Bombay High Court
Kawadu @ Kavish S/O Shankarrao ... vs State Of Mah., Thr. P.S.O. P.S. ... on 10 October, 2025
Author: Anil L. Pansare
Bench: Anil L. Pansare
2025:BHC-NAG:10572-DB
-- 1 -- Cr.Appeal 202.2020 (J) (1).odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 202 OF 2020
Kawadu @ Kavish S/o Shankarrao Kshirsagar
aged about 30 years,
R/o Gajanan Nagar, Mauli Tekdi, Wardha .. Appellant
Tahsil and District - Wardha
Versus
The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer, Police Station, .. Respondents
Ramnagar, Wardha,
Tahsil and District - Wardha
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. R.M.Daga, Advocate for appellant.
Mr. S.S.Doifode A.P.P. for respondent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE AND
SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBARE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : SEPTEMBER 29, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : OCTOBER 10, 2025
JUDGMENT (Per : Siddheshwar S. Thombre, J.)
(1) Heard Mr.R.M.Daga, learned counsel for the appellant and
Mr.S.S.Doifode, learned APP for the respondent-State.
(2) Present appeal is filed against the judgment and order of
conviction dated 14/02/2020 passed by the District Judge-1 and Additional
Sessions Judge, Wardha in Sessions case No. 110/2016, whereby the
appellant/accused was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 450,
302, 326 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
PAGE 1 OF 21
-- 2 -- Cr.Appeal 202.2020 (J) (1).odt
The facts of prosecution's case, in brief, are as under :-
(3) The informant PW-2 Mamta filed a complaint stating therein that
on 29/08/2016 at 8.30 a.m. when she was present with her sister Sangita at her
house, the accused-appellant came in front of her house and started abusing her
for not returning his money. Thereafter the accused entered the house of Sangita
and stabbed her with a knife on her neck and stomach. When informant Mamta
tried to rescue her, he assaulted her also and again assaulted her sister on her
hand and blade of knife pierced her left wrist. Thereafter the informant Mamta
and her sister Sangita ran outside the house in order to save their lives, however,
the accused pulled Sangita by her hair, dragged and pushed her on the floor
outside the house, lifted a huge stone which was kept there and banged it on her
head four times, due to which Sangita died on the spot.
(4) After the receipt of report from informant Mamta, FIR
No.148/2016 came to be registered under Sections 452, 302, 326 and 504 of the
IPC. Initially investigation was carried out by API Nilesh Eknath Kele and
thereafter, PI Mr.Vijay Ruprao Magar, conducted further investigation and Charge-
Sheet was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class. As the
offences are exclusively triable by the learned Sessions Court, the case was
committed to the Sessions Court.
(5) Charge was framed against the accused-appellant for the
offences punishable under Sections 450, 302, 326 and 201 of IPC and the same
was read over to him in vernacular, to which the accused appellant pleaded not
PAGE 2 OF 21
-- 3 -- Cr.Appeal 202.2020 (J) (1).odt
guilty and claimed to be tried.
(6) To prove the guilt of the accused the prosecution has examined
PW-1 Manoj Dhanraj Shende (panch witness to recovery proceedings u/s. 27
I.E.Act), PW-2 Mamata Ramesh Dhamankar (complainant / injured eye-witness),
PW-3 Parasram Motiram Nande (panch witness to inquest panchnama), PW-4
Ranjeet Govardhan Patankar (panch witness), PW-5 Bahaddursingh Shyamlalji
Panchale (panch witness to arrest form), PW-6 Poonam Mangesh Rakhunde
(eye-witness), PW-7 Dnyaneshwar Manikrao Wat (eye-witness), PW-8 Shailendra
Namdeorao Deshmukh (Revenue Inspector), PW-9 PC Dinesh Ramdhan Chavan
(carrier), PW-10 Dr. Kalpana Nanaji Sunatkari (examined the injured /
complainant), PW-11 Dr. Indrajeet Laxmanrao Khandekar (treated complainant /
injured), PW-12 Dr. Sunil Pandurang Ghadge (treated complainant / injured),
PW-13 PC Sagar Rameshwar Sangole (clicked photographs Exh.96 to 113),
PW-14 Dr. Shrikant Govind Indurkar (Prepared PM report Exh.116 and Query
report Exh.118), PW-15 API Nilesh Eknath Kele (IO) and PW-16 PI Vijay Ruprao
Magar (IO).
The prosecution also relied upon the documentary evidence.
Statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded and after
considering the evidence led by the prosecution, learned trial Court convicted the
accused for the offences punishable under Sections 450, 302, 326 and 201 of the
IPC and thereafter, the appellant preferred the appeal before this Court.
(7) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that from the
PAGE 3 OF 21
-- 4 -- Cr.Appeal 202.2020 (J) (1).odt
evidence adduced by the prosecution, it has failed to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt. It was further submitted that learned trial Court has not
appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective. It has not taken into
consideration the defence of false implication raised by the appellant. It was the
defence of the accused that there was a love affair between husband of Sangita
and PW-2 Mamta. On the date of incident, Mamta caught hold of Sangita and
decided to get rid of her. Therefore, the husband of Sangita assaulted her and
has falsely implicated the appellant in the present case.
(8) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that evidence of
PW-2 Mamta is full of omissions and contradictions. He further stated that she
did not inform the police about the details of loan transaction. The conduct of
PW-2 was highly suspicious and looking at her evidence, it can be said that she
was an eye witness to the incident being relative of the deceased.
(9) Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that PW-6
Poonam Rakhunde has deposed against the accused and her statement was
recorded on 01/09/2016 and as per her version, Mamta had informed that the
accused-appellant had assaulted Sangita by means of knife. He further submitted
that PW-7 Dnyaneshwar Wat, deposed against the appellant and his statement
was recorded on 01/09/2016. There was no reference of the presence of PW-6
and PW-7 either at the time of or after the incident. He further invited our
attention to the statement of PW-14 Dr. Shrikant Indurkar, who performed the
postmortem of Sangita who deposed that other injuries were caused due to
scuffle. He further stated that PW-15 API Kele deposed that deceased's dying
PAGE 4 OF 21
-- 5 -- Cr.Appeal 202.2020 (J) (1).odt
declaration Exh.148 dated 27/08/2016 in which Sangita had stated that she was
having love affair with the appellant/accused and the motive behind crime was
money borrowed by Sangita's husband.
(10) Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that there is
delay in recording the statement of witnesses which has not been explained.
From the testimony of witnesses PW-6 and PW-7, it can be said that they are not
reliable and he submitted that the appeal be allowed and appellant be acquitted
from the charges.
(11) On the contrary, learned APP submitted that the prosecution
examined in all 16 witnesses and proved the motive for committing the offence.
He submitted that PW-2 Mamta, who was also injured witness, narrated the entire
incident. He further submitted that the accused came with premeditation and
assaulted with intention and with the knowledge that such bodily injury is likely to
cause death. Furthermore, he submitted that the learned trial Court has
considered all these aspects of the matter and he prayed to confirm the order of
conviction passed by the trial Court.
(12) Having heard learned counsel for the parties, following points
arise for our consideration :-
1. Whether the prosecution proved that the death of the deceased
Sangita is homicidal ?
2. Whether the act of appellant causing bodily injury is with an
PAGE 5 OF 21
-- 6 -- Cr.Appeal 202.2020 (J) (1).odt
intention amounting to a murder punishable under Section 302
of the IPC ?
3. Whether the accused on 29/08/2016 at 8.30a.m. committed the
offence of trespass under Section 450 of the IPC by entering in
the building in possession of the Sangita ?
4. Whether the prosecution proved that the accused caused
grievous hurt by means of dangerous weapon to Mamta PW-2
and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section
326 of the IPC ?
5. Whether prosecution proved that the accused committed an
offence punishable under Section 201 of the IPC ?
6. Whether any interference is required in the impugned
judgment ?
As to point No.1 :-
(13) The prosecution examined PW-14 Dr. Shrikant Indurkar, along
with gynaecologist Dr. Krishna Shende who prepared the postmortem report. As
per the postmortem report, following injuries were recorded :-
"1) CLW left temporal parital area 8 cm 8 cm bone deep.
2) CLW over root of nose 2 x 0.5 cm bone deep.
3) CLW over left orbit lateral aspect 2 x 1.5 cm.
4) Stab wound 4 cm. x 2 cm. heart deep.
5) Stab wound 2 cm. below to lateral injury no.4. Right side 3.5
cm x 2 cm. Liver deep
6) CLW over left forearm anterior area 3 x cm.2 cm.x 2 cm.
7) Stab wound upper 2/3 lower 1/3 junction left forearm. (Piercing
injury through dorsal to volar aspect (dorsal 3 x 1 cm.
Communicating with volar wound 2 x 1 cm. and the knife was in
situ).
PAGE 6 OF 21
-- 7 -- Cr.Appeal 202.2020 (J) (1).odt
8) CLW left ulnar border lower 1/3 4 cm x 2 x 3 cm.
9) CLW left upper 2/3 lower 1/3 area arm dorsal aspect 5 x 2 x 0.5
cm.
10) Depressed fracture temporo parietal aspect left side.
11) Depressed fracture naxilla along with roof of mouth separating
upper jaw in two halves from upper incisors,
12) Incise wound over neck horizontal below thyroid cartriledge
8 cm x 4 cm x muscle deep.
2. On examination of brain and skull, I found extradural
haemetoma. Left temporal parietal area 2 cm x 1 cm. Cerebral
laceration over left parito temporal lobe. 3 cm x 2 cm x 1 cm. with
intra cerebral bleed.
3. On examination of thorax, I found haemo-thorax around
pericardium (around the heart). The pericardium (covering of
heart) was torn at apex and there was incise wound over apex
3 x 2 cm. full thickness.
4. On examination of the abdomen, I found that the abdomenal
cavity is filled with blood. Stomach was filled with partly digested
food. There was incise wound over right lobe of the liver antero
superior aspect 2 x 1 x 1 cm.
Upper jaw was fractured slitting in to two halves from incisors."
(14) On perusal of the postmortem report Exh.116, the cause of death
was head injury with fracture of temporo parietal bone (left) with cerebral
laceration over parito temporal lobe left side with extra dural haematoma with intra
cerebral bleeding with stab injury to heart with hamo-thorax with liver injury with
haemo peritonium with multiple CLWs over left forearm, neck, chest and face with
fracture maxilla with shock due to above injuries. All these injuries were
antermortem in nature.
PAGE 7 OF 21
-- 8 -- Cr.Appeal 202.2020 (J) (1).odt
(15) PW-14 Dr. Shrikant Indurkar, in his examination in chief, has
stated that they handed over knife that was inserted in the wrist of the deceased,
as well as her cloth to the Police Officer after sealing them. He further stated that
he received a letter dated 06/09/2016 from Police Station, Ramnagar for giving
query report. Along with this letter, stone and knife used in the offence were also
given to him in sealed condition along with postmortem report. PW-14 further
stated that he examined knife, which was brought by the police constable Vijay on
07/09/2016 and stated that it was sharp, pointed and dangerous kind of weapon.
He also examined weapon and stone. He opined that the injury sustained by the
deceased were possible by the above two weapons and injuries mentioned in the
postmortem report were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death
and accordingly, he issued query report at Exh.118. He further admitted that the
stab injuries mentioned in the postmortem report can be caused by knife which
was sharp and pointed. In cross-examination he has stated that it is him who
removed the knife blade from the wrist and it was full of blood and defence has
not brought any evidence to disbelieve the testimony of this witness. It is not the
case of the appellant that deceased suffered accidental or suicidal death,
therefore, point No.1 is answered in the affirmative.
As to points No.2 to 5 :-
(16) We are referring to Section 299 and Section 300 of IPC to
determine whether prosecution proved that the appellant/accused assaulted the
deceased with an intention that such bodily injuries can cause death and with
knowledge that his act of assault amounts to culpable homicide, amounting to
PAGE 8 OF 21
-- 9 -- Cr.Appeal 202.2020 (J) (1).odt
murder.
(17) Section 299 of the IPC deals with culpable homicide which reads
as under :-
"299. Culpable homicide.--
Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention
of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily
injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he
is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of
culpable homicide.
Illustrations
(a) A lays sticks and turf over a pit, with the intention of
thereby causing death, or with the knowledge that death is
likely to be thereby caused. Z believing the ground to be firm,
treads on it, falls in and is killed. A has committed the offence
of culpable homicide.
(b) A knows Z to be behind a bush. B does not know it A,
intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely to cause Z's death,
induces B to fire at the bush. B fires and kills Z. Here B may be
guilty of no offence; but A has committed the offence of
culpable homicide.
(c) A, by shooting at a fowl with intent to kill and steal it, kills
who is behind a bush; A not knowing that he was there. Here,
although A was doing an unlawful act, he was not guilty of
culpable homicide, as he did not intend to kill B, or to cause
death by doing an act that he knew was likely to cause death.
Explanation 1.-- A person who causes bodily injury to another
who is labouring under a disorder, disease or bodily infirmity,
and thereby accelerates the death of that other, shall be
deemed to have caused his death.
Explanation 2.-- Where death is caused by bodily injury, the
person who causes such bodily injury shall be deemed to have
caused the death, although by resorting to proper remedies
and skillful treatment the death might have been prevented.
Explanation 3.-- The causing of the death of child in the
mother's womb is not homicide. But it may amount to culpable
homicide to cause the death of a living child, if any part of that
PAGE 9 OF 21
-- 10 -- Cr.Appeal 202.2020 (J) (1).odt
child has been brought forth, though the child may not have
breathed or been completely born."
(18) Section 299 of the IPC explains culpable homicide as, causing
death by doing an act with the intention of causing death or with the intention of
causing such a bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that
the act committed is likely to cause death. The first two categories require an
intention to cause death or likely to cause death. While the third category confines
itself to the knowledge that the act committed is likely to cause death. In view of
the facts of this case, the offence of culpable homicide is clearly made out.
(19) We further need to refer Section 300 of IPC, which reads as
under :-
"300. Murder.--
Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable
homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is
done with the intention of causing death, or
2ndly.-- If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily
injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of
the person to whom the harm is caused, or
3rdly.-- If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to
any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or
4thly-- If the person committing the act knows that it is so
imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause
death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and
commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of
causing death or such injury as aforesaid.
Illustrations
(a) A shoots Z with the intention of killing him. Z dies in
consequence. A commits murder.
PAGE 10 OF 21
-- 11 -- Cr.Appeal 202.2020 (J) (1).odt
(b) A, knowing that Z is labouring under such a disease that a
blow is likely to cause his death, strikes him with the intention
of causing bodily injury. Z dies in consequence of the blow. A is
guilty of murder, although the blow might not have been
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of
a person in a sound state of health. But if A, not knowing that Z
is labouring under any disease, gives him such a blow as
would not in the ordinary course of nature kill a person in a
sound state of health, here A, although he may intend to cause
bodily injury, is not guilty of murder, if he did not intend to cause
death, or such bodily injury as in the ordinary course of nature
would cause death.
(c) A intentionally gives Z a sword-cut or club-wound sufficient
to cause the death of a man in the ordinary course of nature. Z
dies in consequence. Here, A is guilty of murder, although he
may not have intended to cause Z's death.
(d) A without any excuse fires a loaded cannon into a crowd of
persons and kills one of them. A is guilty of murder, although he
may not have had a premeditated design to kill any particular
individual.
Exception 1.-- When culpable homicide is not murder.--
Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived
of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation,
causes the death of the person who gave the provocation or
causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident.
The above exception is subject to the following provisos:
First-- That the provocation is not sought or voluntarily
provoked by the offender as an excuse for killing or doing harm
to any person.
Secondly-- That the provocation is not given by anything done
in obedience to the law, or by a public servant in the lawful
exercise of the powers of such public servant.
Thirdly-- That the provocation is not given by anything done in
the lawful exercise of the right of private defence.
Explanation.-- Whether the provocation was grave and sudden
enough to prevent the offence from amounting to murder is a
question of fact.
Illustrations
(a) A, under the influence of passion excited by a provocation
given by Z, intentionally kills. Y, Z's child. This is murder, in as
PAGE 11 OF 21
-- 12 -- Cr.Appeal 202.2020 (J) (1).odt
much as the provocation was not given by the child, and the
death of the child was not caused by accident or misfortune in
doing an act caused by the provocation.
(b) Y gives grave and sudden provocation to A. A, on this
provocation, fires a pistol at Y, neither intending nor knowing
himself to be likely to kill Z, who is near him, but out of sight. A
kills Z. Here A has not committed murder, but merely culpable
homicide.
(c) A is lawfully arrested by Z, a bailiff. A is excited to sudden
and violent passion by the arrest, and kills Z. This is murder, in
as much as the provocation was given by a thing done by a
public servant in the exercise of his powers.
(d) A appears as witness before Z, a Magistrate, Z says that he
does not believe a word of A's deposition, and that A has
perjured himself. A is moved to sudden passion by these
words, and kills Z. This is murder.
(e) A attempts to pull Z's nose, Z, in the exercise of the right of
private defence, lays hold of A to prevent him from doing so. A
is moved to sudden and violent passion in consequence, and
kills Z. This is murder, in as much as the provocation was given
by a thing done in the exercise of the right of private defence.
(f) Z strikes B. B is by this provocation excited to violent rage.
A, a bystander, intending to take advantage of B's rage, and to
cause him to kill Z, puts a knife into B's hand for that purpose.
B kills Z with the knife. Here B may have committed only
culpable homicide, but A is guilty of murder.
Exception 2.-- Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender,
in the exercise in good faith of the right of private defence of
person or property, exceeds the power given to him by law and
causes the death of the person against whom he is exercising
such right of defence without premeditation, and without any
intention of doing more harm than is necessary for the purpose
of such defence.
Illustration
Z attempts to horsewhip A, not in such a manner as to cause
grievous hurt to A. A draws out a pistol. Z persists in the
assault. A believing in good faith that he can by no other means
prevent himself from being horsewhipped, shoots Z dead. A
has not committed murder, but only culpable homicide.
Exception 3.-- Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender,
being a public servant or aiding a public servant acting for the
PAGE 12 OF 21
-- 13 -- Cr.Appeal 202.2020 (J) (1).odt
advancement of public justice, exceeds the powers given to
him by law, and causes death by doing an act which he, in
good faith, believes to be lawful and necessary for the due
discharge of his duty as such public servant and without ill-will
towards the person whose death is caused.
Exception 4.-- Culpable homicide is not murder if it is
committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat
of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender
having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual
manner.
Explanation.-- It is immaterial in such cases which party offers
the provocation or commits the first assault.
Exception 5.-- Culpable homicide is not murder when the
person whose death is caused, being above the age of
eighteen years, suffers death or takes the risk of death with his
own consent.
Illustration
A, by instigation, voluntarily causes, Z, a person under
eighteen years of age to commit suicide. Here, on account of
Z's youth, he was incapable of giving consent to his own death;
A has therefore abetted murder."
(20) Section 300 of IPC, explains murder and it provides that culpable
homicide is a murder, if the act by which the death is caused, is done with the
intention of causing the death, or the act complained of, is so eminently
dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death, or such bodily injury as is
likely to cause death.
(21) PW-2 has narrated the entire incident. She had stated that two
days prior to the incident, there was quarrel between accused-appellant and
husband of deceased Sangita on the ground of borrowed money. She had further
stated that on the day of incident she was present in the house, the accused-
appellant came in front of her house and started abusing her for returning his
PAGE 13 OF 21
-- 14 -- Cr.Appeal 202.2020 (J) (1).odt
money and assaulted Sangita by means of knife. He stabbed the knife on her
neck and stomach. When the informant tried to rescue her, he assaulted her also
and again assaulted her sister on her hand, due to which blade of knife pierced
her left wrist. The informant and her sister ran outside the house in order to save
their lives, however, the accused pulled Sangita by her hair, dragged her and
pushed her on the floor outside the house, lifted a huge stone which was kept
there and banged it on her head four times due to which Sangita died on the spot.
When PW-2 Mamta tried to save her, he also assaulted her right palm and little
finger of left hand. Though in cross-examination, the defence has brought some
omissions, but those omissions are restricted to the word 'waist' only. Even it was
tried to suggest that the PW-2 was having a love affair with the deceased
Sangita's husband and on that count it was suggested that Sangita's husband
committed a murder. Except bare suggestion, nothing incriminating was brought
by the defence to disbelieve the testimony of PW-2 and therefore, being injured
eye witness of the incident her testimony is trustworthy. Even her statement
under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. is also corroborated and more particularly, her
testimony is corroborated by the testimony of PW-6 and PW-7.
(22) The intention of the accused to assault on vital parts of the body
of the deceased has been proved and the bodily injury inflicted on the deceased,
was in the ordinary course of nature to cause of death. Hence, the prosecution
proved the case under Section 302 of the IPC.
(23) PW-6 Poonam Rakhunde deposed that she knew the deceased
Sangita. She used to reside beside her house and stated that on the day of
PAGE 14 OF 21
-- 15 -- Cr.Appeal 202.2020 (J) (1).odt
incident at about 8.30a.m. to 8.45a.m. when she was at her house, she heard a
loud screaming and shouting and when she came to her house, she saw Kawadu
dragging Sangita out of her house and pushing her and banging the stone two to
three times on her face and head. Her sister Mamta (complainant) was also there
and was calling out for help. At that time people (including Atul Ghonge,
Dnyaneshwar Wagh, Mukesh Masaram etc.) had also gathered there. The
accused-appellant abused and fled away after seeing them. When she went near
Sangita, she saw that Sangita had injuries on her head, stomach, wrists, face and
neck and knife blade was inserted across her left wrist. Her statement was
recorded under Section 164, which was duly proved. The prosecution has brought
on record that the conduct of the PW-2 is natural one and considering the nature
of the assault, it has been proved by the prosecution that she tried to intervene
and save her and in that attempt she suffered injuries, which were duly proved by
the prosecution. Even as per the discovery of the clothes of the accused and his
act of fleeing away from the spot, prosecution has duly proved the offence under
Section 202 of the IPC.
(24) The defence has not brought any incriminating material to
disbelieve the testimony of PW-6. In fact being neighbor, she is a natural and
independent witness, who narrated that when she came out of her house, she
saw that the accused assaulting the deceased Sangita and therefore, her
testimony is trustworthy.
(25) The prosecution examined PW-7 Dnyaneshwar Wat, who
deposed that he knew Sangita, who used to reside near his house and he
PAGE 15 OF 21
-- 16 -- Cr.Appeal 202.2020 (J) (1).odt
identified accused Kawadu before the Court and stated that he used to reside just
10 feet away from his house. On the day of incident at about 8.00a.m. to
8.30a.m. when he was at his house, he heard loud screaming and shouting and
he came out, he saw that accused Kawadu dragging Sangita out of her house.
He pushed her on the ground and lifted stone and smashed it on her head two to
three times. People gathered there and accused fled away from the spot. He
admitted that Sangita's sister PW2 was present there and she was calling out for
help and when he went near Sangita he saw that her face and head was
smashed due to stone injuries, she had stab injuries on wrist and neck. A knife
blade was inserted across her left wrist. She was lying in a pool of blood. His
statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. was duly proved at Exh.63. In his cross-
examination, defence has not brought any material to discard the testimony of
witness. Like PW-6, he is also an independent witness and being a neighbor
who deposed about the actual incident which took place on the said date and
therefore, testimony of PW-7 is trustworthy and reliable.
(26) In view of the statement of PW-2, PW-6 and PW-7, the
prosecution has proved that the accused committed murder of the deceased
Sangita. Prosecution has brought on record the motive, intention of the accused-
appellant that he caused bodily injury which is sufficient in the ordinary course of
nature to cause death and which in all probability would cause death. PW-14
Medical Officer, conducted the postmortem and prepared the report. Coupled
with testimony of PW-2, PW-6 and PW-7 along with PW-14 the intention and
knowledge of the accused is clearly established.
PAGE 16 OF 21
-- 17 -- Cr.Appeal 202.2020 (J) (1).odt
(27) The prosecution has proved the recovery through the PW-1
Manoj Shende under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. PW-3 Parasram
Nande, was a panch witness to the inquest panchnama. PW-4 Ranjeet Patankar,
PW-5 Bahaddursingh and PW-8 Shailendra Deshmukh are panch witnesses.
PW-9 is a Police Constable Dinesh Chavan and PW-13 is a Police Constable
Sagar Sangole, who clicked the photographs. As far as testimony of PW-4 and
PW-5 are concerned, the prosecution has proved memorandum of statement and
therefore, PW-1 has proved seizure memo/panchnama of the burnt shirt of the
accused, as well as the blood-stained jeans which were recovered at the instance
of the accused as per procedure under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.
(28) The inquest panchnama and spot panchnama are duly proved by
testimony of PW-3 Parasram, who has categorically deposed that the spot of
incident was shown by Mamta Dhamankar. On reaching the spot, they saw the
handle of a knife and a big stone lying on the floor. Blood stains were present on
the spot. Thereafter, they entered the house and saw the blood stains at various
places inside the house also. He has described the furniture items at the spot
which are in consonance with the photographs of the spot. The blood stains were
present in the kitchen and another room. The police in his presence seized
blood-stained mud, simple mud, blood-stained piece of broken flooring, knife
handle and the stone from the spot in the presence of panchas and sealed all the
above articles in different plastic pouches as per seizure memo (Exh.38).
(29) PW-9 PC Dinesh Chavan, deposed that he deposited muddemal
article for C.A. and submitted the C.A. report dated 09/03/2017. As per C.A.
PAGE 17 OF 21
-- 18 -- Cr.Appeal 202.2020 (J) (1).odt
report, human blood was detected on all the articles such as knife blade, blouse,
petticoat, saree and nicker of the deceased, frock and leggings of the injured,
jeans of the accused which were recovered at his instance apart from earth,
pieces of concrete and knife handle. Even as per the DNA profiling report, the
blood found on the stone and knife matches with the blood of the deceased.
(30) The prosecution proved the spot of incident through PW-8
Shailesh Deshmukh at Exh.70 and in cross-examination this witness has deposed
that he drew map of the spot on the basis of the information given by the police.
(31) The prosecution has proved through PW-14 Medical Officer, who
recovered knife which was pierced in the wrist of deceased while performing
postmortem as well as PW-15 API Nilesh Kele, who immediately reached on the
spot and subsequently PW-16 PI Vijay Magar, who conducted the investigation
and through PW-16, prosecution proved the recovery of the weapon, discovery of
the cloths and therefore, after going through the evidence led by the prosecution it
has been proved that only the accused i.e. appellant herein who has committed
the murder of deceased Sangita.
(32) It has come in the evidence of PW-2 Mamta, who is injured eye
witness that when she tried to save the deceased Sangita, the accused has
assaulted her and the same thing has come in the evidence of PW-10 Dr.Kalpana
Sunatkari, who examined injured complainant, as well as PW-11 Dr.Indrajit
Khandekar, who examined the injured complainant and PW-12 Dr. Sunil Ghadge,
who treated the injured. It has come in the evidence of PW-10 Dr. Kalpana
PAGE 18 OF 21
-- 19 -- Cr.Appeal 202.2020 (J) (1).odt
Sunatkari, Medical Officer at General Hospital, Wardha, that on 29/08/2016,
injured Mamta was referred by Police Station, Wardha and she examined her and
found following injures :-
1) A CLW on right palm near wrist joint, size 3cm x 0.5cm.
2) Left little finger CLW 4 cm x 1 cm. deep till bony involvement.
3) Swelling at left little finger.
After examination, she suggested Orthopedic Surgeon's opinion
and X-ray vide Exh. 80. She treatedher for her injuries and prepared
injury report (Exh.81).
(33) The prosecution has further examined PW-11 Dr. Khandekar, who
stated that on 30/08/2016 PW-2 Mamata was admitted to his hospital, he
examined her and issued final report at Exh.84 and found following injuries :-
1) Fracture of phalanges of left 5th digit. The injury was grievous in nature.
He had also examined her X-ray reports which he received from
the department of Radiology. She was initially treated at General Hospital,
Wardha. The discharge summary is at Exh.85.
(34) The prosecution has also examined PW-12 Dr. Ghadge, who
submitted a report at Exh.91 and he stated that Mamata had suffered a fracture of
5th proximal and middle phalynx near base.
(35) Prosecution proved that the accused committed house trespass
in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment for life and ingredients
are proved for the offence under Section 450 of the IPC. The prosecution has
proved that the accused did commit trespass in order to commit offence and also
PAGE 19 OF 21
-- 20 -- Cr.Appeal 202.2020 (J) (1).odt
proved disappearance of evidence by virtue of destroying/burning shirt and tried
screening himself from the offence. As per the testimony of PW-2 who is injured
eye witness corroborated by virtue of testimony of PW-10, PW-11 and PW-12
coupled with injury medical certificate report Exhs.81, 84, 85, and 88 the
prosecution proved that the accused caused grievous hurt to the complainant by
dangerous weapon (knife) which was caused death of the deceased. The
ingredients of offence under Section 326 of IPC are proved.
(36) We have considered the submissions of the appellant and the
defence taken and after going through the same it is evident that the prosecution
through PW-2, who is eye witness, has clearly proved that the accused assaulted
the deceased by means of daily weapon which has also been corroborated by the
testimony of PW-6 and PW-7. Therefore, the defence raised by the appellant that
the PW-2 has not taken any efforts to save her life and the evidence of PW-2,
PW-6 and PW-7 are doubtful is liable to be rejected.
(37) Learned counsel for the appellant raised the defence that the
deceased was having illicit relations with the husband of the PW-2 and to get rid
of her, her husband committed murder. But in view of the fact that PW-2 herself
was an injured witness and the defence has not brought any incriminating
evidence to discard her testimony, this defence is also liable to be rejected and
same is rejected.
(38) As regards motive and intention is concerned the prosecution has
proved it by establishing that the deceased was having illicit relation and
PAGE 20 OF 21
-- 21 -- Cr.Appeal 202.2020 (J) (1).odt
consequently she was not on talking terms with the appellant. Based on the
suspicion in the mind of the appellant that deceased was having illicit relation with
another, he went to her house carrying knife and assaulted the deceased Sangita
by stabbing it into her neck and stomach. Therefore, the prosecution has proved
that appellant had intention and motive to commit murder of deceased Sangita.
The contention of the defence that there is no motive or intention is also liable to
be rejected, and therefore, we answer points No.2 to 5 in affirmative.
As to point No.6 :-
(39) Having answered points No.1 to 5 in affirmative there appears no
reason to interfere with the judgment and order of conviction passed by learned
Trial Court, which has considered all the attending circumstances and has passed
a well reasoned order. Point No.6 is accordingly answered in negative. Hence,
we proceed to pass the following order :
ORDER
1. The Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
2. The judgment and order dated 14/02/2020 passed by the
District Judge-1 and Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha in
Sessions Case No.110/2016 is hereby confirmed.
(SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.) (ANIL L. PANSARE, J.)
KOLHE
Signed by: Mr. Ravikant Kolhe PAGE 21 OF 21
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 10/10/2025 16:19:36
