1 rma IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 838 OF 2003 Santosh Bhagvant Jagtap ] Age 35 Years, R/o/ Talwade, Tal. Malegaon, ] Dist. Nashik. ] At present at C-4062 ] Nashik Road Central Prison. ] Appellant Vs The State of Maharashtra ] Respondent Ms. Sonia Miskin advocate appointed for the Appellant Mrs. P.H. Kantharia, APP for the State CORAM : SMT. RANJANA DESAI & SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ DATE : 29th MARCH, 2010 JUDGMENT: [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J] 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 05.02.2003 passed by III Additional Sessions Judge, Malegaon, Nasik in Sessions Case No. 49 of 2000. By the said judgment and order, learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/- in default R.I. for six months. apeal838-03 2 2. The prosecution case briefly stated is as under: Appellant - original accused Santosh Jagtap was residing at Village Talwade, Tal. Malegaon, Dist. Nashik along with his wife Jyoti. The appellant and Jyoti had two children i.e one daughter PW4 Sunesha and one son Kiran. The appellant used to suspect the character of his wife, hence there were frequent quarrels between the couple on this issue. On 29.04.2000, the appellant assaulted Jyoti by inserting "Rapi" in her stomach and he also gave a blow of "Rapi" on her left hand. Then, the appellant caught hold of her hair and cut her neck with "Rapi" (Article 7). Due to this Jyoti died on the spot. At that time, PW4 Sunesha and her brother were in the house. On hearing the cries, many persons gathered at the spot. One Santosh informed Police Patil PW1 Baliram Ananda Shirole about the incident. He lodged report about the incident (Exh. 12). The appellant came to be apprehended. At the time of arrest blood stains were found on the clothes on the person of the appellant which came to be seized. The body of Jyoti was sent for postmortem. PW10 Dr. Ramesh Sonawane conducted postmortem on the dead body of Jyoti. He found following injuries : 1. Deep Incised wound over left side of neck on anterior and lateral aspect extending up to posterior aspect size 10 inches X 15 inches X 8 inches (deep) with transaction of spinal cord. apeal838-03 3 Also entire left caritad anterior cut at C5-C6 level. 2. Incised wound on left side of neck (just medial to above wound) 2 cm X 0.5 cm 3. Incised wound over left forearm 2 X 3 X 0.5 C. - (Ventral aspect) 4. Incised wound over abdomen left hypochondriac region 2 X 2 X 1 cm 5. Dislocation of left shoulder joint According to Dr. Sonawane, the cause of death is due to Cardio respiratory failure due to both hemorrhagic shock as well as neurogenic shock due to multiple injuries, mainly due to deep injury on neck mentioned as no. 1 injury. After completion of investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against the appellant. 3. Charge came to be framed against the appellant - original accused under section 302 of IPC. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed to be tried. The defence of the applicant is that of total denial and false implication. After going through the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated in para 1 above. Hence, this appeal. 4. We have heard the learned advocate for the appellant and the learned APP for the State. We have perused the apeal838-03 4 evidence as well as the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. After anxiously considering the matter, for the reasons stated herein below, we are of the opinion that the judgment and order passed by learned Sessions Judge does not call for any interference. 5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has relied on direct evidence as well as circumstantial evidence. As far as direct evidence is concerned, the prosecution has examined two witnesses i.e PW4 Sunesha who is the daughter of the appellant as well as deceased and PW3 Trambaklal who is the neighbour of the appellant and the deceased. 6. PW4 Sunesha had stated that her father was working as a barber. Everyday her father used to beat her mother under the influence of liquor. On the day of incident at about 10.00 a.m., she, her brother and her father were in the house. They took their meal. Thereafter, her father left the house. He went in the village and brought the instrument "Rapi". Her father inserted the "Rapi" in the stomach of her mother. He also gave blow of "Rapi" on her left hand. Then, he caught hold of her hair and cut the neck of her mother with "Rapi". Her mother died. Then, her father told her and her brother to go to their grandfather and he would go somewhere else. After the incident, her father threw the apeal838-03 5 "Rapi" in the open space near the house. She has identified "Rapi" (Article 7). She and her brother went to their farm house and narrated the incident to her grandfather and grandmother. When they returned home along with their grandparents, they found that many people had gathered near their house. Her mother was lying dead near the door and the clothes of mother were soaked with blood. 7. PW3 Trambaklal resided near the house of appellant. On 29.04.2000 at about 10.00 to 10.30 a.m., he heard cry of a woman. He came out of his house. He saw the deceased was lying at the entrance of her house. Her body was inside the house and her head was outside the door. The appellant was holding her hair by one hand and was cutting her neck with "Rapi" which was in the other hand. This witness has stated that the entire neck was cut, except small portion. Thereafter, the appellant threw the "Rapi" and ran away. He has also identified "Rapi" (Article 7) 8. The evidence of both the eye witnesses also receives corroboration from the evidence of PW9 Sunil Pawar. Sunil was neighbour of the appellant and the deceased. PW9 Sunil has stated that house of the appellant is in front of his house. On 29.04.2000 at about 10.00 to 10.30 a.m., while he was taking his food, he heard the noise of children weeping. apeal838-03 6 Hence, he came out of his house. He saw that the appellant had cut the neck of his wife Jyoti with "Rapi" and the appellant was standing near the dead body holding an iron "Rapi" in his hand. On seeing the scene, this witness got frightened and went back inside his house. From his house, he saw that the son and daughter of the appellant were crying and the appellant was standing there. The dead body was inside the house and the head was outside the house. There was blood around the door. 9. As far as these three witnesses i.e PW3 Trambaklal, PW4 Sunesha and PW9 Sunil are concerned, nothing has been elicitated in their cross-examination so as to disbelieve their testimony. In addition to the evidence of above three witnesses, the prosecution has brought on record one more incriminating circumstance against the appellant i.e seizure of blood stained clothes from the person of the accused. Immediately after the incident, the appellant came to be apprehended and the clothes on his person came to be seized i.e shirt (Article 8) and pant (Article 9). PW13 Dilip Pawar deposed about the seizure of blood stained clothes which were found on the person of the appellant. He has identified the said clothes. Thus, through his evidence, Panchanama (Ex 30) whereby the blood stained clothes came to be seized has been fully proved. Nothing has been brought out in cross- apeal838-03 7 examination of the witness so as to disbelieve his testimony. These blood stained clothes were sent to Chemical Analyzer. As per Chemical Analyzer's Report, both the shirt as well as the pant were stained with blood of group "A". The blood group of the deceased Jyoti was also "A". Thus, this circumstance also goes against the appellant. 10. The prosecution has also examined PW7 Sanjay More. Sanjay More has stated that he did work of repairing of old footwear i.e he was a cobbler by profession. His shop was near Talwade S.T. Stand which is next to the saloon of the appellant who was working as a barber. The witness has stated that on 29.04.2000 in the morning, the appellant came to him and told him that he wants "Rapi" as he had some work of cutting rope. Hence, this witness gave him a "Rapi" which is a sharp cutting instrument used to cut leather. He has identified the "Rapi" (Article 7) as the very same Rapi which was given by him to the appellant. Thus, the evidence of this witness also lends corroboration to the prosecution case. 11. Looking to the direct evidence as well as circumstantial evidence which has been brought on record by the prosecution, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has fully proved its case against the appellant. apeal838-03 8 Hence, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. [SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.] [SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] apeal838-03