Bombay High Court
Bhau Shamrao Jogdand vs The State Of Maharashtra on 13 January, 2025
Author: Sarang V. Kotwal
Bench: Sarang V. Kotwal, S.M. Modak
2025:BHC-AS:1789-DB
30-APEAL-513-2016+IA-1748-2024.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.513 OF 2016
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1748 OF 2024
SATISH
[APPLICATION FOR BAIL]
RAMCHANDRA
SANGAR
Bhau Shamrao Jogdand
Digitally signed by
SATISH RAMCHANDRA
Age : 48 Years, Occupation : Labour,
SANGAR Residing at : Sanjay Gandhi Nagar ...Appellant/Applicant
Date: 2025.01.15
19:04:54 +0530 Zopadpatti, Pimpri, Pune. (Original Accused)
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
(Vide Sessions Case No.714 of 2013
arising out of C.R. No.393 of 2012
registered at Pimpri Police Station,
Pune). ...Respondent
=================================
Ms.Ameeta Kuttikrishnan - Advocate for Appellant/Applicant.
Mr.Arfan Sait - APP on behalf of Respondent-State.
=================================
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL &
S.M. MODAK, JJ.
DATE : 13th JANUARY 2025
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
1. The Appellant was the only accused in Sessions
Case No.714 of 2013 before the Additional Sessions Judge -
Pune. The learned Judge vide his judgment and order dated
31st December 2015, convicted the Appellant for the
Satish Sangar 1 of 15
30-APEAL-513-2016+IA-1748-2024.odt
commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC"). The learned Judge sentenced
the Appellant, to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine
of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) and in default of
payment of fine, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six
months.
2. Heard learned counsel Ms.Ameeta Kuttikrishnan for
Appellant/Applicant and learned APP Mr.Sait for Respondent-
State.
3. The prosecution case is, that the Appellant
committed murder of his wife Nandabai on 12 th December
2012 at about 3.30 a.m., in their hut. According to the
prosecution case, the Appellant was addicted to liquor. The
deceased was working as a housemaid. She refused to give him
money for liquor and on that ground, there used to be frequent
quarrels between the Appellant and the deceased. In the
previous evening also, there was a quarrel between them.
According to the prosecution case, the Appellant, the deceased,
their son and daughter were sleeping in their house. The other
son was sleeping in the adjacent house of the deceased's
brother. At about 3.30 a.m., the Appellant hit the deceased
with a gas cylinder and crushed her head. The son and
Satish Sangar 2 of 15
30-APEAL-513-2016+IA-1748-2024.odt
daughter woke up because of the sound. They saw, that the
deceased was lying with bleeding injuries to her head. The
Appellant was holding a dumbbell in his hand and was about
to assault on her head. The son who was present in the house,
stopped him. The daughter went out and called her other
brother who came inside the house. Others were also called.
One of the sons lodged the FIR at Pimpri Police Station vide
C.R.No.393 of 2012. The investigation was carried out. The
Appellant was immediately arrested. His clothes were seized.
The clothes of the deceased were seized. The spot panchnama
was conducted. The post mortem was carried out. The
statements of the witnesses were recorded. On completion of
the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed and the case was
committed to the Court of Session.
4. During the trial, the prosecution examined 13
witnesses including the two sons and the daughter of the
Appellant, his brother-in-law, panchas, photographer, medical
officer and the police witnesses. The defence of the Appellant
was of total denial. He did not offer any explanation or did not
take up any specific defence. Learned Judge after considering
the entire evidence, believed the witnesses and convicted and
sentenced the Appellant as mentioned earlier.
Satish Sangar 3 of 15
30-APEAL-513-2016+IA-1748-2024.odt
5. The FIR is lodged by PW No.1-Appa Bhau Jogdand,
who has deposed, that the Appellant was his father and the
deceased was his mother. He had a brother and a sister. The
mother was working as maid servant. His father was a
carpenter but since August-2012, he was not doing any work.
He used to sit idle in the house and consume liquor or watch
T.V. The Appellant often used to pick-up quarrel with the
deceased and ask her to give money for buying liquor. He used
to beat the deceased. The informant and his brother and sister
used to intervene. The incident occurred at about 3.30 a.m., on
12th December 2012. At that time, his brother and sister along
with their parents were present in the house. He had gone to
sleep in the adjacent house belonging to his maternal uncle. At
about 3.30 a.m., he heard shouts of his brother and sister. He
immediately woke up and went to his house. He saw, that his
mother was lying on the ground in a pool of blood. She had
sustained bleeding injury on the head. When, he entered the
house, the Appellant came out of the house. His brother and
sister told him, that the Appellant had killed their mother with
iron dumbbells and gas cylinder. PW No.1-Appa and his uncle
shifted the deceased to YCM Hospital-Pimpri but she was
declared dead. After that, he lodged his FIR against his father.
Satish Sangar 4 of 15
30-APEAL-513-2016+IA-1748-2024.odt
It is produced on record at Exhibit-11.
In the cross-examination, he deposed, that he used
to tell his maternal uncle about the ill-treatment given to his
mother by his father. But, they had never lodged any complaint
against their father. The maternal uncle's house had two big
rooms and 8 persons used to stay in it. On 11 th December 2012,
he had returned home at around 9.00 p.m. At that time, he had
seen his father in the house. At about 10.00 p.m., he went to
his maternal uncle's house. The distance between the two
houses were about 50 feet and there was only one partition in
between those houses. Both the houses were constructed
jointly. He could hear the sound from one house if, he was in
the other. Their house stood in the name of his father i.e. the
Appellant. There is one omission from his FIR in respect of the
Appellant leaving the house when PW No.1 entered the house
at 3.30 a.m. He could not explain as to why, that fact was not
mentioned in his FIR. He was given specific suggestions that
some dacoits had entered their house and while committing
dacoity, since his mother resisted, she was assaulted. This
suggestion was denied by PW No.1.
6. The FIR produced on record at Exhibit-11,
substantially corroborates his deposition.
Satish Sangar 5 of 15
30-APEAL-513-2016+IA-1748-2024.odt
7. The evidence of PW No.1 is supported on all the
material particulars by PW No.5-Parmeshwar Waghmare who
was his maternal uncle. He was present in the adjacent room
with PW No.1 when the incident occurred. He had narrated the
incident in the similar manner. After hearing the shouts, when
he entered the Appellant's house, he had seen, that his sister
had sustained bleeding injury to her head and was lying
unconscious. PW No.1's brother and sister had held the
Appellant who was having a dumbbell in his hand. There was a
gas cylinder kept near the sister. In the cross-examination,
some suggestion about somebody trying to commit a dacoity in
the house and in the process, the deceased having sustained
injuries was put to him which he had denied.
8. PW Nos.2 and 4 are important witnesses. Both of
them were present in the house, when the incident took place.
PW No.2-Maya Jogdand was the sister of PW No.1 and the
Appellant's daughter. She has deposed about the Appellant's
addiction to liquor and about his unemployment since about 4
months prior to the incident. She has deposed that he used to
demand money for liquor from his wife and on her refusal, he
used to assault her. The Appellant also used to threaten to
cause death of wife, if the money was not paid to him. He used
Satish Sangar 6 of 15
30-APEAL-513-2016+IA-1748-2024.odt
to abuse and threaten her. PW No.2 and her brothers used to
intervene.
On 11th December 2012, in the evening, the
deceased came home after purchasing some household articles.
The Appellant asked for money but she refused. She cooked
food and all of them had dinner and they went to sleep. PW
No.1 went to sleep in his maternal uncle's house. At about 3.30
a.m., she heard shouts, she woke up. She saw, that her mother
had sustained bleeding injury on her head. She noticed, the gas
cylinder. She has specifically deposed, that the Appellant lifted
the gas cylinder and threw it on the head of the deceased. He
also assaulted the deceased with dumbbells. By that time, PW
No.2 and her brother Prakash caught the Appellant. She herself
went out of the house and called her elder brother PW No.1-
Appa. Then, the deceased was shifted to the hospital.
In the cross-examination, she deposed, that her
mother had not lodged any complaint against her father. There
was a minor omission from the police station about her mother
purchasing some household articles and returning home on
11th December 2012. However, she has answered that she did
not witness the incident of assault on her mother by gas
cylinder. But, she denied the suggestion that her father did not
Satish Sangar 7 of 15
30-APEAL-513-2016+IA-1748-2024.odt
commit the murder of her mother.
9. PW No.4-Prakash Bhau Jogdand is another
important eye witness who was the other son of the Appellant.
He has narrated the history of the quarrel between his parents.
At about 3.30 a.m., in the midnight, he heard some sound. He
woke up. His sister Maya also woke up. They saw, that their
mother had sustained bleeding injury on the head. One gas
cylinder was kept by her side. She was writhing in pain. He
himself and PW No.2 raised shouts. Their father again lifted
the gas cylinder and was about to assault their mother but by
that time, PW Nos.2 and 4 intervened and stopped him. Even
then, the Appellant picked up dumbbells and assaulted their
mother. By that time, PW No.2 went out and brought their
brother PW No.1. Their maternal uncle also came to the spot.
Some other neighbours gathered there. He identified the gas
cylinder and the dumbbell produced in the Court as Articles 'A'
and 'B'.
His cross-examination did not elicit any answer
favourable to the defence. There was hardly any important
omission from his police statement. He stuck to his story and
was not shaken in the cross-examination. He also denied the
suggestion that some unknown person while committing
Satish Sangar 8 of 15
30-APEAL-513-2016+IA-1748-2024.odt
dacoity had committed this act. PW No.4 is thus, an important
witness and we find him to be a truthful witness.
10. PW No.3-Bhujang Shyamrao Gaikwad was panch
for spot panchnama. The panchnama was produced at Exhibit-
14 which shows that the gas cylinder and dumbbell were found
at the spot. They were seized. The bloodstained earth and
bedsheets were also taken from the spot.
11. PW No.7-Sunny Babarsing Kandare was the panch
in whose presence, the clothes of the accused were seized
under panchnama which is produced at Exhibit-30. PW No.8-
Parshuram Bhagwan Raut was panch in whose presence,
clothes of the deceased were seized under panchnama at
Exhibit-35.
12. PW No.9-Mukesh Machhindra Kamat was another
important witness. He was a neighbour and he had rushed to
the house on hearing the shouts. More importantly, he has
deposed about the quarrel between the Appellant and his wife
which had taken place about 8.30 p.m., before the incident at
3.30 a.m., in the night. He had personally witnessed that
quarrel. The Appellant was demanding money for consuming
liquor which was the cause for quarrel. After the incident, he
immediately rushed to the spot. He had seen, that the deceased
Satish Sangar 9 of 15
30-APEAL-513-2016+IA-1748-2024.odt
had sustained head injury and the Appellant's son and
daughter had caught the Appellant. He had also seen the
Appellant holding dumbbells in his hand. In the cross-
examination, he deposed, that he did not intervene in the
quarrel between the Appellant and the wife. He denied the
suggestion that he was deposing false.
13. PW No.10-Sharad Gorakhnath Kshetriya was
photographer. He had taken the photographs of the spot and of
the dead body. The photographs are produced on record. PW
No.11-Manohar Ramchandra Lodhe was the scientific assistant
who had helped in collecting the samples. PW No.12-Gorakh
Keru Theurkar was a carrier. He had carried the samples to the
forensic laboratory.
14. PW No.6-Milind Vasant Sonawane was the medical
officer. He had carried out the post mortem examination. The
deceased had suffered following two injuries:-
(i) Sub-conjunctival Haematoma over left eye,
swelling of both eye lids, bluish, due to
contusion, swelling extends over left orbit and
cheek, pale bluish, size 10 cm x 9 cm.
(ii) Depressed compound injury over right forehead,
stating from mid glabella, involving whole right
forehead, up till right side of eye, margins
Satish Sangar 10 of 15
30-APEAL-513-2016+IA-1748-2024.odt
lacerated and gaped, underneath frontal bone
avulsed deppressed fracture, exposing intra-
cranial cavity fracture margins depressed,
fracture right Maxxila bone, vertically, fissure
type, size 8 cm x 4 cm x Intra-cranial, cavity
deep. The internal injuries shown, there was
fracture of nasal bone, there was huge extra-
vasation of blood in sub-cutaneous tissue. The
cause of death was mentioned as "traumatic and
haemorrhagic shock due to deppresed fracture
of skull with brain injury due to head injury due
to heavy blunt object. The medical officer
deposed that the said injuries were possible if
the domestic gas cylinder either empty or filled
is hit on the head and the injuries were also
possible by weight lifting dumbbells.
15. PW No.13-Mohan Shrirang Sawant-Dy.S.P., was
attached to Pimpri Police Station as Assistant Police Inspector.
He has conducted the investigation. He had carried out spot
panchnama, had seized the articles, had sent the body for post
mortem examination. The Appellant was arrested by Police
Sub-Inspector, Mr.Shaikh. PW No.13 had filed the charge-
sheet.
His cross-examination is not of much consequences.
This, in short, is the evidence led by the prosecution. The
Satish Sangar 11 of 15
30-APEAL-513-2016+IA-1748-2024.odt
accused did not raise a specific defence except taking up the
defence of total denial.
16. Through the suggestions, it was projected, that an
unknown person had entered the house for committing dacoity
and in the process, that unknown person had committed the
murder. This suggestion was denied as mentioned earlier.
17. Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted, that
the evidence of sons, the daughter and the brother-in-law of
the Appellant is not consistent. They have falsely implicated the
Appellant because of the earlier quarrel between the Appellant
and his wife. She submitted, that there was no motive for the
Appellant to commit the murder of his wife. She further
submitted, that even if, assuming that the incident had
occurred and even if, assuming that the Appellant had
assaulted the deceased, there was no premeditation and
preparation in committing the offence. The evidence shows,
that there was a quarrel between the deceased and the
Appellant. The incident is the result of that quarrel and
therefore, the offence would not be the one under under
Section 300 of the IPC but would be a lesser offence as there
was no intention to commit the murder. She relied on the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of K. Ravi Kumar
Satish Sangar 12 of 15
30-APEAL-513-2016+IA-1748-2024.odt
V/s. State of Karnataka1.
18. Learned APP opposed these submissions. According
to him, there was no reason to disbelieve the eye-witnesses. He
submitted, that the Chemical Analyzer's reports show that the
blood on the clothes of the accused was of group 'A' whereas,
his own blood group is 'O'. Therefore, the Appellant had the
deceased's blood on his clothes. This factor is not explained by
him. He submitted, that the incident was not a result of the
quarrel but the quarrel had taken place at least 6 hours prior to
the incident. It shows, that it was a preplanned, cold-blooded
murder.
19. We have considered these submissions. The FIR is
lodged by PW No.1 as mentioned earlier. PW No.1 and PW
No.5 have corroborated each other in respect of the events
which took place after 3.30 a.m. After they heard the sound,
both of them rushed to the house of the Appellant and to see
the Appellant at the spot with the deceased lying on the floor
with bleeding injuries. PW No.1 has immediately lodged the
FIR.
20. More importantly, there are two important
witnesses, PW No.2 and PW No.4 who were present in the
1 (2015) 2 Supreme Court Cases 638
Satish Sangar 13 of 15
30-APEAL-513-2016+IA-1748-2024.odt
house when the incident took place. Though, they were
sleeping separately, from the Appellant and his wife, on hearing
the shouts, they immediately woke up and actually saw, that
the deceased was lying with the bleeding head injury and the
Appellant was about to assault her with a dumbbell. He was
prevented from causing any more damage but at that time, the
head of the deceased was crushed with the gas cylinder. The
photographs show that the cylinder was lying nearby and it
had blood stains. The gas cylinder and the dumbbells were
identified in the Court as mentioned earlier. Their evidence is
consistent and it has stood the test of cross-examination. They
are the main witnesses who are corroborated by PW No.1 and
PW No.5. Apart from them, PW No.9 is also important. He was
a neighbour. He had seen the quarrel at about 8.00 p.m. He
had rushed to the spot after the incident and had seen the
accused holding the dumbbells. All these witnesses are
consistent with each other and point unerringly to the guilt of
the Appellant.
21. We do not find force in the submissions of the
learned counsel for the Appellant, that it was not a case of
murder but it could be a lesser offence, as the case would fall
within Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC. Her reliance on K.
Satish Sangar 14 of 15
30-APEAL-513-2016+IA-1748-2024.odt
Ravi Kumar's case (supra) is also misplaced. In that case,
immediately after the heated exchange, the incident had taken
place as the appellant in that case, had lost his mental balance.
But, in the present case, there was a long gap between the
quarrel and the incident. The quarrel had taken place about
8.00 p.m., and the incident had taken place at 3.30 a.m.
Therefore, it was not a direct result or outcome of the quarrel.
In fact, the Appellant had sufficient time to ponder over his
actions and only after a gap of 6 hours, he took this extreme
step of crushing head of the deceased with the cylinder. The
offence was committed in a cruel manner. Therefore, Exception
4 to Section 300 of IPC will not come to the aid of the
Appellant in the submission made on his behalf that the offence
could be a lesser offence and not that of a murder.
22. Considering all these aspects, we do not find any
merit in the Appeal. The Appeal is accordingly, dismissed.
23. In view thereof, the Interim Application stands
disposed of.
(S.M.MODAK, J.) (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
Satish Sangar 15 of 15
