Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sandip Banshakar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 May, 2025
Author: Atul Sreedharan
Bench: Atul Sreedharan, Anuradha Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25037
1 CRA-2473-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ATUL SREEDHARAN
&
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA
ON THE 14th OF MAY, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2473 of 2013
SANDIP BANSHAKAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Sarita Kanojia - Advocate for the petitioner [P-1].
Arvind Singh Ga appearing on behalf of Advocate General.
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Atul Sreedharan
The present appeal has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved by
the judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Trial Court
vide judgment dated 11.02.2013 passed by the Court of learned 10th
Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in S.T. No. 558/2012, whereby the
appellant was found guilty for committing murder of his wife and sentenced
to suffer life imprisonment.
2. Today the case has been listed for arguments on I.A. No.31068/2024,
application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has already
completed 13 years of his sentence. With consent of the parties, the court has
heard the case finally.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25037
2 CRA-2473-2013
4. The case of the prosecution is that on 12.6.2012, at about 3 PM, the
appellant is alleged to have come drunk to his house and belaboured his
wife, Ekta Banshkar, stripped her naked, tied her to a neem tree with a rope
and caused her death. The incident is stated to have been witnessed by two
witnesses who are (P.W.3), Damu Ben and (P.W.7), Sheela Ben, Sheela, who
is the wife of (P.W.3). For the sake of brevity, this court is directly referring
to the evidence of (P.W.3).
5. The witness says that he is the immediate neighbor of the appellant. The
witness says that he stays in the same locality as the appellant. He says he
personally knows the appellant and the wife of the deceased, Ekta Banshkar.
He says on the date of the incident, at around 4 o'clock in the evening, he
was at home, and his wife, (P.W.7), was preparing food. He says that there
was quarreling going on between the appellant and his wife hearing which,
(P.W.7) Sheela went and counseled the appellant not to trouble the deceased,
upon which the appellant is stated to have told her that the guilt of the
deceased has been discovered, for which she has to be punished and
thereafter, the appellant told that he would come to them in a short while.
Thereafter, the appellant is stated to have gone towards "Bada patthar" and
the deceased, on account of fear went and sat under the tamarind tree. An
hour later, the appellant came in an inebriated state, and he was holding a
quarter bottle of alcohol in his hand. The deceased, upon seeing the
appellant, out of fear, ran towards the populated area of the locality. Upon
this, the appellant came to the house of this witness, and asked the witness
the whereabouts of the deceased and thereafter, the appellant brought the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25037
3 CRA-2473-2013
deceased, pulling her by her bangles, and brought her near the courtyard of
the witness, and took the deceased to the courtyard of the appellant's house,
and tied the deceased to a neem tree there, and placed iron chains on her
feet, and using a thick stick of the neem tree, started inflicting blows on the
feet of the deceased. Upon which, the deceased screamed out of pain, and
called out to the witness to come and save her. He said that as soon as he
went to save the deceased, the appellant, who was holding a sharp-edged
weapon and a knife, came outside upon which the witness told him that he is
under the influence of alcohol, and he further states that his own wife,
(P.W.7), taunted him of lacking masculinity as he was not going there to
save the deceased. Thereafter, the witness states that in anger, he went to
save the deceased, when he found that the appellant had disrobed her, and
told the witness that if he wants to see his daughter-in-law naked, then he can
fulfill his desire. On account of seeing the deceased in a disrobed condition,
this witness went back. Thereafter, under the excuse of going to the market,
the witness went towards the police station at "Bada Patthar" and informed
them about the incident. Thereafter, he said, the police came to the scene of
occurrence, behind whom the witness also reached, and in the presence of
the witness, the police opened the ropes which had bound the deceased to the
neem tree, and thereafter, (P.W.7) put on the clothes for the deceased, by
which time the witness says, the deceased was already dead. He further says
that the police called for the auto, and the appellant herein assisted in loading
the deceased onto the auto rickshaw, and took her to the hospital, where she
was declared dead. He further says that he had given the Dehati nalasi to the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25037
4 CRA-2473-2013
police, and has proved the same, as (Ex.P-3), and has also signed on the
same. In cross-examination, the witness has stuck to his statement in his
examination-in-chief. He was given the suggestion that there is old enmity
between him and the appellant, which he has categorically denied.
Suggestion was also given to him, that he was not a witness to the incident,
which also he has categorically denied. In cross-examination, he further
states that he had witnessed the appellant assaulting the deceased with his
own eyes. He has also stated that it is correct to suggest that when he had
gone to the police station, the activity that had taken place in the interregnum
was not witnessed by him. When asked about the nature of the injuries on
her body, the witness has stated that he is unable to specifically state the
nature of the injuries on her body, as he had considered the deceased as a
daughter-in-law and was unable to see her naked body. He has also stated in
cross-examination that it is correct to suggest that he had gone to save the
deceased but seeing that the appellant armed with a knife and farsa and being
in an inebriated state, he feared for his own life as the appellant could have
killed him also. The only omission that has been brought out by the defense
is in paragraph 7 of the cross-examination, where the witness says that he
had given the statement to the police that he had seen the deceased in a
denuded state, due to which he had come back to his own courtyard, and if
the same is not there in his 161 statement, he does not know the reason why.
In paragraph 9, he says that he is not related by blood as an uncle to the
appellant and the deceased, but the deceased, out of affection for the witness
on account of his age, used to call the witness as an uncle. In paragraph 10
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25037
5 CRA-2473-2013
of his cross-examination, the witness has also agreed to the suggestion that
he had even an occasion to witness that the appellant and the deceased also
had an amicable relationship. He also admits that it is correct to suggest that
it was the appellant who took the deceased from the scene of occurrence to
the hospital in an auto rickshaw. It is relevant to mention here that the cross-
examination has not brought out any contradiction which would go to the
core of the prosecution case, i.e., no contradiction has been brought about by
the defence in cross examination that could shake the foundation of the
prosecution's case that the witness saw the deceased being belabored by the
appellant with a thick stick. There has been no contradiction or omission in
that part of the prosecution story as disclosed by (P.W.3).
6. The next witness is (P.W.7), who is the wife of the deceased. She has
largely reiterated, in sum and substance, the statement given by (P.W.3). And
for the sake of brevity, this Court deems it unnecessary to reproduce the
same as it would be a repetition of largely what P.W.7 has stated. Suffice it
to say that (P.W.7) has corroborated (P.W.3) on the material aspects of the
prosecution's case against the appellant. The FIR in this case has been
registered on 13-06-2012 at 45 minutes past midnight with the rojnamcha
entry being 1048. The date of the incident is 12.06.2012 and the time of the
incident is between 3:21 p.m. and 10:50 p.m. The FIR has been registered by
(P.W.3) and the appellant has been named as a sole accused in the same. The
same has been proved by (P.W.14) as Ex.P-15. The Dehati nalisi shows the
date of the incident of 12.06.2012 between 3 p.m in the afternoon to 7 p.m in
the evening and the information was received on 12.06.2012 in the night at
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25037
6 CRA-2473-2013
11:50 p.m. The Dehati nalisi has also been registered by (P.W.3) and has
been proved by him as Ex.P-3. The Statement of Witnesses has been
recorded two days thereafter under Section 161 CrPC. Several articles were
sent to the FSL by (Ex. 18-A) for forensic verification. But, however, no
report of the FSL has been received or placed before the learned trial Court.
Ex.P-19, is the post-mortem report which has been proved by (P.W.16), who
is the doctor who performed the post-mortem. P.W.-16 records 11 injuries on
the body of the deceased in the nature of several rail pattern injuries, bruises
on the back side of both the thighs and lateral and back side of the body,
bruises on the left ankle of the leg, rail pattern bruises with swelling on the
right hand and wrists, rail pattern bruises on the frontal aspect of the right
leg, rail pattern bruises conjoined with each other on the left shoulder of
interior aspect, several long bruises connected to each other on the posterior
side of the left hand accompanied with swelling along with a lacerated
wound on the backside of the palm, bruises with rail patterns intersecting
each other on the buttocks of the deceased, rail pattern bruises on the
backside of the shoulder of the deceased, a bruise accompanied with abrasion
on both the arms of the deceased, bruises on posterior aspect of both the legs
of the deceased. The doctor also stated that there were many marks of
injuries that could not be counted. Internal examination revealed that there
were no injuries to the internal organs. The cause of death was on account
of hemorrhagic shock, due to received several injuries by the deceased and
they were antemortem and homicidal in nature.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the appellant has
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25037
7 CRA-2473-2013
falsely been implicated in this case as the witnesses were inimically disposed
towards the appellant on account of previous enmity. Further, she has argued
that even if the appellant is held responsible for the death of the deceased.
The absence of any internal injuries to the organs of the deceased would
bring it within the premise of culpable homicide but not amounting to
murder. She further stated that it can be inferred from the prosecution case
itself that the appellant did not intent to cause the death of the deceased but
only to teach her lesson as has been disclosed by P.W.-3. She has further
stated that the postmortem report clearly shows that there were no internal
injuries to organs and the injuries were mostly bruises on various parts of
the body and the lacerated injury on the back side of the part. Under the
circumstances, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the only
offence that is made out against the appellant is one under Section 304(II) of
IPC and not under Section 302 of IPC.
8. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand submitted that the
evidence of P.W.-3 and P.W.-7 are of sterling quality and that they have
stated what they have seen without any embellishments, additions or
omissions. He has further argued that the cross-examination has not been
able to bring out any contradiction /omission which would have affected the
core of the prosecution's case, which is the witnesses having witnessed the
belabouring of the deceased by the appellant. He further submits that the
unimpeachable evidence of P.W.-3 and P.W.-7 inspired confidence of the
trial Court, which has rightly convicted the appellant under Section 302 of
IPC.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25037
8 CRA-2473-2013
9. Meeting the argument of learned counsel for the appellant that the
offence would be one under Section 304(II) of IPC and not under Section
302 of IPC as the external injuries all being described are simple in nature
and there were no damage to the internal organs of the deceased, the learned
counsel for the State submits that the manner in which the deceased was
belaboured mercilessly by the appellant in an inhuman manner, by tying her
to a neem tree, by denuding her clothes and also chaining her, went to show
the inhuman mind set of the appellant when he was committing the crime.
The absence of internal injuries or the external injuries being simple in
nature, learned counsel for the State submits that the same does not go to
take away the intention of the appellant. He states that if it was a single blow
that has killed the deceased then the argument put forth by learned counsel
for the appellant could have been considered. But the nature of the injuries
reflected in the postmortem report coupled with the evidence of eyewitnesses
P.W.-3 and P.W.-7 go to prove beyond a shadow of doubt that the sole
intention of the appellant was to inflict such pain and such damage to the
body of the deceased so that she would ultimately die a painful death. He
further states that the opinion of the Doctor that the deceased died inter alia
on account of haemmorhaging would also go to show that the beatings had
resulted in the extravasation of blood into the internal cavity of the deceased,
even though no specific organs may have been damaged. He further says that
the Doctor has recorded that the cause of death was homicidal in nature.
Therefore, he has prayed that the appeal be dismissed.
10. The evidence adduced by the prosecution in this case with a specific
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25037
9 CRA-2473-2013
reference to P.W.-3 and P.W. -7 satisfies this Court that both these witnesses
were genuine eyewitnesses who had witnessed the entire incident. Both these
witnesses corroborate each other on material particulars, and they have stood
by the statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., on account of which no
omission/improvisation have been brought about by the defense during the
cross-examination of these witnesses by confronting them with their 161
statement. This coupled with the postmortem report and the statement of the
police witnesses, who had reached at the scene of occurrence pursuant to a
phone call made by P.W.-3, join all the dots in this case making the case of
the prosecution sustainable in the eyes of this Court also. Therefore, this
Court holds that on the basis of testimony of eyewitnesses who remain
unimpeached, and the failure of the appellant to set up a parallel of
hypothesis, this Court considers their statement as proving the case of the
prosecution beyond reasonable doubts.
11. Therefore, in view of what has been argued, considered and observed
hereinabove, this Court holds that the judgment of conviction and sentence
passed by the learned trial Court is just and proper. Accordingly, the appeal
is dismissed.
12. Let record of the trial court be returned back along with the copy of
this judgment.
(ATUL SREEDHARAN) (ANURADHA SHUKLA)
JUDGE JUDGE
skt
