(PER : RAJ D. WAKODE, J.)
The present appellant/original accused has approached this
Court being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 30/10/2021
Sessions Case No.50/2019 thereby convicting the present appellant for
the offence punishable under Section 302 along with Section 449 of
the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The trial Court has sentenced the
appellant to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of
Rs.3000/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple
imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section
302 of the IPC and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and
to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 449
2. Heard Smt Sonali Saware/Gadhawe, learned counsel
(appointed) for the appellant and Shri K. R. Lule, learned Additional
3. The case of the prosecution in brief is as under :
The present appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be
tried. The trial Court after considering the entire evidence and the
arguments of the respective counsel, convicted the present appellant
for the offence of murder and tresspass and sentenced him to suffer
life imprisonment.
4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
We have perused the impugned judgment, oral as well as
documentary evidence led by prosecution for bringing home the guilt
of accused/appellant. We will refer to the same to the extent if
necessary to decide the following points that arise for our
consideration. We have recorded our findings thereon for the reasons
to follow :
Sr. Points Finding
No.
(i) Does the prosecution prove that the deceased
Neeta Nandkishor Shende met with In the affirmative
homicidal death on 02/02/2017 ?
(ii) Whether the prosecution proves that on
02/02/2017 at Mauza Gujvavhan, Tah.
Chimur, Dist. Chandrapur, the appellant
intentionally and knowingly caused death of In the affirmative
Neeta Nandkishor Shende by giving knife
blows and thereby committed the offence
punishable under Section 302 of the Indian
Penal Code ?
(iii) Whether the prosecution proves that on the
same date and place the appellant committed
house tresspass by entering into the house of
complainant in order to commit the murder In the affirmative
of Neeta Nandkishor Shende, punishable with
death and thereby committed the offence
punishable under Section 449 of the Indian
Penal Code ?
(iv) Whether interference is called for in the In the negative
impugned judgment
(v) What order ? Appeal dismissed.
6. REASONS :
As to Point Nos.(i) to (v) :
So far as point No.(i) is concerned, the appellant during the
course of trial has not disputed the homicidal death of Neeta. It was
not the case of the appellant that Neeta has committed suicide or has
died due to accident. Thus, we do not delve much upon the aforesaid
issue as admittedly Neeta has died homicidal death. Post mortem
report of deceased Neeta reveals that the Medical Officer found 9
injuries over the body of the deceased as shown in Column-17 of the
post mortem report below Exhibit-66 as under :
1) Vertical incised wound lateral side of left eye-brow 1.5 cm x
0.5 cm (in center) depth 1 cm, spindle shaped.
2) Incised wound near left elbow on lower end of left arm 3 cm
x 0.5 cm depth 1 cm, spindle shaped
3) Incised wound left shoulder 2 cm x 1 cm depth 2 cm.
4) Incised wound left hand middle finger 1 cm x 0.5 cm depth
0.5 cm.
5) Vertical penetrating incised wound epigastric region 2 cm x 1
cm depth 7 cm.
6) Penetrating incised wound left 8th ICS 4 cm x 1 cm depth 10
cm, oblique tract penetrating diaphragm and piercing spleen through
and through
7) Incised wound lateral aspect of left knee 2 cm x 0.5 cm with
depth 1 cm
8) Incised wound left 9th ICS, 3 cm, depth 2 cm.
9) Incised wound left popliteal fossa 3 cm x 0.5 cm, depth 2 cm.
All the aforesaid injuries were ante-mortem in nature. They
were bleeding injuries which were caused due to hard and sharp
object. The Medical Officer has also recorded internal injuries as
mentioned in Column Nos.19 and 21 which co-ordinated with the
external injuries and specially mentioned that penetrating injuries
were caused to the stomach so also spleen and thus the aforesaid
injuries were fatal in nature. The aforesaid injuries were grievous and
sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. The cause of
death of deceased was due to these grievous and fatal injuries and
internal bleeding. The Medical Officer has further deposed that in
response to the requisition for query of weapon, he issued query
report of the weapon i.e. the knife below Exhibit-68 in respect of
injuries over the body of deceased Neeta and has opined that the
injuries mentioned in the post mortem report of deceased Neeta could
have been possible by the said weapon. Thus, the post mortem report
below Exhibit-66, query report Exhibit-68 and the deposition of
Medical Officer Dr Sameer Salam Chaus (PW-8) fully supported the
case of the prosecution and established that Neeta Nandkishor Shende
died a homicidal death. Hence, we record our finding in the
affirmative as to point No.(i).
7. Since Neeta has died homicidal death, the next point arises as
to who has committed the murder of Neeta ?
The prosecution has come up with the case that the
investigation of the aforesaid offence revealed and connected the
present appellant to the crime as the main accused. The case of the
prosecution is based upon the last seen theory and circumstantial
evidence.
8. The prosecution has examined in all 11 witnesses to bring
home the guilt of the accused. However, out of these 11 witnesses, the
pivotal witnesses are PW-6 Nirmalabai Vitthal Shende and PW-7
Shilpa Mangesh Meshram. PW-6 Nirmalabai was examined at Exhibit-
53. She is the mother-in-law of deceased Neeta. She was present in
the house at the time of the incident. She has specifically deposed in
her examination-in-chief that on day of the incident, at about 3 pm
Neeta was sitting in the front room of the house on a cot. PW-6 was
collecting clothes which were kept for drying in the courtyard. At that
time, she heard commotion of Neeta and she immediately went inside
the house. At that time, PW-6 saw the appellant going out of the
house and there were blood stains over his shirt. After entering in the
house, she saw that Neeta was lying on the floor in the front room of
the house. She had sustained bleeding injuries. Knife was lying near
the body of Neeta. Thus, PW-6 though has not seen the appellant
causing stab injuries to the deceased, however she immediately after
hearing the commotion of Neeta went inside the house and saw the
appellant coming out of her house. Neeta told her that the appellant
had assaulted her by means of knife. Thus, the aforesaid witness
clearly connected the appellant to the present offence.
9. We have carefully gone through the testimony of PW-6.
Though, this witness is not the eye witness of the incident of assault on
the deceased by the appellant, she saw the appellant while coming out
from the house wearing blood stained shirt which clearly established
the presence of appellant on the spot of incident. On going through
the evidence of this witness, it is crystal clear that the appellant was
well acquainted with the deceased. Moreover, it reveals that PW-6 saw
the appellant while going out from their house. The version of this
witness is quite believable and trustworthy. There are no discrepancies
in the testimony of this witness and therefore, the evidence of this
witness is sufficient to establish the presence of appellant just adjacent
to the spot of incident.
10. Another witness who connected the appellant to the present
offence and corroborated the evidence of PW-6 is PW-7-Shilpa
Mangesh Meshram, neighbour of deceased. PW-7 Shilpa has deposed
in her examination-in-chief that on the day of incident i.e. 02/02/2017
at about 3 pm she heard commotion of the deceased and she
immediately came out of her house. She saw the accused/appellant
going out of the house of deceased in a hurry. Thereafter she went to
the house of Neeta and saw that PW-6 was standing near Neeta in
frightened condition. Neeta was lying in a pool of blood and was
having multiple injuries. PW-7 further specially deposed that on
inquiring Neeta as to what happened, Neeta pointed out to the guilt of
the appellant which is reproduced below :
" On that she told that she was breaking shenga by sitting on a cot
and at that time she was alone in the house. She further told that at
that time accused had been to her house and started quarreling with
her. She further told that thereafter accused assaulted her by means
of knife repeatedly and thereby she sustained injuries. After some
time she became unconscious."
We have carefully gone through the lengthy cross examination
of PW-7. It seems that PW-7 has denied all the adverse suggestions
given to her by the accused-appellant. But she admitted that, she saw
the deceased was having injuries over her neck, stomach and backside
of the neck. Said facts are sufficient to establish that at the time of
incident, the deceased sustained serious injuries over the vital part of
her body.
It appears from the evidence of PW-7 Shilpa that she reached
on the spot of incident immediately after occurrence of the incident
and saw the accused was coming out from the house of deceased
hurriedly. Obviously, no omissions or contradictions are found in the
testimony of this witness. Hence the testimony of this witness seems
to be trustworthy as there are no discrepancies in her evidence. The
evidence of PW-7 has fully corroborated to the version of PW-6
Nirmalabai who is mother-in-law of the deceased and was present in
her courtyard at the time of alleged incident.
11. Thus, in our opinion, the prosecution has successfully proved
the presence of accused-appellant at the spot of incident and the oral
information of Neeta to PW-6 Nirmalabai and PW-7 Shilpa clearly
points towards the guilt of the accused-appellant.
12. Another striking feature in the present case substantiating the
guilt of the appellant is his conduct after the incident. The conduct of
the appellant after the incident has been deposed by PW-11 Subhash
Kisanrao Barse, Investigating Officer. PW-11 in his evidence-in-chief
deposed that on the very same day of the incident at about 4.30 pm,
the appellant came in police station on his motorcycle. The motorcycle
on which the appellant came was having blood stains. PW-11 further
deposed that the appellant came inside the police station and told that
he killed the deceased Neeta and consumed poison in the police
station. Thereafter he was admitted by police in Rural Hospital,
Warora from where he was referred to General Hospital, Chandrapur.
Thus, the appellant himself after committing the crime, had gone to
the police station admitted the crime and consumed poison. The
aforesaid fact of consuming poison by the appellant is substantiated
by the discharge card issued by the General Hospital, Chandrapur
which is at Exhibit-88. It shows the date of admission of the appellant
as 02/02/2017, discharge on 08/02/2017 and diagnosis was
consumption of poison. After his discharge, the appellant was arrested
by the respondent. While in custody, statement of the
accused/appellant under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
was recorded (Exhibit-36) wherein he pointed out to his suicide note
kept in his house. The aforesaid suicide note was duly seized by the
prosecution (Exhibit-37) and was referred to the office of State
Examiner of Documents, CID, Nagpur. The examiner of document,
after comparing the handwriting and signature in the aforesaid suicide
note and the sample of handwriting of the appellant gave opinion on
14/02/2018 (Exhibit-38). The learned trial Court has considered and
discussed the aforesaid important aspect and has given a finding in
para Nos.49 and 50 of the judgment as below :
" 49) It is worth to mention here that, while the accused was in
custody at that time. Police has recovered one chit and seized the
same from the cupbourd in the house of accused vide Exh.37 and
sent the same to examiner of documents. Thereafter, said chit
returned by the examiner of documents to - Police alongwith the
documents annexed therewith vide Exh.38. Said chit is placed, on
record vide Article-H. So, on going through the opinion of the
examiner of documents it is quite clear that, the signature on chit Q-
3 is showing similarities with the signatures of the accused vide S-7
to S-12 and N-2. However, the examiner of documents has opined
that, it has not been possible to express any definite opinion as
regard the identity of signature on chit Q-4 with the signatures of
the accused vide S-7 to S-12 and N-2. Further, the examiner of
documents has opined that, it has not been possible to express any
definite opinion regard the identity of writings on chit Q-1 and Q-2
with the writings of the accused vide S-1 to S-6.
50) I have carefully gone through the said chit placed on record
vide Article-H. On which prima-facie it reveals that, the entire chit
reduced in writing by same stroke of pen. Moreover, the signature
put forth by the author is at the end of its recital. Therefore, though
the examiner of documents has not expressed his definite opinion
except the signature on chit Q-3 showing similarities with the
signatures of the accused but, it makes no much difference because
the expert has given his concrete opinion confirming the signature of
accused appears on chit vide letter. Q-3. Moreover, said chit was
recovered from the cupboard in the house of accused and seized by
the Police in presence of panchas vide seizure memo below Exh.37.
So, the recital of cheat reflected the intention and state of mind of
the accused being he was aware about the consequences of crime
committed by him."
Thus, the signature of the appellant has matched with the signature on
the suicide note. Apart from the findings of the learned Sessions
Court, the recitals of the suicide note clearly reflect the motive and
state of mind of the accused-appellant while committing murder of
Neeta. Accused-appellant was having love affair with deceased Neeta
since last 15-16 years and on her refusal to continue the said
relationship, the appellant was irritated and accordingly committed
the aforesaid crime. The aforesaid fact of relationship between the
appellant and the deceased Neeta is evident from the defence raised by
the appellant during the cross-examination of PW-6 Nirmalabai,
mother-in-law of deceased Neeta wherein a specific suggestion was
given to her. She denied that there was love affair between the
accused and her daughter-in-law since last about 15-16 years of the
incident. She denied that she was not liking this fact and therefore
they have involved the present appellant in a false case.
The aforesaid suggestion on behalf of the appellant to the
prime witness speaks volumes about the motive of the appellant and
hence the inference drawn against the appellant is substantiated.
13. Perusal of arrest panchanama of accused-appellant (page 131
of paper-book) clearly reveals that there was a tattoo on his left hand
showing the initial of deceased Neeta 'N' drawn inside the figure of a
heart and below it the word 'love'. The fact remains that the name of
the wife of the appellant is Kalpana. The letter 'N' referred to deceased
Neeta. It is duly admitted by the present appellant in his suicide note and
suggestion in cross-examination. The appellant has further admitted
his love affair with deceased Neeta though not specifically naming her
in his suicide note dated 02/02/2017 (Exhibit-72). When the
appellant had consumed poison in the police station, he was admitted
to the hospital and when he was in a position to give statement, his
dying declaration was recorded by PW-9 Manoj Kalyan Bhosekar.
Perusal of aforesaid dying declaration and a specific question by PW-9
as to why the accused-appellant consumed poison, in response
(question No.9 page 103) he answered " izse izdj.kkr frus /kksdk fnY;keqGs
fo"k izk'ku dsys-" Though the appellant has not specifically mentioned
the name of Neeta in the said declaration, all the surrounding
circumstances clearly pointed out towards his love affair with Neeta
and the further consequential actions on his behalf. Thus, the
sequence of circumstances is sufficient to establish that the appellant
had consumed poison which was nothing but the ultimate reaction of
assault made on Neeta with intention to kill her.
14. The evidence as discussed above clearly substantiates the guilt
of the accused/appellant and the charge that he intentionally and
knowingly caused murder of Neeta by giving knife blows. Accordingly,
we answer point No.(ii) in the affirmative.
15. So far as point No.(iii) is concerned, the finding of the learned
trial Court in the impugned judgment is not at all being challenged by
the appellant. The learned trial Court after considering the entire
evidence is justified in holding that at the time of the incident, the
accused-appellant committed house trespass by entering in the house
of the deceased in order to commit the murder and thereby committed
offence punishable under Section 449 of the IPC. The aforesaid
finding being not challenged by the appellant, we answer point No.(iii)
in the affirmative.
16. The main thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the
appellant Smt Sonali Saware/Gadhawe was that the CA report was
relied upon by the learned Sessions Court however, the circumstance
of finding of human blood on clothes of accused-appellant and on
knife was never put to accused in Statement under Section 313 of
Code of Criminal Procedure. However, in the presence of such
overwhelming evidence against the present appellant, even if we
ignore the CA report placed on record by the prosecution, still the
guilt of accused-appellant is proved beyond reasonable doubt.
17. Thus, considering the evidence placed on record and the
reasons of the learned Sessions Court which are completely justified
and are within the parameters of law, we answer point No.(iv) in the
negative.
18. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed in answer to point No.(v).
19. Fees of the appointed counsel be quantified and paid as per
Rules.
(Raj D. Wakode, J.) (Anil L. Pansare, J.)
Asmita
Signed by: Smt. Asmita A. Bhandakkar
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 19/12/2025 18:55:02
