
Appellant had pushed the deceased so hard that her head had hit
the wall leading to the fatal injury.
25. From the evidence available on record, it is also established
that the Appellant was in the habit of consuming alcohol on
regular basis and on such count, there used to be frequent quarrel
between him and his wife which fact was made known by the
deceased to her brother and mother from time to time.
26th August 2025
CrI-Appeal-797-2024-J-F.doc
26. It is also evident from the medical evidence available on the
record that the victim was pregnant at the time of her death and
she was in the second trimester of her pregnancy, when the
incident took place. The Appellant has allegedly disclosed before
the SHO-PW 1 that on the day of the incident when he found that
his wife had not taken medicine, he had slapped her. Later on, he
found out that the deceased had died due to injuries sustained by
her.
27. It also appears from the evidence on record that the death of
the deceased, in all probability, took place on the 19th May 2019.
However, the Appellant, who was the only person aware about the
incident, did not make any attempt to flee or to conceal the dead
body. Rather, the fact that he remained lying by the side of the
dead body of his wife clearly goes to show that there was a deep
sense of remorse on his part and the Appellant was in a highly
emotive state of mind after the incident. The Appellant was in fact
diagnosed with "adjustment disorder with depressed mood" and
referred to the Department of Psychiatric, (LTMMC). These facts,
indicate in no uncertain terms that there was no premeditation on
the part of the Appellant to commit the murder of his wife but the
26th August 2025
CrI-Appeal-797-2024-J-F.doc
incident took place in a spur of the moment, when the Appellant,
in a state of inebriation, due to the quarrel between the Appellant
and his wife had assaulted her. The Appellant did not take undue
advantage of the situation and did not act in a cruel manner.
28. The Appellant was aware that his wife was 33 weeks
pregnant and there is nothing to show that he had any objection to
the pregnancy of his wife. Rather, the evidence on record indicates
that the Appellant was concerned about the well being of his wife.
In such circumstances, it is difficult to presume that the Appellant
had deliberately indulged in activities, which would not only harm
his wife but also the fetus in the womb. In other words, from the
circumstances of case, discernible from the evidence on record, we
are of the opinion that death of the deceased was caused
accidentally, without their being any pre-meditation or intent to
cause death. If that be so, the present, in our considered opinion,
is not a case of culpable homicide amounting to murder. Rather,
we are of the view that this case would come within the fold of
Exception-4 of Section 300 of the IPC, which is reproduced herein
below:
26th August 2025
CrI-Appeal-797-2024-J-F.doc
"Exception 4 - Culpable homicide is not murder if it is
committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat
of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender
having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual
manner."
29. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case as
well as the observations made hereinabove, we are of the un-
hesitant opinion that the evidence on record would at best justify
the conviction of the appellant under Section 304 (Part-II) of the
IPC and not under Section 302 of IPC.
30. Section 304 of the IPC,reads as follows:
"304. Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to
murder -- Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting
to murder shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or
imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by
which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing
death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause
death, or with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if the
act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death,
but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such
bodily injury as is likely to cause death."
31. The learned counsel for the Appellant has not advanced any
argument assailing the conviction of the Appellant under the other
provisions of the Code, save and except under Section 302 of the
IPC. We also do not find any cogent ground to interfere with the
conviction of the Appellant under Sections 316, 309 and 498-A of
the IPC.
26th August 2025
CrI-Appeal-797-2024-J-F.doc
32. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we set aside the
conviction of the Appellant under Section 302 of the IPC and
instead, convict him under Section 304 (Part-II) of the IPC.
Accordingly, the sentence of life imprisonment imposed upon the
Appellant by the learned trial Court for committing the offence
under Section 302 also stands set aside. The Appellant is awarded
the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 (ten)
years. The period undergone by the Appellant in jail custody shall
be set off against the jail sentence imposed upon him in this order.
The rest of the conviction and sentences imposed upon the
Appellant by the learned Court below to remain unaltered.
33. The Appeal stands partly allowed. In view of this, the
Interim Application does not survive and is disposed of as
infructuous.
34. Sent back the Record and Proceeding with paperbooks.
(SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.) (SUMAN SHYAM, J.)
26th August 2025
