1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4767 OF 2004 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4767 OF 2004 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4767 OF 2004 IN IN IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.524 OF 2004 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.524 OF 2004 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.524 OF 2004 Tatyasaheb Limbraj Patil ...Applicant Tatyasaheb Limbraj Patil ...Applicant Tatyasaheb Limbraj Patil ...Applicant Vs. Vs. Vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent ----- ----- ----- Mr. A.P.Mhatre for Applicant Mr. A.P.Mhatre for Applicant Mr. A.P.Mhatre for Applicant Ms. P.H. Kantharia A.P.P. for the State Ms. P.H. Kantharia A.P.P. for the State Ms. P.H. Kantharia A.P.P. for the State CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & ROSHAN DALVI, JJ. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & ROSHAN DALVI, JJ. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & ROSHAN DALVI, JJ. DATED: 12TH JANUARY, 2006 DATED: 12TH JANUARY, 2006 DATED: 12TH JANUARY, 2006 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard Mr. Mhatre learned counsel for the 1. Heard Mr. Mhatre learned counsel for the 1. Heard Mr. Mhatre learned counsel for the applicant who has been convicted and sentenced by the applicant who has been convicted and sentenced by the applicant who has been convicted and sentenced by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur in learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur in learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur in Sessions Case No.180 of 2003 for the offences Sessions Case No.180 of 2003 for the offences Sessions Case No.180 of 2003 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 498-A of the punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 498-A of the punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. The Criminal Appeal No.524 of 2004 Indian Penal Code. The Criminal Appeal No.524 of 2004 Indian Penal Code. The Criminal Appeal No.524 of 2004 filed by the Applicant has already been admitted by filed by the Applicant has already been admitted by filed by the Applicant has already been admitted by this Court on 27th April 2004 and therefore, this bail this Court on 27th April 2004 and therefore, this bail this Court on 27th April 2004 and therefore, this bail application. application. application. 2. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that 2. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that 2. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the death of Applicant’s wife Reshma @ Renuka was the death of Applicant’s wife Reshma @ Renuka was the death of Applicant’s wife Reshma @ Renuka was homicidal and the Applicant was guilty of committing homicidal and the Applicant was guilty of committing homicidal and the Applicant was guilty of committing her murder intentionally on 26th April 2003 at about her murder intentionally on 26th April 2003 at about her murder intentionally on 26th April 2003 at about 6.30 a.m. while they were residing together. The 6.30 a.m. while they were residing together. The 6.30 a.m. while they were residing together. The Sessions Court also accepted the prosecution case that Sessions Court also accepted the prosecution case that Sessions Court also accepted the prosecution case that 2 the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment on account of demand of Rs.1 lakh for assistance to on account of demand of Rs.1 lakh for assistance to on account of demand of Rs.1 lakh for assistance to carry out the contractors’ business in which the carry out the contractors’ business in which the carry out the contractors’ business in which the Applicant was engaged. The applicant was also guilty Applicant was engaged. The applicant was also guilty Applicant was engaged. The applicant was also guilty of screening the evidence by setting the deadbody of of screening the evidence by setting the deadbody of of screening the evidence by setting the deadbody of Reshma on fire by sprinkling kerosene on her person Reshma on fire by sprinkling kerosene on her person Reshma on fire by sprinkling kerosene on her person and intentionally he gave false information to Police and intentionally he gave false information to Police and intentionally he gave false information to Police that she met with an accidental death. that she met with an accidental death. that she met with an accidental death. 3. The learned Counsel for the Applicant referred 3. The learned Counsel for the Applicant referred 3. The learned Counsel for the Applicant referred to the oral evidence of the Medical Officer Dr. to the oral evidence of the Medical Officer Dr. to the oral evidence of the Medical Officer Dr. Namdev Patil, who had conducted the post-mortem and Namdev Patil, who had conducted the post-mortem and Namdev Patil, who had conducted the post-mortem and submitted P.M. Notes at Exhibit-18. In his cross submitted P.M. Notes at Exhibit-18. In his cross submitted P.M. Notes at Exhibit-18. In his cross examination he admitted that he did not carry out the examination he admitted that he did not carry out the examination he admitted that he did not carry out the hystopathology test which was required to be carried hystopathology test which was required to be carried hystopathology test which was required to be carried out to ascertain whether the fracture was ante-mortem out to ascertain whether the fracture was ante-mortem out to ascertain whether the fracture was ante-mortem or post-mortem. In addition he also referred to the or post-mortem. In addition he also referred to the or post-mortem. In addition he also referred to the depositions of two defence witnesses namely Bhimrao depositions of two defence witnesses namely Bhimrao depositions of two defence witnesses namely Bhimrao Nandvate (P.W.-1) and Muzaffarali Patel (P.W.-2) in Nandvate (P.W.-1) and Muzaffarali Patel (P.W.-2) in Nandvate (P.W.-1) and Muzaffarali Patel (P.W.-2) in support of his defence that the death was accidental. support of his defence that the death was accidental. support of his defence that the death was accidental. 4. Admittedly the Applicant’s house consists of a 4. Admittedly the Applicant’s house consists of a 4. Admittedly the Applicant’s house consists of a room admeasuring 10 x 12 ft. attached with the room admeasuring 10 x 12 ft. attached with the room admeasuring 10 x 12 ft. attached with the kitchen and in the said house apart from the Applicant kitchen and in the said house apart from the Applicant kitchen and in the said house apart from the Applicant and his deceased wife none else was staying. He had and his deceased wife none else was staying. He had and his deceased wife none else was staying. He had approached the Police Station on the date of the approached the Police Station on the date of the approached the Police Station on the date of the incident i.e. on 26th April 2003 after 10.30 a.m. incident i.e. on 26th April 2003 after 10.30 a.m. incident i.e. on 26th April 2003 after 10.30 a.m. stating that his wife Reshma died because of stating that his wife Reshma died because of stating that his wife Reshma died because of accidental fire of the kerosene stove. This plea has accidental fire of the kerosene stove. This plea has accidental fire of the kerosene stove. This plea has 3 no doubt been supported by the defence witnesses and no doubt been supported by the defence witnesses and no doubt been supported by the defence witnesses and the learned Sessions Judge has rejected the said the learned Sessions Judge has rejected the said the learned Sessions Judge has rejected the said defence. defence. defence. 5. Spot Panchanama Exhibit-23 bellies the theory of 5. Spot Panchanama Exhibit-23 bellies the theory of 5. Spot Panchanama Exhibit-23 bellies the theory of accidental death of Reshma and in addition, the accidental death of Reshma and in addition, the accidental death of Reshma and in addition, the evidence of the Medical Officer, in his evidence of the Medical Officer, in his evidence of the Medical Officer, in his examination-in-chief, which went unimpeached, is examination-in-chief, which went unimpeached, is examination-in-chief, which went unimpeached, is required to be considered, prima facie, for deciding required to be considered, prima facie, for deciding required to be considered, prima facie, for deciding this bail application. this bail application. this bail application. 6. We reproduce the following statement made by 6. We reproduce the following statement made by 6. We reproduce the following statement made by the Medical Officer in his Examination-in-chief. the Medical Officer in his Examination-in-chief. the Medical Officer in his Examination-in-chief. "(a). Swelling infront of neck, size 6x4 cm. "(a). Swelling infront of neck, size 6x4 cm. "(a). Swelling infront of neck, size 6x4 cm. (b). 100% burns (b). 100% burns (b). 100% burns (c). On examination of base of tongue (c). On examination of base of tongue (c). On examination of base of tongue bruising present. bruising present. bruising present. (d). On palpation fracture of hyoid bone (d). On palpation fracture of hyoid bone (d). On palpation fracture of hyoid bone present. present. present. . Injuries (a), (c) and (d) are . Injuries (a), (c) and (d) are . Injuries (a), (c) and (d) are definitely ante-mortem meaning before death. definitely ante-mortem meaning before death. definitely ante-mortem meaning before death. Injury (b) is post-mortem meaning after death. Injury (b) is post-mortem meaning after death. Injury (b) is post-mortem meaning after death. Scalp was burnt. Skull was intact. Brain and Scalp was burnt. Skull was intact. Brain and Scalp was burnt. Skull was intact. Brain and its coverings were congested. Valves and ribs its coverings were congested. Valves and ribs its coverings were congested. Valves and ribs and cartilages were burnt. Pleura was and cartilages were burnt. Pleura was and cartilages were burnt. Pleura was congested. In front of larynx fracture of congested. In front of larynx fracture of congested. In front of larynx fracture of hyoid bone was seen. Right and left lungs hyoid bone was seen. Right and left lungs hyoid bone was seen. Right and left lungs 4 were congested. Pericardium was intact. were congested. Pericardium was intact. were congested. Pericardium was intact. Right chamber of heart was full of blood. Right chamber of heart was full of blood. Right chamber of heart was full of blood. Left chamber was empty. Walls of abdomen were Left chamber was empty. Walls of abdomen were Left chamber was empty. Walls of abdomen were burnt. Peritoneum was congested. Tongue was burnt. Peritoneum was congested. Tongue was burnt. Peritoneum was congested. Tongue was protruded in between teeth. Oesophagus was protruded in between teeth. Oesophagus was protruded in between teeth. Oesophagus was congested. Stomach was congested and congested. Stomach was congested and congested. Stomach was congested and empty....." empty....." empty....." 7. The learned Sessions Judge therefore accepted 7. The learned Sessions Judge therefore accepted 7. The learned Sessions Judge therefore accepted that the deceased was first killed and then set on that the deceased was first killed and then set on that the deceased was first killed and then set on fire to screen the evidence. fire to screen the evidence. fire to screen the evidence. 8. The Applicant made out a specific defence of 8. The Applicant made out a specific defence of 8. The Applicant made out a specific defence of accidental death of his wife but the same has not been accidental death of his wife but the same has not been accidental death of his wife but the same has not been accepted by the Sessions Court on the face of the accepted by the Sessions Court on the face of the accepted by the Sessions Court on the face of the Medical Evidence. The other circumstantial evidence Medical Evidence. The other circumstantial evidence Medical Evidence. The other circumstantial evidence also does not permit us to allow this application by also does not permit us to allow this application by also does not permit us to allow this application by suspending the sentence under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. suspending the sentence under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. suspending the sentence under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. 9. The Application is, therefore, rejected. 9. The Application is, therefore, rejected. 9. The Application is, therefore, rejected. (ROSHAN DALVI, J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE, J.) (ROSHAN DALVI, J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE, J.) (ROSHAN DALVI, J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE, J.) 5