Bombay High Court
Ghagru S/O Bhimrao Atram vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Bhari Tah.Jivti ... on 13 November, 2025
Author: Anil L. Pansare
Bench: Anil L. Pansare
2025:BHC-NAG:11986-DB
1 jg.cri.appeal 89.2021.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, AT NAGPUR.
Criminal Appeal No. 89 of 2021
Ghagru S/o Bhimrao Atram
Occ :- Agriculturist, Aged about 24 years,
Convict No. C-10426,
Detained in Nagpur Central Prison,
R/o. Sorekasa, Tahsil :- Jivti,
Tq. and District - Chandrapur. ... Appellant
- Versus -
State of Maharashtra,
Through P.S.O., Police Station Bhari,
Tahsil Jivti,
District Chandrapur. ... Respondent
-----------------------------------------------------
Mr. M. N. Ali, Advocate for the appellant
Mr. S. S. Doifode, APP for the State/respondent
-----------------------------------------------------
CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE AND
RAJ. D. WAKODE, JJ.
Date of reserving judgment : 11-11-2025
Date of pronouncing judgment : 13-11 2025
JUDGMENT (Per : ANIL L. PANSARE, J.)
The appellant and co-accused, namely, Laxman Bhimrao
Atram were chargesheeted for the offence punishable under Sections
302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). They
faced trial in Sessions Case No. 29/2017. The Sessions Court,
Chandrapur, vide judgment dated 10-6-2019, held appellant guilty of
2 jg.cri.appeal 89.2021.odt
offence punishable under Section 302 and 201 of the IPC. The
co-accused, however, was held guilty only for the offence punishable
under Section 201 of the IPC. The appellant has been sentenced to
suffer imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 3,000/- for the offence
under Section 302 of the IPC. He has been sentenced to suffer three
years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 201
of the IPC. The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment and hence
present appeal. Co-accused has not filed appeal.
2. We have heard Mr. Mir Nagman Ali, learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr. S. S. Doifode, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
(APP) for the State/respondent.
3. The case is based on extrajudicial confession made before
P.W. 4. As such, learned APP submits that the case is based on
circumstantial evidence, however, we do not find that such case has
been made out through any witness. As regards extrajudicial
confession, the argument is that it is inadmissible.
4. We may note here that there is no serious dispute about
the homicidal death of the deceased, who was wife of appellant and was
found hanging to a tree. The allegation is that appellant and
co-accused have, on 3-11-2016, at the field of appellant situated at
3 jg.cri.appeal 89.2021.odt
Sorekasa, Tahsil Jivti, District Chandrapur killed his wife by pressing
her neck and by hanging her to a tree projecting suicide to escape legal
punishment.
5. Since the appellant has not disputed homicidal death, we
need not examine the said issue. The question, however, is whether
there is sufficient evidence to show appellant's involvement in the
crime. We have gone through the impugned judgment, evidence and
documents. We will refer to the same to the extent necessary to decide
whether appellant is guilty of committing murder of his own wife.
6. P.W. 1 is father of deceased. He deposed that his daughter
Nirmala was earlier married to Tukaram Atram. He died due to T.B.
Thereafter, Nirmala got married to appellant Ghagru. He further
deposed that Nirmala and appellant were in love affair and Nirmala
became pregnant. After marriage, she was residing with appellant. He
deposed that appellant asked Nirmala to go to field for plucking cotton.
Appellant killed Nirmala and hanged her on the tree near the river. In
the cross-examination, this part of his evidence as regards the incident
is shown to be omission. He further admitted that police told him that
Ghagru hanged Nirmala and hence he deposed so. He also deposed
that relations between appellant and Nirmala were good. Thus P.W. 1
4 jg.cri.appeal 89.2021.odt
has not seen the incident. His evidence, therefore, is of no use, rather, it
shows that appellant and his wife were in cordial relations.
7. P.W. 2 is neighbour of Nirmala. On the day of incident, he
went to his field to graze bullocks. He came back home in the evening.
Thereafter he came to know that Nirmala died of hanging on a tree. He
and other villagers went to the spot. They saw dead body of Nirmala
hanging to tree near nullah. He then deposed that field of appellant is
abutting his field. The prosecution declared him hostile and cross-
examined him. P.W. 2 denied that he met appellant and asked why
Nirmala is sleeping, and further asked as to what happened to her. He
denied that appellant told him that he and co-accused killed Nirmala.
He admitted that on 4-11-2016, he went to the field to graze bullocks,
returned home at 8.00 Hours. That time, he came to know that dead
body of Nirmala is hanging on a tree near nullah.
8. Thus, on one hand, the prosecution has given suggestion
that P.W. 2 met appellant and enquired about Nirmala and on the other
hand, the prosecution put up a case that on 4-11-2016, he came back
home and thereafter came to know about death of Nirmala. Such
evidence will prove nothing about involvement of the appellant.
5 jg.cri.appeal 89.2021.odt
9. P.W. 3 is another villager, who is acquainted with appellant
and Nirmala. He deposed that Nirmala's mother told villagers that
appellant took her and hanged her. The villagers then approached the
appellant and enquired about Nirmala, to which, he showed ignorance.
His evidence is, therefore, also of no use as he has not seen the incident.
10. P.W. 4 is panch witness to spot. The spot was shown by the
appellant. He deposed that accused persons disclosed on spot that they
killed Nirmala by pressing her mouth. The defence took objection to
record evidence. The trial Court has, accordingly, noted so. We find
that objection was valid. The confession, if any, before police is
inadmissible. Such evidence, which is inadmissible, should not have
been recorded. Learned counsel for the appellant has rightly argued
that such confession cannot be said to be extrajudicial confession
because the same was made in the presence of police after being
arrested and taken to spot of incident.
11. P.W. 5 is Deputy Superintendent of Police. He prepared spot
panchanama. He has prepared seizure panchanama of the articles
found at the spot. He conducted investigation and filed charge-sheet.
12. P.W. 6 is Police Sub Inspector, who registered merg and
conducted preliminary enquiry.
6 jg.cri.appeal 89.2021.odt
13. This is how, the prosecution led evidence to prove the
involvement of appellant in the crime.
14. Learned APP submits that the trial Court has rightly
convicted the appellant, taking aid of Section 106 of the Evidence Act
because death occurred in the field owned by the appellant.
15. We do not find merit in the submission. It is well settled
that before invoking Section 106 of Evidence Act, the prosecution is
under obligation to establish involvement of accused in the crime, then
only can burden be shifted upon the accused.
16. In the present case, the evidence indicate that relations
between the appellant and Nirmala were cordial. In fact, they were in
love with each other. Nirmala became pregnant. They were residing
together and had good relations. It is nobody's case that their relations
were strained. None of the witnesses have deposed that on the date of
incident, they have seen appellant and Nirmala together in the field
allegedly owned by the appellant. That being so, merely because
Nirmala having found hanging to the tree near nullah, which is in close
proximity of appellant's alleged field, will not be sufficient to jump to
the conclusion that appellant played vital role in the alleged crime and
to shift burden upon him under Section 106 of the Evidence Act. The
7 jg.cri.appeal 89.2021.odt
trial Court committed manifest error of law in shifting the burden on
appellant in term of Section 106.
17. The trial Court has also taken aid of Chemical Analyser's
report. The blood group of appellant is 'B', that of co-accused is 'O'. The
trial Court took note of the fact that nicker of deceased and her dupatta
were stained with blood, having Blood Group 'A'. Similarly, clothes of
appellant were also stained with blood of Group 'A'. The trial Court then
observed that appellant has not explained the aforesaid incriminating
evidence. Accordingly, the trial Court held that Nirmala had Blood
Group 'A'. Said blood was found on the clothes of appellant and,
therefore, he was in physical contact with Nirmala.
18. This finding is apparently erroneous in as much as it is not
even the case of prosecution that blood sample of deceased was taken
and sent for chemical analysis. In other words, there is nothing on
record to show that Nirmala's blood group was 'A'.
19. Further, learned counsel for the appellant has invited our
attention to clothes' seizure panchanama to show that the blood stains
on the clothes were not found. Learned counsel submits that in the
clothes seizure panchanama, the Investigating Officer and panch have
not stated that clothes of appellant were stained with blood, which
8 jg.cri.appeal 89.2021.odt
means that there were no blood stains. In such circumstances, the
prosecution was under obligation to show as to how blood was found
on the clothes of appellant when it was sent to Forensic Science
Laboratory.
20. We find substance in the aforesaid argument. The trial
Court has not given any reason on this aspect and in absence of
justification by the prosecution as to how the blood stains were found
subsequent to recovery of clothes, the trial Court could not have
connected appellant with the crime on the basis of blood stain of
common blood group found on the clothes of deceased and appellant.
21. Put altogether, the trial Court's approach is contrary to the
Evidence Act. The trial Court failed to assess the evidence in the light of
well settled principles of law. There is absolutely no incriminating
material against the appellant. The finding of trial Court that he is
guilty of murder is apparently illegal. The judgment is liable to be
quashed and set aside. Hence, we pass following order.
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed.
(ii) The judgment and order dated 10-6-2019 passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur in Sessions Case No. 29/2017 as
9 jg.cri.appeal 89.2021.odt
regards appellant is quashed and set aside. Appellant Ghagru S/o
Bhimrao Atram is acquitted for offence punishable under Sections 302
and 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC. He shall be released
forthwith, if not required in any other case.
(RAJ D. WAKODE, J.) (Anil L. Pansare, J.)
None present for the appellant. It is unfortunate that when
the appeal is fixed for pronouncement of judgment, none appears. The
conduct is deprecated. Counsel for the appellant should be careful.
(RAJ D. WAKODE, J.) (Anil L. Pansare, J.)
wasnik
Signed by: Mr. A. Y. Wasnik
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 13/11/2025 18:34:18
