Bombay High Court
Netaji Gyanoba Gode vs The State Of Maharashtra on 5 February, 2025
Author: R.G. Avachat
Bench: R.G. Avachat
2025:BHC-AUG:3952-DB
Criminal Appeal No.365/2022
:: 1 ::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.365 OF 2022
Netaji s/o Gyanoba Gode
Age 33 years, Occ. Shepherd
R/o Hali, Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur ... APPELLANT
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra
through Police Inspector,
Wadhwana Police Station,
Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur ... RESPONDENT
.......
Mr. P.P. More, Advocate for appellant
Mr. S.J. Salgare, A.P.P. for respondent
.......
CORAM : R.G. AVACHAT AND
NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ.
DATE : 5th February, 2025.
J U D G M E N T (PER : R.G. AVACHAT, J.) :
The challenge in this appeal is to a judgment and
order of conviction and consequential sentence, passed on
24/3/2022, by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-2, Udgir,
District Latur (Trial Court) in Sessions Case, No.07/2021. The
:: 2 ::
appellant was accused in the said case. He has been
convicted for committing murder of his wife by multiple stab
injuries and, therefore, sentenced to suffer imprisonment for
life and to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/-. He is, therefore, before us
in this appeal.
2. The case of the prosecution in short was that the
appellant had married Ashabai about 20 years before August
2020. With the passage of time, the appellant started
suspecting her fidelity. The appellant was a shepherd by
profession. He, therefore, used to be away from home for 2-3
days. The deceased developed extra-marital relationship with
a person residing in the nearby. The appellant came to know
about the same. The said relationship haunted him. On the
given day, i.e. on 1/8/2020 by little past 2.30 p.m., the
appellant along with his wife were proceeding from in front of
Vitthal Rukhmini Temple in their village - Hali. The appellant
fished out a knife and rained blows thereof on the person of
Ashabai, causing her death on the spot.
:: 3 ::
3. Based on the First Information Report (F.I.R.
Exh.24) lodged by P.W.3 Maruti, maternal uncle of the
deceased, a crime vide C.R. No.106/2020 was registered with
Wadhwana (Bk.) Police Station. A crime scene panchanama
was drawn. Inquest and autopsy were conducted on the
mortal remains of Ashabai. Her blood stained clothes were
taken charge of. The appellant was arrested. Pursuant to the
disclosure statement made by him, a knife came to be
recovered. Clothes on his person were also seized.
Statements of persons acquainted with the facts and
circumstances of the case were recorded. Upon completion of
the investigation, the appellant was proceeded against by filing
a charge sheet.
4. The Trial Court framed the Charge. The appellant
pleaded not guilty. His defence was of false implication.
According to him, some unknown person committed murder of
his wife.
5. To bring home the charge, the prosecution
examined 6 witnesses and adduced in evidence certain
:: 4 ::
documents, on appreciation whereof, the appellant was
convicted and consequently sentenced as well by the Trial
Court.
6. Heard. Learned Advocate for the appellant would
submit that, the case was based on sole eye witness account.
The so called eye witness is a relation of the deceased. His
cross-examination would indicate he lied on the fact of having
residing in the neighbourhood of the appellant. Had he really
witnessed the incident, it was he who would have lodged the
F.I.R. immediately. His cross-examination would further
indicate the appellant ran away and he could not even had
glimpse of the face of the appellant. According to the learned
Advocate, the evidence of rest of the witnesses is hear-say.
He also brought on record inconsistency inter-se the
prosecution witnesses. He would further submit that, when the
incident took place at broad day-light in a public place, no
independent witness has been examined. He, therefore, urged
for allowing the appeal.
:: 5 ::
7. Learned A.P.P. would, on the other hand, submit
that, it is an open and shut case. The cross-examination of the
witnesses indicate that the appellant admitted the deceased to
have had extra-marital relationship with a person in the village.
As such, the appellant himself brought on record his motive to
do away with his wife. The suggestion to P.W.1 would indicate
the appellant to have admitted his presence at the crime
scene. Pursuant to his disclosure statement, a knife, stained
with blood was recovered. C.A. report indicate the knife to
have been stained with human blood. The learned A.P.P.,
therefore, urged for dismissal of the appeal.
8. Considered the submissions advanced. Perused
the evidence on record. The wife of the appellant met with
homicidal death is undisputed. The post mortem examination
report (Exh.27) indicates her to have suffered following
external injuries :-
(1) Stab wound admeasuring 3 x 2 x 3 cm. just above
suprasternal notch (just below throat).
(2) Stab wound admeasuring 3 x 2 x 2 cm. just below the
xiphosternum (just above the abdomen).
:: 6 ::
(3) Incised wound admeasuring3 x 1 cm. over left forearm
on antero-lateral aspect.
(4) Stab wound admeasuring 2.5 x 2 x 3 cm. over right
lateral rib cage.
(5) Stab wound admeasuring 5 x 3 x 4 cm. over left side of
back para spinally.
(6) There were left T-11 and T-12 cartilage fracture.
In the opinion of the Medical Officer Dr. Kiran Patil
(P.W.4), Ashabai died of hypovolumic shock due to multiple
stab injuries.
9. The question is, whether the appellant is the author
of the crime. P.W.1 Dnyanoba is said to be an eye witness to
the incident. He testified that the appellant is the son of his
parental aunt. He was residing in his neighbourhood.
Deceased Ashabai was the daughter of his maternal aunt. He
further testified that, there used to be frequent quarrels
between appellant and his wife. The appellant would suspect
his wife's character. According to the witness, the incident took
place in the afternoon. It was by 3.00 p.m. He was sitting in
front of house of one Panchal. He saw the appellant and the
deceased passing along the road towards Vitthal Temple. In a
:: 7 ::
while, he heard screams of Ashabai. He, therefore, rushed
towards her. He saw the appellant inflicted number of blows
on Ashabai with knife. He shouted at the appellant.
Thereupon, the appellant fled away with the knife in his hand.
He further testified that, one Maroti Gode, Laxmibai Gode and
himself took Ashabai to Government Hospital, at village Hali in
one auto. This witness was subjected to searching cross-
examination. He admitted that, his house was not located in
the lane in which deceased was residing. The appellant, his
wife and their two children were only persons residing in the
Wada. Persons of various community were residing in the
lane. One Tanaji Mane would reside in front of the house of
the appellant. The appellant was shepherd by profession. He,
therefore, used to be away from home for 2-2 3-3 days. His
wife Ashabai used to be alone home. She was beautiful. It
was further suggested that Ashabai developed illicit
relationship with Tanaji Mane, next door neighbour. It was
further suggested that, the family name was thereby defamed.
It was suggested that some unknown person committed the
murder. He denied that he could not see the appellant while
he was proceeding towards temple. He, however, admitted
:: 8 ::
that, when he heard the screams of Ashabai and ran towards
her, he could not see face of the person who was running
away from the spot. The rest of the questions were in the
nature of denying his evidence in the examination-in-chief.
10. P.W.2 Rukminbai was the mother of the deceased.
She too testified that appellant would suspect Ashabai's
character. She had, therefore, returned to her parental house.
On the intervention of one Maroti Gode, Ashabai had resumed
cohabitation. The appellant had beaten her up on account of
Ashabai to have been talking with male persons residing in the
lane. Ashabai had related her the same on phone. She
further testified that, Mahadev Mane received a call from
Dnyanoba (P.W.1) informing Ashabai to have been murdered.
11. During her cross-examination, she admitted to
have never lodged any report with police against the appellant.
She denied that, Ashabai had developed illicit relationship with
Tanaji Mane since the appellant used to be away from home 2-
3 days a week. She further denied that because of the same,
the relatives were annoyed. It was further suggested that the
:: 9 ::
appellant had purchased agricultural land in the name of
Ashabai. The same is admitted by her. It has also been
brought on record that the appellant had admitted his son in
English medium school.
12. P.W.3 Maroti was the uncle of deceased Ashabai.
He testified that, Ganesh Gode informed him about the
incident. He, therefore, rushed to the village and saw Ashabai
lying in a pool of blood. He along with others rushed her to
hospital in an auto of Yousuf Shaikh. She was, however,
declared dead. He lodged the F.I.R. (Exh.24).
13. P.W.3 Maroti is not an eye witness to the incident.
He admitted that, Dnyanoba (P.W.1) was not residing in the
lane in which he was residing. The appellant would alone
reside in a Wada along with his wife and children. The house
of Kalyan Mane was adjacent to it. There is another house of
one carpenter. He denied that the appellant used to be away
from home for 4 days in a week on account of he being
shepherd. He further denied that, illicit relationship developed
:: 10 ::
between deceased and next door neighbour Tanaji Mane. He
denied to have lodged the false F.I.R.
14. P.W.5 Pranay is a witness to the crime scene
panchanama and even disclosure statement made by the
appellant, pursuant to which a knife came to be seized
(Exhs.34 & 35). In his cross-examination, he testified that the
contents of spot panchanama were not written on the spot. It
was prepared at the police station. He, however, denied that
the appellant did not make any disclosure statement.
15. P.W.6 Sandeep did the investigation of the crime.
16. Section 134 of the Evidence Act states that no
particular number of witnesses are required in proof of a fact.
Meaning thereby, a conviction can be based on a testimony of
a sole eye witness. It is true that P.W.1 Dnyanoba did not
lodge the F.I.R. The motive to commit murder of the wife,
however, was brought on record during cross-examination of
the prosecution witnesses itself. It was suggested to the
material witnesses that the deceased had extra-marital
:: 11 ::
relationship with her next door neighbour since the appellant
used to be away from home for 3-4 days in a week. It has also
been brought on record that, P.W.1 Dnyanoba was not residing
in the lane in which the appellant would reside. Close reading
of the evidence of P.W.1 Dnyanoba would, however, indicate
that he claimed to have been present (sitting) in front of house
of one Panchal and not of himself. He had seen the appellant
and the deceased going together towards Vitthal Temple. It
was suggested to him that he could not see the appellant while
he (appellant) was proceeding towards temple. The same
suggests the appellant to have impliedly admitted that he was
proceeding towards the temple in the village. P.W.1 Dnyanoba
claimed to have seen the deceased in the company of the
appellant. He heard screams of Ashabai and rushed towards
her to see the appellant assaulted her with knife blows. He
even testified to have given the appellant calls, "Netya, Netya".
It is true that he admitted in cross-examination that the person
who went running from the crime scene could not be seen with
his face as his back was towards behind.
:: 12 ::
17. It is true that the appellant had purchased some
land in the name of his wife. His son was admitted in English
medium school. the appellant meant to say that he was a
loving husband and caring father as well. P.W.1 Dnyanoba
was the cousin of the appellant (son of paternal aunt of
appellant). While the deceased was the daughter of his
maternal aunt. As such, both the appellant and deceased
were closely related to P.W.1 Dnyanoba. There is nothing to
indicate him to have any reason to grind an axe against the
appellant. It is true that P.W.3 Maroti claimed to have learnt
about the incident from Ganesh while P.W.2 Rukminbai
(mother of the deceased) testified that P.W.1 Dnyanoba had
informed Mahadev Mane about the incident. Learned
Advocate meant to say that the case of the prosecution that
P.W.1 Dnyanoba informed Maroti has thus been falsified.
Needless to mention, a stray inconsistency inter-se the
evidence of prosecution witnesses which do not go to the root
of the case, is of little consequence.
18. The appreciation of the evidence referred to
hereinabove would indicate P.W.1 Dnyanoba to have
:: 13 ::
witnessed the incident. He is in close relationship with the
appellant and deceased as well. The appellant had every
motive to eliminate his wife. He was seen in the company of
wife, proceeding towards a temple in the village (admitted in
view of suggestion to P.W.1 Dnyanoba). Within seconds P.W.1
Dnyanoba heard screams of the deceased. The appellant was
not then around. This lead us to infer that it was the appellant
and none else who assaulted his wife with number of knife
blows and immediately fled away when P.W.1 Dnyanoba gave
him calls.
19. In view of the above, we find the Trial Court to have
rightly convicted the appellant and consequently sentenced for
the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal
Code. No interference therewith is, therefore, warranted. In
the result, the appeal fails. It is dismissed.
(NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.) (R.G. AVACHAT, J.)
fmp/-
