[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Murgesh Pechi Muttu vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr. on 17 December, 2025
Author: Manish Pitale
Bench: Manish Pitale
2025:BHC-AS:55625-DB
1
apeal-15.21.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 15 OF 2021
Murgesh Pechi Muttu ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ... Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2754 OF 2022
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 15 OF 2021
******
Mr.Kripashankar N. Pandey a/w Mr. Sujay Shingade and Mr.
Himanshu V. Indise for Appellant.
Ms. Sharmila S. Kaushik, APP for Respondent-State.
******
CORAM : MANISH PITALE AND
MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 2nd DECEMBER 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 17th DECEMBER 2025
JUDGMENT (Per Manish Pitale, J.) :
. The appellant has challenged judgement and order dated
02.11.2020 passed by the Court of Sessions at Dindoshi (Borivali
Division), Goregaon, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial
Court') in Sessions Case No.73 of 2013. By the impugned
judgement and order, the trial Court has convicted the appellant
for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(IPC) and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life
and to pay fine of Rs.45,000/- and in default of payment of fine,
to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years.
2. The appellant has been convicted for the murder of his
mother-in-law. The first informant is Aasha Murgesh Porchimuttu
apeal-15.21.doc
(P.W.1), who is the wife of the appellant. The two got married in
the year 2006 and after marriage, the said P.W.1 - Aasha went to
reside with the appellant in rental premises at Daman. The
appellant was a tailor by profession and was working in a
garments company. It was alleged that he was addicted to liquor
and he used to beat his wife P.W.1 - Aasha under the influence of
alcohol and that his addiction to liquor had resulted in serious
financial problems for the family. The wife of the appellant i.e.
P.W.1 - Aasha, in these circumstances, was constrained to leave the
matrimonial house earlier. But, upon being pacified, she had
returned to the matrimonial house at Daman. It was alleged that
the addiction of the appellant continued and he even sold the gold
ornaments belonging to his wife (P.W.1) and that, he used to
demand money from the deceased i.e. his mother-in-law.
3. In these circumstances, the wife of the appellant i.e. P.W.1 -
Aasha was constrained to leave the matrimonial home and about
three months prior to the incident, she came to reside with her
mother i.e. the victim at Borivali with her two daughters. The wife
of the appellant i.e. P.W.1 - Aasha stated that she was constrained
to give an application to the Women Cell in the light of threats
given by the appellant. She started working as a nurse at Arihant
Hospital in Borivali. She alleged that the appellant used to
threaten her on phone and say that he would kill her and her
mother by using a sickle and in this backdrop, she was constrained
to register a non-cognizable offence case in Borivali Police Station.
apeal-15.21.doc
A complaint was also lodged against the appellant for offence
under Section 498-A of the IPC.
4. It is in this backdrop that the incident dated 19.12.2012
took place at about 7:00 p.m. in the evening. According to P.W.1 -
Aasha when she was preparing to leave for night duty in the
evening and while her daughters and her mother were at home in
Borivali, the appellant i.e. her husband came to the said house at
Borivali and started beating her. The mother of P.W.1 i.e. the
deceased intervened and thereupon the appellant attacked her
using one sharp-edged blade of scissors. He assaulted the deceased
on various parts of her body, including her head and back, due to
which, she fell on the floor and the assault continued. The
daughters of P.W.1 - Aasha and she herself raised a hue and cry,
upon which the appellant left the house. The said P.W.1 - Aasha
took her mother to Arhiant Hospital with the help of neighbours
where her mother was declared dead. On the statement of P.W.1 -
Aasha, FIR was registered and investigation was undertaken. The
appellant was arrested. The weapon of assault was recovered from
the building in which the said house / room of the deceased was
located. Panchanamas were executed in the presence of panch
witnesses. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was
filed.
5. The prosecution examined 13 witnesses in support of its
case, while the appellant exam1ined 2 defence witnesses.
6. Upon completion of recording of evidence, the incriminating
apeal-15.21.doc
circumstances were put to the appellant under Section 313 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.). Thereupon, the trial
Court rendered the impugned judgement and order, holding that
the guilt of the appellant had been proved beyond reasonable
doubt. Accordingly, he was convicted and sentenced in the
aforesaid manner.
7. Upon receipt of record and proceedings as also the paper-
book, the appeal was taken up for hearing.
8. Mr. Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that
the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was riddled with
material contradictions and omissions. Although the prosecution
claimed that there was direct evidence in the form of eye-
witnesses, P.W.3 i.e. one of the daughters of the appellant, who
claimed to be an eye-witness to the incident, had not supported
the prosecution as per her responses during cross-examination. As
a consequence, only two eye-witnesses remained i.e. P.W.1 - Aasha
i.e. the wife of the appellant and P.W.6 - V. Mayalan Pille, a
neighbour residing in the building where the room was located. It
was submitted that the evidence of even these purported eye-
witnesses was full of material omissions and contradictions,
thereby creating a serious doubt about the very presence of the
appellant at the time of the incident.
9. It was submitted that the appellant was actually taken into
custody in the context of the case registered at the behest of P.W.1
- Aasha for offence under Section 498-A of the IPC and
apeal-15.21.doc
subsequently, he was shown as having been arrested for the act of
having violently attacked his own mother-in-law. It was further
submitted that the panch witnesses had turned hostile, due to
which, recovery of the alleged weapon of assault as also the
clothes of the victim and the appellant, was rendered doubtful,
thereby creating a cloud of doubt about the evidence of the
prosecution.
10. It was further submitted that the postmortem report, when
read with the evidence of the doctor conducting postmortem, in
the light of the panchanama recording the injuries suffered by the
deceased, created a serious doubt as to whether the body upon
which post-mortem was conducted was that of the deceased. None
of the relatives had identified the body, and therefore, this further
created doubt in the matter. The absence of signature of the first
informant i.e. P.W.1 - Aasha on the FIR also created a doubt about
the prosecution case right from its inception, thereby indicating
that the trial Court erred in holding against the appellant. It was
submitted that the aforesaid room, where the incident took place
was in a building, which was a part of a transit camp. In such an
area, in the evening, there would have been a number of persons
and yet, the prosecution failed to examine independent witnesses.
It was submitted that if the evidence of the prosecution witnesses
was taken together, the alleged eye-witness P.W. 6 - Pille was not
even identified by the other witnesses, who also claimed to be
from the same neighbourhood. On this basis, it was submitted that
apeal-15.21.doc
the appeal deserved to be allowed and the impugned judgement
and order of the trial Court deserved to be set aside.
11. On the other hand, Ms. Kaushik, learned APP appearing for
the respondent-State submitted that the present case was a case of
direct evidence in the form of testimonies of eye-witnesses, who
saw the brutal assault launched by the appellant against the
deceased. Since the incident took place inside a room in the transit
camp and the eye-witnesses were present inside and immediately
outside the room and they had seen the appellant from close
quarters, it was submitted that the appellant cannot claim benefit
of doubt. It was submitted that although P.W.3 i.e. the then minor
daughter of the appellant had failed to support the prosecution
case in cross-examination, even if her evidence was to be
discarded, the testimonies of P.W.1 - Aasha also the first informant
and P.W.6 - Pille - a neighbour and eye-witness, were enough to
prove the guilt of the appellant. It was submitted that the blood
stained clothes revealed human blood group, which further
demonstrated the connection of the appellant with the crime. The
weapon of assault had been recovered.
12. It was submitted that the Supreme Court in the case of
Vadivelu Thevar Vs. State of Madras, AIR 1957 SC 614, held that
conviction in a criminal case for murder can be rendered even on
the evidence of a single witness, so long as the evidence of such a
witness is of sterling quality. It was submitted that the evidence of
P.W.1 - Aasha was clearly of sterling quality and she was in the
apeal-15.21.doc
category of a 'wholly reliable witness', whose testimony did not
require any corroboration. Her testimony was further supported
by P.W.6 - Pille, the other eye-witness, and therefore, the appellant
cannot claim any benefit of doubt on the basis of other
circumstances, concerning the prosecution evidence.
13. It was submitted that unnecessary confusion was sought to
be created on behalf of the appellant with regard to the question
of the body upon which post-mortem was conducted. There was
no discrepancy in the nature of injuries recorded in the post-
mortem report and the injuries recorded in the panchanama.
Therefore, there was no substance in the contention raised on
behalf of the appellant.
14. It was further submitted that the arrest and registration of
offence against the appellant could not be placed under a cloud of
doubt merely because the first informant P.W.1 - Aasha had also
submitted a complaint for offence under Section 498-A of the IPC
against the appellant.
15. It was submitted that an overall appreciation of the evidence
of the prosecution witnesses clearly proves the guilt of the
appellant beyond reasonable doubt and hence, no interference
with the impugned judgement and order is warranted, in the facts
and circumstances of the present case.
16. In order to appreciate the rival submissions, this Court has
considered the evidence and material on record. As noted
hereinabove, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses to prove its
apeal-15.21.doc
case. P.W.1 i.e. the first informant (Aasha), also the wife of the
appellant, can be said to be the star witness in this case. Her
testimony reveals that she was present in the room at the point in
time when the incident took place. Considering the nature of
injuries suffered by the deceased, leading to her death, it cannot be
doubted that such an incident indeed took place. P.W.1 - Aasha, in
her evidence, has given the backdrop of serious matrimonial
discord with the appellant. This cannot be treated as a ground for
doubting her evidence as an eye-witness. In fact, her deposition
reveals certain traits about the appellant, pertaining to the
addiction to liquor and a propensity towards violence. Even with
regard to the incident in question, P.W.1 clearly stated in her
deposition that first the appellant physically assaulted her by
entering into the room at a time when she was preparing to leave
for night duty to Arihant Hospital. It is when the appellant
assaulted P.W.1 - Aasha i.e. his wife, that the victim i.e. the
mother-in-law of the appellant intervened and the appellant is said
to have assaulted the victim by means of a sharp-edged blade of
scissors. P.W.1 - Aasha has described in detail the nature of assault
on the victim at the hands of the appellant and how she alongwith
her neighbours took the victim in a rickshaw to the hospital,
where she was declared dead.
17. In cross-examination, certain minor omissions have been
extracted by the defence, such as allegation regarding gold
ornaments of the said witness being disposed of by the appellant,
apeal-15.21.doc
details about earlier threat given by the appellant and the
statement that the police had seized the clothes of the victim i.e.
the mother of the said witness. We are of the opinion that such
minor omissions would not render the testimony of the said eye-
witness P.W.1 - Aasha, worthy of being discarded. It is only if the
Court finds material omissions and contradictions that, the
evidence of the witness is rendered doubtful. In this case, the
description of the incident, even under the strain of cross-
examination, appears to be natural and it cannot be said that the
evidence of the said witness was doubtful and that corroboration
was required.
18. The insistence on the part of the appellant that independent
witnesses should have been examined cannot take his case much
further, for the reason that in such cases involving brutal assaults
in the backdrop of family disputes, independent witnesses hardly
come forward to assist or depose for the prosecution.
19. Much emphasis was placed on certain statements made in
cross-examination by P.W.1 - Aasha with regard to absence of her
signature on the printed FIR format. On this basis, it was urged
that the FIR itself could not be relied upon and it being the trigger
for investigation, the entire exercise could be said to have been
vitiated. In this regard, this Court finds that the printed format of
the FIR indeed does not bear the signature of the said witness
P.W.1 - Aasha i.e. the first informant. But, the statement of the said
witness taken down by P.W.9 - Deepak Jadhav (API) does bear the
apeal-15.21.doc
signature of the first informant i.e. P.W.1 - Aasha. We are of the
opinion that since the oral statement of the first informant i.e.
P.W.1 - Aasha was reduced into writing by P.W.9 - Deepak Jadhav
(API) and it was signed by the first informant P.W.1 - Aasha, the
requirement of law was satisfied and no doubt can be raised
merely because the printed format of the FIR did not bear the
signature of the first informant. In any case, P.W.1 - Aasha i.e. the
first informant entered the witness box and did depose in the
context of her statement, which she had signed, leading to
registration of the FIR. We do not find any substance in the
contention raised on behalf of the appellant that the very trigger
point of investigation was vitiated in the present case.
20. Having perused the evidence of the said P.W.1 - Aasha and
even after taking into consideration the detailed cross-
examination, we find that the said witness has stuck to her version
and it is found that she was an eye-witness to the brutal assault
launched by the appellant i.e. her husband on the victim i.e. her
mother. Merely because there was matrimonial discord between
P.W.1 - Aasha and the appellant and that some reports of non-
cognizable offence had been registered at her behest against the
appellant and further that a complaint was lodged under Section
498A of the IPC, cannot be a ground to claim that P.W.1 - Aasha
had falsely implicated her own husband i.e. the appellant in the
present case. This Court finds the evidence of P.W.1 - Aasha to be
of sterling quality and minor omissions do not create any doubt
apeal-15.21.doc
about the version stated by her. In this context, reliance placed on
behalf of the appellant on the judgment of Supreme Court in the
case of Rai Sandeep alias Deepu Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012)
8 SCC 21, on the aspect of 'sterling witness' cannot be of much
assistance, for the reason that having perused the evidence of P.W.1
- Aasha, we find that she can be said to be a witness of high
quality and caliber, whose version is believable.
21. P.W. 6 - Pille was a person residing in the neighbourhood,
which was a transit camp. He appears to be a natural witness, as
his examination-in-chief shows that he was returning home in the
evening at about 7:15 p.m. on 19.12.2012, when he heard
commotion and crying. He stated that he saw the appellant
coming out of the building with his clothes stained with blood.
Thereupon, the said witness went to the room where the incident
had taken place and upon seeing the victim lying in a pool of
blood, with blood oozing further from injuries on various parts of
the body, he helped in carrying the victim to the hospital. In cross-
examination the said witness conceded that the assertion that
clothes of the appellant being stained with blood was missing from
his statement recorded by the Police and that he could not assign
any reason for the same. Much meaning was sought to be read
into the said omission on the part of the appellant to create doubt
about the version of the said witness. But, we find that since the
said witness P.W. 6 - Pille stuck to his version under the strain of
cross-examination about the fact that he did see the appellant
apeal-15.21.doc
coming out of the building at the time of the incident,
demonstrates that the evidence of this witness supports the
prosecution case. The presence of the appellant is made out and in
the backdrop of the commotion and the fact that the victim was
lying in a pool of blood, further demonstrates that the appellant
indeed had a role to play in the said violent assault on the victim.
The evidence of the said witness i.e. P.W. 6 - Pille corroborates the
direct evidence of the other eye-witness i.e. P.W.1 - Aasha and
hence, it supports the prosecution case.
22. P.W.3 - was the minor daughter of the appellant and P.W.1 -
Aasha and in her statement to the Police, she had described the
manner in which the incident had taken place on 19.12.2012. In
examination-in-chief also she stuck to her version and deposed
that her father was carrying a scissor and that he used the same to
assault her grand-mother i.e. the victim, on various parts of her
body, including her head. But, in cross-examination, the said
witness i.e. P.W.3 - the minor daughter gave responses, which did
not support the case of the prosecution. She stated that when she
returned home from tuition, her mother i.e. P.W.1 - Aasha told her
that grand-mother was dead. At one place, she also stated that she
had spoken against her father because her mother told her to do
so. Considering the said statements made by P.W.3 - the minor
daughter, it is clear that her evidence does not support the
prosecution. Thus, we find that there are two eye-witnesses i.e.
P.W.1 - Aasha and P.W. 6 - Pille in the form of direct evidence
apeal-15.21.doc
supporting the prosecution case.
23. As regards medical evidence, the prosecution examined
P.W.8 - Dr. Manish Ajmera i.e. the Medical Officer on duty when
the victim was rushed to the Arihant Hospital. The evidence of the
said witness shows that he gave clear statements about the nature
of injuries found on the body of the victim and the fact that she
was dead when brought to the hospital. He specifically deposed
that the injuries were possible by a steel scissor. In cross-
examination, nothing material could be extracted from the said
witness.
24. The next witness of medical evidence was P.W.10 - Dr. Dattu
Varade. He was the Doctor who conducted the postmortem
examination. A perusal of his evidence shows that he did give the
details of injuries found on the body of the victim and he deposed
in the context of the postmortem report. In the cross-examination,
at one place, the said witness stated that he had received the body
for postmortem at 6:35 a.m. on 19.12.2012 and that the
postmortem was completed on 20.12.2012 between 8:00 a.m. and
9:00 a.m. Much emphasis was placed on the said statement and it
was sought to be indicated that the aforesaid witness P.W.10 - Dr.
Dattu Varade may have conducted postmortem examination on
the body of some other person, as the incident in the present case
itself took place in the evening on 19.12.2012. We find the said
contention to be untenable for the reason that in the very next
sentence during cross-examination, the said witness stated that it
apeal-15.21.doc
was not true that the span of time between receiving the body for
postmortem till completion of postmortem process was more than
24 hours. The aforesaid sentence does indicate that in the previous
sentence there appears to be a typographical error in recording the
date. There was no question of receiving the body of the victim on
19.12.2012 at 6:35 a.m., when the incident in question itself took
place at about 7:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. in the evening on
19.12.2012.
25. It was also claimed that the injuries recorded in the
postmortem report were more than the injuries stated by P.W.8 -
Dr. Manish Ajmera, who had received the body of the victim in
the Arihant Hospital. We find that the postmortem certainly
revealed the entirety of the injuries suffered by the victim, while
P.W.8 - Dr. Manish Ajmera had examined the victim and found
her to be already dead. This cannot be said to be a situation where
any serious doubt is created either about the fact that the victim
had suffered major injuries to vital parts of her body, due to the
assault inflicted upon her or there could be any doubt about the
body upon which postmortem was conducted by P.W.10 - Dr.
Dattu Varade.
26. The evidence of the panch witnesses in the present case i.e.
P.W.2 - Jabstiyan Maduram (panch witness for spot panchnama)
and P.W.4 - Deelip Ghawali (panch witness for recovery of
weapon), shows that they do not appear to have supported the
prosecution case. In fact, P.W.4 - Deelip Ghawali was decalred
apeal-15.21.doc
hostile and he was cross-examined by the prosecutor. This may
create some doubt about the recovery of the weapon of assault
being one part of the blades of a scissor, as also the description of
the spot where the incident took place. But, we find that in the
face of direct evidence of eye-witnesses, particularly the evidence
of P.W.1 - Aasha, the fact that the said two panch witnesses did not
fully support the case of the prosecution, cannot lead to acquittal
of the appellant. In this context, we do not find much substance in
the contention raised on behalf of the appellant that the law laid
down by the Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh and Another Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh, (2023) 15 SCC 521 would inure to the
benefit of the appellant for the present appeal being allowed, as
we find that the direct evidence of P.W.1 - Aasha and P.W.6 - Pille
does prove the role of the appellant in the brutal assault inflicted
upon the deceased.
27. Even the evidence of P.W.7 - Ambika Michal, who was
declared hostile, shows that the said witness stuck to the version
that on 19.12.2012 at about 7:00 p.m., she saw the appellant
going into the house of the deceased. Therefore, the presence of
the appellant at the place of the incident and in the house of the
deceased stood further confirmed and buttressed, thereby giving
strength to the case of the prosecution.
28. The evidence of P.W.9 - Deepak Jadhav (API) i.e. the Police
Officer who recorded the statement of the first informant i.e.
P.W.1 - Aasha, which led to registration of the FIR, shows that
apeal-15.21.doc
even according to him, the statement of the first informant did
bear her signature, although the printed FIR did not bear her
signature. As noted hereinabove, the appellant cannot claim any
mileage out of the fact that the printed FIR did not show the
signature of the first informant i.e. P.W.1 - Aasha, for the reason
that her statement reduced into writing by P.W.9 - Deepak Jadhav
(API) did bear her signature.
29. P.W.12 - Sambhaji Dhobale was the Police Constable, who
carried the packets of material for forensic examination. The
Chemical Analysis (CA) reports showed human blood of blood
group 'O' on the clothes of the victim. The reports also showed
that since the blood of the victim had haemolized, it was
unsuitable for blood grouping, while the blood group of the
appellant was found to be 'O' RH positive. In such a situation, the
CA reports may not be of value either way. But, it is significant to
note that the forensic report pertaining to metal nut recovered
from the appellant when examined with the single blade of scissor,
demonstrated that the said metal nut was easily fitting in the hole
of the said single blade of the scissor. This indicated another factor
about involvement of the appellant in the said incident. Since the
appellant was working as a tailor, he using a scissor could be said
to be natural. In the backdrop of the matrimonial discord, due to
which his wife P.W.1 - Aasha had moved into the house of her
mother i.e. the victim-deceased with the children, there was
enough reason for the appellant to be enraged and to commit the
apeal-15.21.doc
crime with which he was charged and found guilty by the trial
Court.
30. Having considered the entire oral and documentary evidence
and material on record, we find that although a serious effort was
made on the part of the appellant to poke holes into the case of
the prosecution by relying upon panch witnesses, not clearly
supporting the prosecution case, on an overall all analysis of the
evidence and material on record, we find that the guilt of the
appellant was proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution.
In the case of Vadivelu Thevar Vs. State of Madras (supra), the
Supreme Court held that conviction can be given in a murder case
even on the evidence of a single witness, provided the evidence of
such a witness is of sterling quality. The said judgment of the
Supreme Court, classified witnesses into three categories i.e.
wholly reliable, wholly unreliable and neither wholly reliable nor
wholly unreliable. It was found that if the witness is in the first
category of being wholly reliable, the Court should not have
difficulty in coming to its conclusion either way i.e. it may convict
or it may acquit on the testimony of the single witness, if it is
found to above suspicion of interestedness, incompetence or
subornation. We find that in the facts and circumstances of the
present case, P.W.1 - Aasha was a witness of the first category i.e. a
wholly reliable witness and her testimony was supported by P.W. 6
- Pille i.e. the neighbour, thereby giving credibility to the
prosecution case against the appellant. Hence, we do not find any
apeal-15.21.doc
error committed by the trial Court in the present case in
convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC and
sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay
fine of Rs.45,000/-, in default of which he would suffer rigorous
imprisonment for two years. The ferocity of the assault and the
fact that the victim died even before reaching the hospital, shows
the brutality inflicted by the appellant and hence, we are inclined
to dismiss the appeal.
31. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed and the
judgment and order of the trial Court is confirmed.
32. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.)
Minal / Bipin
