Bombay High Court
Bapurao Khandu Navsare vs The State Of Maharashtra on 10 February, 2025
Author: R. G. Avachat
Bench: R. G. Avachat
2025:BHC-AUG:3649-DB
1 APEAL148.2023J.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 148 OF 2023
Bapurao s/o Khandu Navsare,
Age : 36 years, Occu. Agriculture,
R/o. Village Navsarwadi,
Taluka Karjat, Dist. Ahmednagar. ...Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent
.....
Shri. Rajendrraa Deshmukkh, Sr. Advocate a/w Shri. Vishal A. Chavan
and Shri. Akash Halnawar i/b Shri. Devang R. Deshmukkh - Advocate
for the Appellant
Smt. Kalpalata Patil Bharaswadkar - Addl. P.P. for the Respondent/State
.....
CORAM : R. G. AVACHAT
AND
NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ.
DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 23.01.2025
DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT : 10.02.2025
JUDGMENT [Per Neeraj P. Dhote, J.]
1. By this Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code
of Criminal Procedure [hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.'], the Appellant
has challenged his conviction and sentence recorded by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Shrigonda; in Sessions Case No. 121 of 2019,
by the Judgment and Order dated 15.12.2022. The operative Order
reads thus : -
2 APEAL148.2023J.odt
"ORDER
(1) Accused Bapurao Khandu Navsare is hereby convicted as per
provisions of Section 235(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure,
for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian
Penal Code and he is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for
life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousands only)
in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 6 (six) months.
(2) Accused Bapurao Khandu Navsare is further convicted as
per Section 235(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, for the
offence punishable under Section 201 of Indian Penal Code,
and he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3
(three) years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rs. Two
Thousands only) in default to suffer simple imprisonment
for two months.
(3) Accused Bapurao Khandu Navsare is further convicted as
per Section 235 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for
the offence punishable under Section 498-A of Indian Penal
Code, and he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment
for 2 (two) years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rs. Two
Thousands only) in default to suffer simple imprisonment
for 2 (two) months.
(4) to (10) ............................"
2. The Prosecution's case, as revealed from the Police Report,
is as under:
2.1. The Appellant and Rupali [hereinafter referred to as
'Deceased'] got married eleven [11] years ago from the date of incident.
After marriage, Deceased went to her matrimonial home. From the
wedlock, they had two Sons. Initially, the Appellant was working as a
Driver, however, one [1] year prior to the incident, he gave up the said
3 APEAL148.2023J.odt
work and started agricultural work. From three [3] years prior to the
incident, Deceased was being harassed by the Appellant. Two [2]
months prior to the incident, the Appellant erected the poultry shed in
his agricultural field. He was asking Deceased to get Rs.1.5 lakh from
her parents for starting poultry business. On 18.01.2017, Deceased
telephonically asked her brother Sandeep Kalbhor, the Informant, to
provide financial help of Rs.50,000/- for bringing Chicks. Appellant
asked the Informant to give bearer cheque of Rs.50,000/- and
accordingly, it was handed over to the Appellant, however, the
harassment to the Deceased continued. Deceased and the Appellant
used to sleep in the said poultry shed in the night.
2.2. On 31.01.2017 around 10:00 am, the maternal cousin came
to the house of Informant and informed him that Deceased was no
more. The Parents and Brother of Deceased reached her matrimonial
home at Navsarwadi. They noticed her dead body in the house. There
were marks over the neck. The people gathered over there informed that
Deceased hanged herself in the poultry shed and her body was brought
home. Police arrived and referred the body for post-mortem. The cause
of death was revealed as " Death due to constriction of neck due to
ligature". On 01.02.2017, the dead body was handed over to the
relatives and the last rites were performed. On 02.02.2017, the
Informant lodged Report with Karjat Police Station against the
Appellant that his sister was being harassed and the Appellant
4 APEAL148.2023J.odt
committed her Murder and hanged the body to show that, it was the
Suicide. The Report was taken and Crime No. 39 of 2017 came to be
registered against the Appellant for the offence punishable under
Sections 302, 498A, 323, 504, 506 of the I.P.C.
2.3. During the investigation, the panchanamas were drawn and
the statements of witnesses were recorded. The Appellant came to be
arrested. The clothes of the Deceased and the Appellant came to be
seized. The opinion of Doctor came to be sought. The post-mortem
report came to be collected and the seized articles were referred for
Chemical Analysis. On completion of the investigation, the Appellant
came to be Charge-Sheeted. On committal, the learned Trial Court
framed the Charge against the Appellant for the offence punishable
under Sections 302, 498A, 201, 323, 504, 506 of the IPC, vide Exh. 7.
The Appellant denied the Charge and claimed to be tried. To prove the
Charge, Prosecution examined in all eight [8] witnesses and brought on
record the relevant documents. On closure of Prosecution's evidence,
the Appellant's statement under Section 313(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. came to
be recorded by the learned Trial Court. The Appellant denied the
evidence and case of Prosecution and stated that his wife hanged herself
in poultry shed and he was falsely implicated. On appreciating the
evidence on record and hearing both the sides, the learned Trial Court
convicted and sentenced the Appellant as referred above in paragraph
no. 1.
5 APEAL148.2023J.odt
3. Heard both the sides. Scrutinized the evidence available on
record.
4. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Appellant
that the marriage between the Appellant and Deceased was 11 year old
at the time of incident. Initially, the Accidental Death Report [ADR] was
lodged stating that the Deceased hanged herself, however, after two
days, the Report came to be lodged that the Appellant committed
Murder of his wife. The medical evidence do not support the
Prosecution's case for Homicidal Death. The medical evidence suggests
Death by hanging, which is indicative of suicide. The dead body which
was hanging in the poultry shed was removed by the villagers. The
evidence on record do not establish the essential ingredients for the
offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC. The learned Trial
Court did not appreciate the evidence on record properly. The evidence
on record falls short of establishing the offence for which the Appellant
has been convicted, and therefore, the Appeal be allowed.
5. It is submitted by the learned APP that the Medical Officer,
who initially examined the dead body, was suspecting the death to be
the Homicidal, and to have clear opinion, she referred the dead body to
Pune. According to the said Medical Officer, Homicidal Death was not
6 APEAL148.2023J.odt
ruled out. The evidence in the nature of spot panchanama shows that
the height of roof and the distance between the two sack bags found on
the spot of incident shows that hanging was not possible. The evidence
of the witnesses show that, due to non-fulfillment of the monetary
demand of the Appellant, he committed the Murder of his wife. The
evidence brought on record established the Charge against the Appellant
and the learned Trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the
Appellant, and therefore, no interference is called for in the Appeal and
the same be dismissed.
6. The Prosecution's case is based on circumstantial evidence.
The law in respect of circumstantial evidence is well settled right from
the Judgment in Hanumant vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh,
MANU/SC/0037/1952 and Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda vs. State of
Maharashtra, MANU/SC/0111/1984. The circumstances are required to
be conclusively proved to form a complete chain which would unerringly
point towards the involvement of the Accused in the crime.
7. To prove the Homicidal Death of Appellant's wife, the
medical evidence is crucial. The evidence of PW7 - Dr. Sucheta Vinay
Yadav shows that she was the Medical Officer at the Sub-District
Hospital, Karjat, Ahmednagar. On 31.01.2017, dead body of Rupali
Bapurao Navsare was brought to the hospital for post-mortem. She
7 APEAL148.2023J.odt
noticed ligature mark on the neck of Dead Body and she felt that
hanging by a 'Odhani' was not possible. She suspected that hanging
might have taken place with a big rope. She examined the dead body.
She found multiple abrasions below the ligature mark. As she was
Suspicious about the cause of death, she referred the dead body to the
Sassoon General Hospital, Pune for the post mortem. According to her,
possibility of Homicidal Death was not ruled out. According to her, in
Suicidal cases, abrasions are generally not found. According to her, the
ligature mark having width 2.5 cm in case of suicide by ' Odhani' was
least possible. She deposed in her cross-examination that, for exact
opinion, she referred the dead body to Pune. She agreed with the
propositions or opinions given in the Medical Jurisprudence books
authored by Modi, Parikh and Reddy. Her opinion was based on
abrasions which were appearing on lower margin of ligature. She did
not measure the length of abrasions appearing on the throat. It has
come in her cross-examination that if any person tries to throttle self
and remains unsuccessful, injuries may appear on the neck. In the next
breath, she volunteered that injuries above ligature mark will not appear
in such case. She did not take measurement of any injury. She accepted
that there was mention in her report that the ligature mark went up to
Mastoid. It has further come in her cross-examination that she was
deposing for the first time that ligature mark went up to Mastoid. The
evidence of this Medical Officer fall short of establishing the Homicidal
8 APEAL148.2023J.odt
Death. It is clear that as she was not certain about the cause of death,
she referred the Dead Body to the Sassoon General Hospital, Pune, for
opinion.
8. There is evidence of PW6 - Dr. Ajay Aniruddha Taware,
which shows that, since 2006, he was working in Sassoon General
Hospital, Pune. He had the qualification of M.D. Forensic Medicine and
experience of performing more than 5000 post mortems. On
31.01.2017, dead body of Rupali Bapurao Navsare (Deceased) was
brought by Karjat Police Station for post-mortem along with Inquest and
requisition form. Later on, a letter was received by him from the
Superintendent of Karjat Hospital that there was no forensic expert
available, and therefore, the dead body was referred to Pune. He, along
with Dr. Khurana and Dr. Shelke performed post-mortem on 01.02.2017
and found the following injuries:
"Total neck circumference - 31 c.m.
Weight of the dead body = 43.68 kgs.
(1) Ligature mark present over anterior aspect of neck above the level
of thyroid cartilage running upwards, backwards and laterally on
both sides of neck of size 20 cm X 2.5 cm, irregular, dry, hard and
parchmentised with 3.5 cm x 1.5 cm linear extension on lower
side of ligature mark on right lateral aspect from mid line below
main mark.
Dimensions -
4.5 cm below chin
7.5 cm above suprasternal notch
1 cm below right angle of mandible
4 cm below left angle of mandible
4 cm below left mastoid, 136 cm from right heel.
9 APEAL148.2023J.odt
Ligature mark ending below right angle of mandible and on left
side merging in hairline on posterior aspect of neck, 6 cm below
and behind left mastoid.
On dissection of neck, skin under ligature mark dry, hard,
glistering.
No hemorrhages in underlying soft tissues and muscles.
No fracture of hyoid, thyroid cartilages.
(2) Abrasion present over anterior aspect of neck, 0.5 cm left lateral
to mid line 0.5 cm below ligature mark of size 1 cm x 1 cm,
triangular, convex downwards, red.
(3) Abrasion over mid line of neck, 2 cm below ligature mark, 0.5 cm
x 0.5 cm, red.
(4) Abrasion over right antero lateral aspect of neck 5 cm right lateral
to mid line, 1 cm below ligature mark of size 0.5 x 0.3 cm, red."
8.1. The further evidence of PW6 - Dr. Ajay Aniruddha Taware
shows that, all the above referred injuries were ante-mortem and the
cause of death was 'due to constriction of neck due to ligature'. The
post-mortem report was prepared, which was at Exh.44. He further
deposed that ligature was possible due to hanging.
8.2. He agreed with the propositions given in the book 'Medical
Jurisprudence' authored by Modi & Parikh regarding hanging. He
reiterated that the hyoid bone was intact and it was mentioned in the
post-mortem report. The copy of the text from the Medical
Jurisprudence and Toxicology (Law Practice & Procedure) by Dr. K. S.
Narayan Reddy was confronted to him and brought on record. In the
said literature, it is mentioned that hyoid bone fracture was strongly
suggestive of throttling.
10 APEAL148.2023J.odt
9. Evaluation of the above referred medical evidence shows
that, there is no conclusive finding that the death was Homicidal. The
cause of death was "constriction of neck due to ligature". The hyoid
bone and thyroid cartilages were not fractured. True it is, that the
evidence of PW1 - Sandeep Maruti Kalbhor, PW3 - Parigabai Maruti
Kalbhor and PW5 - Parasram Nivruitti Kalbhor, who were the brother,
mother and uncle, respectively of the Deceased, shows that when they
went to the Matrimonial House of the Deceased after learning about the
death, they noticed injuries on the throat of the Deceased. However, the
Medical Evidence becomes crucial on the point of nature of Death. It
has come in the evidence of PW8 - Pramod Rangnath Bhingare, who
investigated the Crime, that nail clippings of the Deceased were not
taken and not sent to the Chemical Analyzer. The evidence available is
far from establishing that, the death of Appellant's wife was Homicidal.
10. According to PW1 - Sandeep Maruti Kalbhor, PW3 -
Parigabai Maruti Kalbhor and PW5 - Parasram Nivruitti Kalbhor, the
Deceased was being harassed by the Appellant. One of the Charge and
conviction is for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC.
Admittedly, the marriage of the Appellant and Deceased was eleven [11]
years old at the time of her death. They were having two sons from the
wedlock, who were residing with them. They were not examined. The
evidence of PW8 - Pramod Rangnath Bhingare shows that, statement of
11 APEAL148.2023J.odt
the children of Deceased were not recorded. It is settled position under
the law that, every harassment or ill-treatment do not lead to the
offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC. The ill-treatment or
harassment contemplated under Section 498A of the IPC is required to
be of such an extent, which would drive the woman to commit suicide.
The evidence of these three (3) witnesses nowhere shows that they
themselves have witnessed the harassment or illtreatment to the
Deceased. Their evidence in respect of harassment is vague and general.
The evidence of PW3 - Parigabai Maruti Kalbhor in respect of beating to
the Deceased by the Appellant on account of money and that her son i.e.
PW1 - Sandeep Maruti Kalbhor gave a cheque of Rs. 50,000/- to the
Appellant, which he took from one Gopalghare, without mentioning the
name of Payee, at the instance of the Appellant, was an omission in her
previous statement.
11. Though PW1 - Sandeep Maruti Kalbhor deposed of
Appellant demanding Rs. 1,50,000/- from the family members of the
Deceased and he gave Rs. 50,000/- by way of a cheque, his evidence
shows that the cheque was issued by one Dattatraya Bhimrao
Gopalghare and he gave it to the accused. There is no evidence that the
said amount was deposited in the account of the Appellant. On the
contrary, the evidence of PW3 - Parigabai Maruti Kalbhor shows that,
the Appellant got the cheque encashed in the name of one Tanpure.
12 APEAL148.2023J.odt
There is no evidence of the said persons by name, Gopalghare and
Tanpure. The evidence of PW5 - Parasram Nivruitti Kalbhor in respect
of demand of money by the Appellant was hearsay. What can be seen
from the evidence of PW5 - Parasram Nivruitti Kalbhor is that, the
Appellant knew at the time of marriage, which was performed in the
Group Marriage Ceremony, that the financial condition of the parents of
the Deceased was poor and he consented to marry her. It has come in
the evidence of PW1 - Sandeep Maruti Kalbhor that the poultry shed
was constructed by the Appellant. From this evidence on record, the
evidence of these three witnesses that the Deceased was being harassed
for financial help is required to be seen with doubt.
12. It is clear from the evidence on record that PW5 - Parasram
Nivruitti Kalbhor lodged report with the concerned Police Station that
the Deceased was found hanging in the poultry shed. In the cross-
examination, PW8 - Pramod Rangnath Bhingare deposed that, PW5 -
Parasram Nivruitti Kalbhor gave report to the Police that the Deceased
committed suicide by hanging with the help of ' Odhani' (Stole) and the
said report was at Exh. 69. The evidence of PW5 - Parasram Nivruitti
Kalbhor shows that Police had come on the spot of incident and the
Police from Karjat Police Station accompanied them to Pune and on the
way, he (PW5 - Parasram Nivruitti Kalbhor), PW1 - Sandeep Maruti
Kalbhor and others decided to lodge Report against the Appellant.
13 APEAL148.2023J.odt
Admittedly, the report, which formed the basis of registration of Crime
against the Appellant, was lodged after two (2) days from the death of
Appellant's wife. The said report was lodged by PW1 - Sandeep Maruti
Kalbhor. His evidence shows that, on 31.01.2017, the Police had come
on the spot and they inquired with him, his parents and other relatives.
His evidence shows that, the Appellant and his family members
accompanied them to the Rural Hospital, Karjat and Sassoon Hospital at
Pune. His evidence further shows that, on 01.02.2017, for the whole
day, they were in the company of the Police. Suggestion is given in the
cross-examination that they decided to lodge the report after knowing
the cause of Death.
13. The other evidence is that of PW2 - Satish Ankush Jare,
who was the spot panch. The spot panchnama is at Exh. 18. His
evidence shows that two gunny bags containing bird food were found at
the spot of incident. There is evidence of PW4 - Eknath Rambhau
Khaire, who was Panch to the Inquest at Exh. 34. His evidence shows
that he was residing at village Padali and PW1 - Sandeep Maruti
Kalbhor and PW3 - Parigabai Maruti Kalbhor, who were brother and
mother of Deceased, respectively, were residing at village Bankhada.
Though he deposed of Deceased telling about the harassment whenever
she visited her parental house and deposed of demand of money by the
Appellant from the parents of the Deceased, his evidence do not show
14 APEAL148.2023J.odt
that he was the eye-witness to the same. The evidence in respect of the
harassment and demand of money was hearsay. The report of Chemical
Analysis at Exh. 72 in respect of articles sent to the Chemical Analyzer
do not show Blood on the clothes of the Appellant.
14. On re-appreciation of evidence on record as discussed
above, the Prosecution failed to establish the Charge against the
Appellant. There is no Charge of abetment of suicide. Secondly, the
evidence available on record do not establish the abetment of suicide by
the Appellant. It is true that medical evidence is an opinion evidence,
however, it becomes crucial to decide whether the death was Homicidal
or otherwise. With the evidence available on record, it is not possible to
maintain the conviction of the Appellant recorded by the learned Trial
Court and the consequent sentence. The evidence on record is not
conclusive in establishing the Charge. The Appeal, thus, succeeds.
Hence, the following order :
ORDER
[1] Criminal Appeal is allowed.
[2] The conviction of the Appellant for the offence punishable
under Sections 302, 201, 498A of the Indian Penal Code
and the consequent sentence recorded by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Shrigonda; in Sessions Case No.
121 of 2019, by the Judgment and Order dated 15.12.2022,
is quashed and set aside.
15 APEAL148.2023J.odt
[3] The Appellant is acquitted of the offence punishable under
Sections 302, 201, 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
[4] The Appellant be released forthwith, if not required in any
other case.
[5] Fine amount, if paid, be refunded to the Appellant.
[6] R&P be sent back to the trial Court.
[NEERAJ P. DHOTE] [R. G. AVACHAT]
JUDGE JUDGE
SG Punde
Signed by: Sandeep Gulabrao Punde
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 10/02/2025 15:48:52
