Bombay High Court

Rakesh Laxman Gaikwad vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 20 June, 2025

Author: Madhav J. Jamdar

Bench: Madhav J. Jamdar

2025:BHC-AS:24629 915 APEAL 23.2019 JUDG.DOC

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.23 OF 2019

Rakesh Laxman Gaikwad ...Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents

Mr. Prasad B. Kulkarni, Advocate for Appellant.
Ms. Sangita D. Shinde, APP for Respondent No.1- State.
Ms. Rekha Musale a/w A. Siddique and Ms. Pooja Thorat for
Respondent No.2.

CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
DATED : 20th June 2025
JUDGMENT.:

1. Heard Mr. Prasad Kulkarni, learned Counsel for the

Appellant, Ms. Sangita Shinde, learned APP for the Respondent

No.1-State of Maharashtra and Ms. Rekha Musale, learned Counsel

for the Respondent No.2.

2. The present Criminal Appeal has been filed challenging the

legality and validity of the Judgment and Order dated 19 th

December 2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Solapur in

Sessions Case No. 323 of 2014 convicting the Appellant-Accused

Page 1 of 14
Dusane

::: Uploaded on - 22/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2025 08:22:01 :::
915 APEAL 23.2019 JUDG.DOC

No.1 under Section 324, 506(II) and 498-A of the Indian Penal

Code, 1860 ("IPC"). The Appellant was convicted for offence

punishable under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced to suffer

rigorous imprisonment of 1 year and also to pay fine of

Rs.50,000/- and in default simple imprisonment for six months. He

was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 monhts for

offence under Section 506 (II) of IPC and also to pay fine of

Rs.10,000/- in default of payment of fine of Rs.10,000/- and to

undergo simple imprisonment of two months and for offence

under Section 498-A of IPC the Appellant was sentenced to suffer

rigorous imprisonment of 1 year and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/-

and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. It

has further directed that substantive sentence for all the offences

shall run concurrently.

3. During the trial, the prosecution has examined following

nine witnesses :

PW 1 Atul Sathe
(Pg. No.54) Panch witness-Spot Panchnama Exh.46 (Pg.
No.151)
PW 2 Kamal Deshmukh
(Pg. No.56) Panch witness -Seizure Panchnama Exh.26-Clothes
of victim and 47- Seizure of stroll of victim

Page 2 of 14
Dusane

::: Uploaded on - 22/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2025 08:22:01 :::
915 APEAL 23.2019 JUDG.DOC

(Burnt) (Pg. No.156)
PW 3 S. S. Birajdar
(Pg. No.58) Panch witness-Seizure cloths of victim
Exh.29
(Pg. No.60) Panchnama
PW 4 Uma Gaikwad
(Pg. No.62) Complainant/Victim
PW 5 Ambadas Jadhav, Uncle of PW4- Victim
(Pg. No.82)
PW 6 Dr. Amruta Waghvekar
(Pg. No. 90) Examined victim on 26.03.2024
PW 7 Anand Gaikwad
(Pg. No.93)
PW 8 Dr. Santosh Bhoi
(Pg. No.98) Examined victim on 28.03.2024
PW 9 Shashikant Kale, P.I.
(Pg. No.145) Investigating Officer

4. It is the main contention of Mr. Kulkarni, learned Counsel for

the Applicant that the evidence on record do not show that the

Appellant has committed the offence. He states that there are

various lacunae in the evidence of victim i.e. PW4. He submitted

that there is no evidence about demand of Rs.2,00,000/-, no

evidence regarding physical and mental harassment. He also points

out the evidence of PW6-Dr. Amruta Waghvekar and submits that

in fact the injuries can be self inflicted. He also points out cross-

examination of Dr. Subhash Bhoir and submits that the injuries are

also possible by hard and blunt object and sharp cutting object. He

Page 3 of 14
Dusane

::: Uploaded on - 22/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2025 08:22:01 :::
915 APEAL 23.2019 JUDG.DOC

submits that there is no allegation that any hard and blunt object

was used during the incident in question or any sharp cutting

weapon was used. He points out injury certificate and states that

all injuries are simple in-natutre. He therefore submits that the

judgment and Order of conviction and imposing sentence is liable

to be quashed and set aside and the Appellant is entitled to be

acquitted.

5. Mr. Kulkarni, learned Counsel further submits that in any

case, the Appellant has undergone substantive sentence and the

Appellant is presently undergoing sentence in default of payment

of fine. He submits that as far as aggregate imprisonment for

default is concerned, the same is 14 months and he has already

completed substantial part of the same.

6. On the other hand, Ms. Shinde, learned APP and Ms. Rekha

Musale, learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 pointed out evidence

of PW4-Uma Gaikwad. They submitted that the marriage took

place on 7th December 2013 and the incident took place on 25 th

March 2014, wherein the Appellant tried to burn the victim by

pouring kerosene. Both of them pointed out evidence of PW5 i.e.

Page 4 of 14
Dusane

::: Uploaded on - 22/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2025 08:22:01 :::
915 APEAL 23.2019 JUDG.DOC

uncle of the victim. They also pointed out evidence of PW Nos. 6

and 8 i.e. the Doctors, who examined the victim and submitted

that the said evidence clearly show that the kerosene has been

poured on the body of the victim and attempt is made to burn the

victim. Both of them also pointed out the Chemical Anylyser's

report Exhibit 50 and submitted that the kerosene was found on

the burnt clothes of the victim. Both of them therefore submitted

that the Criminal Appeal be dismissed.

7. As far as contention that the sentence imposed in default is

concerned, it is submitted that imposing sentence in default of

payment of fine is the discretion of the Court and the said

discretion has been exercised by the learned Trial Court in a

reasonable manner and therefore no interference is warranted

even on that ground also.

8. Perusal of record shows that PW4-Uma Gaikwad in her

deposition has stated as follows :

"1. Accused Rakesh is my husband and Subhadrabai is my
mother-in-law. My marriage took place with Rakesh on
07.12.2013. After marriage I went to the house of accused
for cohabitation. I was residing with accused persons. For

Page 5 of 14
Dusane

::: Uploaded on - 22/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2025 08:22:01 :::
915 APEAL 23.2019 JUDG.DOC

one and half month after marriage accused treated me well,
thereafter my mother-in-law started demanding Rs.
2,00,000/- for getting service to my husband in police
department. At that time, Rakesh was jobless. I informed
about said demand to my husband. On that, Rakesh also
demanded Rs. 2,00,000/-. I told the accused persons that
financial condition of my parents was not good and they are
not able to fulfill the demand, however the accused did not
pay any heed to my requested and started harassing me
physically and mentally. Due to fear, I did not tell said fact to
anybody. On 10.03.2014, accused Rakesh left me to my
uncle Ambadas Jadhav's house. On 24.03.2014. my uncle
gathered respectable persons from society and conveyed a
meeting with the accused and his 15 relatives and thereafter
send me for cohabitation with accused persons. On
23.03.2014, husband of my sister-in-law Anand came in our
house. I served him tea and water. On that my husband
asked me as to why I served tea and thereafter he heated a
steel ladle and burned my forearms and thereafter bite me
on my both arms and right side of breast. My husband and
mother-in-law threated to kill me if I would narrate said fact
to anybody. Therefore, I did not tell it anybody. On
26.03.2014, my husband came from behind and caught my
hands thereafter my mother-in-law poured kerosene on my
person and lit my stole. I pushed my husband and came out
of house by shouting. Thereafter, my husband called my
uncle Ambadas Jadhav and informed him that I tried to set
myself ablaze by pouring kerosene on my person. Thereafter,
my uncle came there and smelling kerosene on my person,
he took me to ITI Police Chowky. Police issued medical yadi
to me and directed me to Civil Hospital. Accordingly, my
uncle admitted in Civil Hospital. At that time, I was
pregnant."

(Emphasis added)

9. Detailed cross-examination has been conducted of PW4-Uma

Gaikwad by the learned counsel of the Accused, however, even

Page 6 of 14
Dusane

::: Uploaded on - 22/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2025 08:22:01 :::
915 APEAL 23.2019 JUDG.DOC

during said detailed cross-examination also whatever stated in the

examination-in-chief as set out hereinabove has not been shaken.

In the cross-examination no admission has been obtained to

contradict about the above evidence. The most of the cross-

examination is concerning role of Accused No.2- Subhadra

Gaikwad, who has been acquitted.

10. The other material evidence is of PW6-Dr. Amruta

Raghunath Wagavkar and PW8-Santosh Bhoi. PW-6 has stated that

the victim sustained blunt trauma to abdomen, blunt trauma to

mouth, superficial burn injury to right forearm, linear abrasion on

both forearms, human bite on the forearms and accordingly issued

the Certificate. In the cross-examination PW6 has admitted that the

injuries may be self inflicting.

11. PW-8, Santosh Baburao Bhoi, who is also Doctor and

Lecturer in Forensic Medicine, V. M. Medical College, Solapur has

also examined the victim on 28 th March 2014. He has mentioned

that 15 injuries were found on the victim, as follows :-

"1 Superficial incisions 2 in number, adjacent and
parallel to each other, present on inner aspect of
right forearm, 2 cm in length each. There are

Page 7 of 14
Dusane

::: Uploaded on - 22/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2025 08:22:01 :::
915 APEAL 23.2019 JUDG.DOC

situated in lower 1/3'' region. The edges can be
easily separated.

2. Epidermal burn injury present on inner aspect of
right forearm, of size 5 x 3 cm, situated 10 cm
proximal to wrist joint. Evidence of dry brown 10
crust formation present.

3. Contusion present on right arm, inner aspect of
size 2 cm x 1 cm reddish brown. It is present in
middle 1/3rd of right arm.

4. Epidermal burn injury present on left breast,
inferior to the left nipple region, size 5 cm x 2
cm. Evidence of dry crust formation present.

5. Epidermal burn injury present on right breast,
inferior to the right 5 nipple, size 3 cm x 2 cm.
Evidence dry crust formation present.

6. Contusion present on left thoraco abdominal
region, size 6 cm x 5 cm, reddish brown in colour

7. Contusion present on right thoraco abdominal
region, size 5 cm x 3 cm, reddish brown in colour.

8. Lacerated wound present on lower lip inner
aspect on left side, size 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm and
muscle deep.

9. Multiple contusions 3 in number present on left
arm inner aspects, sizes 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm to1.cmx
0.5 cm, reddish brown in colour.

10. Superficial incisions 5 in numbers, adjacent and
parallel to each other, situated on left forearm in
upper 1/3 region, inner aspect, of lengths varying
from 1 cm to 1.5 cm. Edges can be easily
separable.

Page 8 of 14
Dusane

::: Uploaded on - 22/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2025 08:22:01 :::
915 APEAL 23.2019 JUDG.DOC

11. Superficial incisions, 6 in number, situated
adjacent and parallel to each other, on left
forearm in middle 1/3rd region, inner aspect of
lengths ranging of 1.5cmX 2.00 cm. Edges can be
easily separable.

12 . Superficial incisions, 3 in numbers, situated
adjacent and parallel to each other, on left
forearm in middle 1/3d regions, inner aspect of
length of 1 cm each. Edges can be easily
separable.

13. Superficial incisions, 6 in numbers, situated
adjacent and parallel to each other on left
forearm in lower 1/3'd region, inner aspect of
length varying 2 cm to 2.5 cm. Edges can be
easily separable.

14. Superficial incisions 8 in numbers situated
adjacent and parallel to each other on left
forearm in lower 1/3'a region, outer aspect of
length 10 varying from 1 cm to 1.5 cm. Edges can
be easily separable.

15. Superficial incisions 7 in number, situated
adjacent and parallel to each on left forearm,
middle 1/3" region, outer aspect of length
varying from 2 cm to 2.5 cm, edges can ta easily
separable."

12. PW8 has mentioned the age of injuries as of about 1 to 4

days. He has stated that superficial burn injuries are possible due

to burning by kerosene. Injury Nos. 4 and 5 are possible by

burning by hot turner. In the cross-examination, PW-8 has stated

that he is M.B.B.S., MD (Forensic Sciences), the burn injuries was

Page 9 of 14
Dusane

::: Uploaded on - 22/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2025 08:22:01 :::
915 APEAL 23.2019 JUDG.DOC

not corresponding to self inflicted injuries, as generally self

inflicted injuries are present on the exposed part of the body.

13. The other material evidence is of PW-3- Birajdar who is

panch witness of seizure of cloths of the victim and PW-9,

Shashikant Kale, who produced C.A. report at Exhibit 50 and 51.

As far as CA report at Exhibit-50 is concerned, it has been found

that partly burnt odhani with residues like kerosene is detected.

14. Thus, the evidence on record clearly shows the involvement

of the Appellant in the offence under Section 324, 506(II) and

under Section 498-A the IPC.

15. Thus, there is no substance in the contention of Mr. Kulkarni,

learned Counsel for the Applicant that the Judgment of conviction

and imposing sentence by the learned Sessions Court is without

any evidence on record.

16. Mr. Kulkarni, learned Counsel has also raised certain

contention regarding simple imprisonment imposed in default of

payment of fine.

Page 10 of 14
Dusane

::: Uploaded on - 22/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2025 08:22:01 :::
915 APEAL 23.2019 JUDG.DOC

17. To appreciate the contention raised by Mr. Kulkarni, learned

Counsel it is necessary to set out the relevant portion of operative

part of the Judgment and Order of the learned Sessions Court,

which is as follows :

":OPERATIVE ORDER:

(1) Accused no.1 Rakesh Laxman Gaikwad is hereby
convicted for the offence punishable under Sec.324 of the
Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for 1(one) year and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty Thousand only), in default, to undergo simple
imprisonment for 6 (six) months.

(2) Accused no.1 Rakesh Laxman Gaikwad is hereby
convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 506(II) of
the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for 2 (two) months and to pay fine of
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only), in default, to
undergo simple imprisonment for 2(two) months.

(3) Accused no.1 Rakesh Laxman Gaikwad is hereby
convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 498-A of the
Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for 1 (one) year and to pay fine of
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only), in default, to
undergo simple imprisonment for 6(six) months.

Substantive sentence for all the offences shall run
concurrently."

18. Thus, it is clear that for default in payment of fine of

Rs.1,00,000/- simple imprisonment for 6(six) months is granted

Page 11 of 14
Dusane

::: Uploaded on - 22/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2025 08:22:01 :::
915 APEAL 23.2019 JUDG.DOC

and as far as default in payment of fine of Rs.50,000/- is

concerned, also simple imprisonment for 6 (six) months is granted,

and for default of payment of fine, Rs.10,000/- is concerned, two

months imprisonment is granted.

19. Although the learned APP is right in contending that it is the

discretion of the Court to impose fine and also to impose

punishment to be undergone for default in payment, however, the

said discretion has to be exercised in judicious and reasonable

manner.

20. Mr. Kulkarni, learned Counsel states that in fact the

Appellant has completed two years, 1 month and 27 days of

punishment. He therefore submits that in fact the Appellant is

about to complete entire punishment including the punishment of

imprisonment to be undergone for default of payment of fine and

the same has also been substantially completed.

21. The learned Sessions Court has imposed fine of

Rs.1,00,000/- under Section 498-A of the IPC and directed to

undergo simple imprisonment for six months in default of the

Page 12 of 14
Dusane

::: Uploaded on - 22/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2025 08:22:01 :::
915 APEAL 23.2019 JUDG.DOC

same. It is significant to note that the learned Sessions Court also

imposed fine of Rs.50,000/- under Section 324 of IPC and for that

also in default, simple imprisonment for six months is granted.

Thus, it is clear that for default in payment of fine of Rs.1,00,000/-

and Rs.50,000/- same punishment is imposed. Thus, the discretion

exercised is not judicious and reasonable. Although the Judgment

and Order dated 19th December 2018 of the learned Sessions Judge

of conviction is confirmed as far as sentence with respect to

imprisonment in default of payment of fine the same is required to

be modified. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed by

modifying the clause Nos. 1 and 2 of the operative part of the

impugned order of learned Sessions Court as follows:

ORDER

1. The Criminal Appeal No.23 of 2019 is partly allowed. Clause

Nos. (1) and (2) of the Judgment and Order dated 19th

December 2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Solapur

in Sessions Case No. 323 of 2014 are modified as follows.

(1) Accused no.1- Rakesh Laxman Gaikwad is

hereby convicted for the offence punishable under

Sec.324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to

Dusane

915 APEAL 23.2019 JUDG.DOC

suffer rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one) year and to

pay fine of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand

only), in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for

3 (three) months.

(2) Accused no.1 Rakesh Laxman Gaikwad is

hereby convicted for the offence punishable under

Sec.506 (II) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced

to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 (two) months

and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand

only), in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for

1 (one) month.

(2). It is clarified that there is no change in Clause Nos.

(3) to (11) of the Judgment and Order dated 19th December

2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Solapur in

22. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed and

disposed of as above.