Bombay High Court
Pappu Ratan Pawar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 6 January, 2025
Author: R.G. Avachat
Bench: R.G. Avachat
2025:BHC-AUG:1058-DB
Cri.Appeal No.187/2023
:: 1 ::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.187 OF 2023 WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.708 OF 2023
Pappu Ratan Pawar,
Age 33 years, Occu. Labour Work,
R/o Vivekanand Nagar, Pachora,
Tq. Pachora, Dist. Jalgaon ... APPELLANT
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra
through the Pachora Police Station,
Tq. Pachora, Dist. Jalgaon
(Copy to be served on Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Bombay,
Bench at Aurangabad) ... RESPONDENT
.......
Mr. G.V. Wani, Advocate for appellant
Mrs. Uma S. Bhosle, A.P.P. for respondent
.......
CORAM : R.G. AVACHAT AND
NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ.
DATE : 6th JANUARY, 2025
J U D G M E N T (PER : R.G. AVACHAT, J.) :
The appellant has been convicted for the offence of
murder and therefore, sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life
:: 2 ::
and to pay fine of Rs.5000/-, in default to undergo further
simple imprisonment for three months, by learned Session
Judge, Jalgaon vide judgment and order dated 19/5/2021,
passed in Sessions Case No.319/2019.
2. Facts giving rise to the present appeal are as
follows :-
The appellant along with his wife (deceased
Kasturabai) would reside at Pachora, District Jalgaon along
with their three minor daughters. The appellant was serving in
a hotel. He was addicted to liquor. The appellant would ill-
treat his wife under the influence of liquor. The deceased used
to relate her woes to her mother (Padmabai) and other
relations.
On the intervening night of 9 and 10 June 2019, the
appellant informed his brother-in-law on phone that his wife
suffered heart attack. She was lying in Rural Hospital,
Pachora. He along with his two sons, therefore, rushed to the
Rural Hospital. He saw the dead body in Mortuary. His
deceased sister had suffered multiple injuries. P.W.1 therefore
:: 3 ::
lodged First Information Report (F.I.R. Exh.15) with Pachora
Police Station.
3. A crime vide C.R. No.237/2019 was, therefore,
registered for offence punishable under Sections 302, 504 of
the Indian Penal Code. During the investigation, inquest and
autopsy were conducted on the mortal remains of Kasturabai.
Statements of the children of the appellant and of those who
were acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case
were recorded. One of the daughters of the appellant informed
the police the appellant to have killed her mother during the
night. The appellant was arrested. Clothes on the person of
the appellant and the deceased were seized. Crime scene
panchanama was drawn. All the seized articles were
submitted to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Nashik.
Reports thereof were received. On completion of the
investigation, the appellant was proceeded against by filing
charge sheet.
4. The Trial Court framed the Charge (Exh.7). The
appellant pleaded not guilty. To bring home the charge,
prosecution examined 10 witnesses and produced in evidence
:: 4 ::
certain documents. On appreciation of the evidence in the
case, the Trial Court convicted and consequently sentenced
the appellant as stated above.
5. Heard. Learned Advocate for the appellant would
submit that, the conviction was based on the testimony of a
minor, Gauri (P.W.7). She was in the custody of her maternal
grandparents since the day of the incident to the date of giving
evidence. The child witness was prone to tutoring. A wooden
rafter might have fallen on the head of the victim resulting into
her death. C.A. reports did not further the prosecution case.
He would further submit that, it was the appellant who had
brought the deceased to the hospital. The same suggests the
appellant did not have intention to kill his wife. Three minor
daughters of the appellant are there. He urged for considering
the case sympathetically and grant appropriate relief at least
for converting the conviction from the offence punishable under
Section 302 to any other lesser offence.
6. The learned A.P.P. would, on the other hand,
submit that, it was a brutal murder. The appellant admitted his
presence at his residence during the night. As such, it is the
:: 5 ::
appellant and none else who has killed his wife. The
deceased was rushed to the hospital by her parents and not by
the appellant. She, therefore, urged for dismissal of the
appeal.
7. Considered the submissions advanced. Perused
the evidence on record. Let us appreciate the same.
Admittedly, the appellant had married Kasturabai.
The couple was blessed with three minor children. All of them
would reside together at Pachora.
P.W.10 Dr. Nilesh conducted autopsy on the mortal
remains of the deceased. He noticed 27 external injuries on
the person of Kasturabai. In his opinion, the deceased died of
strangulation associated with head injury.
8. Most of the witnesses are in the nature of panchas
to various activities in the investigation, such as drawing of
crime scene panchanama, seizure of clothes of the deceased
and appellant, arrest of the appellant etc. The appellant
examined himself as a defence witness, wherein he stated
that, he had returned to the house by 6.00 p.m. His elder
:: 6 ::
daughter was at his matrimonial home for 4 to 5 days. His wife
(deceased) complained chest pain. He asked her to
accompany him to the doctor. She, however, asked him to
bring tablets. He obliged. Then both of them took meals. He
went out of the house. By 9.00 p.m. he returned. Both of them
went to sleep by 10.30 p.m. Again his wife complained chest
pain. He took her to Vighnaharta Hospital. She was suffering
from cold-sweating. The doctor there informed him that she
suffered heart attack. He, therefore, brought her to
Government Hospital where she died.
9. The stand of the appellant on oath is grossly
inconsistent with prosecution evidence, namely the post
mortem report which indicate the deceased to have suffered
27 injuries. She died of head injury associated with
strangulation. Admittedly, the appellant was in her company all
along.
10. In the case of Trimukh Maroti Kirkan Vs. State of
Maharashtra, (2006)10 SCC 681, it has been observed thus:-
"14. If an offence takes place inside the privacy of a
house and in such circumstances where the assailants have
all the opportunity to plan and commit the offence at the
time and in circumstances of their choice, it will be
:: 7 ::
extremely difficult for the prosecution to lead evidence to
establish the guilt of the accused if the strict principle of
circumstantial evidence, as noticed above, is insisted upon
by the courts. A judge does not preside over a criminal
trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished. A
judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not
escape. Both are public duties. (See Stirland v. Director of
Public Prosecutions [1944 AC 315 : (1944) 2 All ER 13
(HL)] -- quoted with approval by Arijit Pasayat, J. in State
of Punjab v. Karnail Singh [(2003) 11 SCC 271 : 2004 SCC
(Cri) 135)]. The law does not enjoin a duty on the
prosecution to lead evidence of such character which is
almost impossible to be led or at any rate extremely
difficult to be led. The duty on the prosecution is to lead
such evidence which it is capable of leading, having regard
to the facts and circumstances of the case. Here it is
necessary to keep in mind Section 106 of the Evidence Act
which says that when any fact is especially within the
knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact
is upon him. Illustration (b) appended to this section
throws some light on the content and scope of this
provision and it reads:
"(b) A is charged with travelling on a railway
without ticket. The burden of proving that he
had a ticket is on him."
15. Where an offence like murder is committed in
secrecy inside a house, the initial burden to establish the
case would undoubtedly be upon the prosecution, but the
nature and amount of evidence to be led by it to establish
the charge cannot be of the same degree as is required in
other cases of circumstantial evidence. The burden would
be of a comparatively lighter character. In view of Section
106 of the Evidence Act there will be a corresponding
burden on the inmates of the house to give a cogent
explanation as to how the crime was committed. The
inmates of the house cannot get away by simply keeping
quiet and offering no explanation on the supposed
premise that the burden to establish its case lies entirely
upon the prosecution and there is no duty at all on an
accused to offer any explanation.
xxx xxx xxx
22. Where an accused is alleged to have committed the
murder of his wife and the prosecution succeeds in leading
evidence to show that shortly before the commission of
crime they were seen together or the offence takes place in
the dwelling home where the husband also normally
resided, it has been consistently held that if the accused
:: 8 ::
does not offer any explanation how the wife received
injuries or offers an explanation which is found to be false,
it is a strong circumstance which indicates that he is
responsible for commission of the crime. ..."
(Emphasis supplied)
11. Moreover, there is evidence of P.W.1 Padmabai,
mother-in-law of the appellant, who testified that the appellant
would harass and ill-treat her daughter. She would relate the
woes to her. This evidence is admissible under Section 32(1)
of the Evidence Act although she was not witness to the
incident.
12. P.W.7 Gauri testified that, her father (appellant)
beat up her mother with sickle on her head. That was the
incident took place some days before. It was, however, not
reported to the police. She further testified that, on the given
night, the appellant inflicted number of blows on the head of
her mother with wooden log. He then strangled her. She was
in the house. Her both the sisters - Bhagyashree and Khushi
were also present in the house.
Although number of questions were put to her
during cross-examination, nothing could be elicited to find the
child witness was tutored one. It was but natural that on the
:: 9 ::
death of mother, and father being behind the bars, the children
were taken care of by the grandparents. It is reiterated that,
the deceased was declared dead before admission to the
hospital. As such, there was no question of the appellant
taking her to the hospital to save her life. There is also
evidence to indicate that it was not the appellant but the
relations of the deceased (appellant's in-laws) who took her to
the hospital.
13. On appreciation of the aforesaid evidence, we find
the Trial Court to have rightly convicted and consequently
sentenced the appellant for the offence punishable under
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. No interference with
the impugned order is, therefore, warranted. In the result, the
appeal fails. It is dismissed. Consequently, Criminal
Application No.708/2023 stands disposed of.
(NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.) (R.G. AVACHAT, J.)
fmp/-
