AJN 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APEAL NO.353 OF 2003 Pitambar Narayandas Chawala, Convict Prisoner No.C/3858, Nasik Road Central Prison, Nasik. ) ) ) ... Appellant Versus The State of Maharashtra, at instance of Bhadrakali Police Station, Nasik. ) ) ) ... Respondents Ms. Latika Newrekar for the appellant. Mr. V.B. Konde-Deshmukh, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM: MRS. RANJANA DESAI & MRS. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ. DATED : 22ND MARCH, 2010. JUDGMENT :- (Per Smt. Ranjana Desai, J.) 1. The appellant was tried in the Court of 1st Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge at Nashik in Sessions Case No.9 of 2002 on the allegation that on 4/10/2001, at Flat No. 301, Alaknanda Society of Manekshaw Nagar, Near AJN 2 Dwarka Hotel, he committed murder of his wife Nisha Pitambar Chawala, by intentionally or knowingly causing her death by stabbing her by means of a kitchen knife. By the impugned judgment and order dated 14/8/2002, the appellant was convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the IPC”) and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the appellant has filed this appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution, as stated by PW-4 Dhiraj, is that the appellant was a freelance motor driver. He married the deceased on 19/2/1984. PW-4 Dhiraj is the son of the appellant and the deceased. The couple also have a daughter by name Neha. The appellant was addicted to drugs. After he got addicted to drugs, he stopped working as motor driver. PW-4 Dhiraj was, therefore, required to take up service in some automobile shop. The deceased was helped by her brothers monetarily. The help particularly came from her brother AJN 3 PW-1 Suraj, who is the complainant. 3. On 4/10/2001 at about 1.00 p.m., PW-4 Dhiraj came to his house for taking food. The appellant and the deceased were present in the house. His sister Neha had gone to the school. PW-4 Dhiraj was not well. He asked the deceased to give him lemon juice. The deceased entered the kitchen to make lemon juice. The appellant followed her. In the kitchen, the appellant started demanding money for drugs. When the deceased refused to give money for drugs and stated that he should earn for himself, he started quarreling with her. PW-4 Dhiraj, who was sitting in the front room entered the kitchen. The appellant slapped the deceased on her left arm. When PW-4 Dhiraj intervened, the appellant pushed him and took a kitchen knife and stabbed the deceased with it on the left side of her chest. She became unconscious. There was profuse bleeding from the stab injury. The deceased asked PW-4 Dhiraj to immediately take her to the police station. PW-4 Dhiraj, with the help of the AJN 4 appellant, placed the deceased on the bed. He wanted to open the door to seek help for her mother but the appellant did not allow him to do so. The appellant removed the gown of the deceased which was soaked with blood. By the time Neha, the sister of PW-4 Dhiraj came home. PW-4 opened the door and asked Neha to fetch a rickshaw. He told Neha that the appellant had stabbed the deceased. By the time, the bloodstained clothes of the deceased were changed by the appellant. The deceased was then removed to Nagjee Hospital by the appellant, PW-4 Dhiraj and Neha but, before admission, the deceased was dead. 4. PW-4 Dhiraj contacted his maternal uncle PW-1 Suraj at Pune and his uncle at Nashik. On instructions from Nagjee Hospital, the dead body of the deceased was taken to Nashik Civil Hospital. PW-6 PSI More of Bhadrakali Police Station, who received information made the necessary station diary entry and rushed to the civil hospital. PW-1 Suraj came to Nashik by a private vehicle. AJN 5 His FIR came to be recorded, which is at Ex-13. On the basis of the FIR, investigation was set into motion. After completion of investigation, the accused came to be charged as aforesaid. 5. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined six witnesses. The prosecution case rests on the evidence of PW-4 Dhiraj, the son of the deceased. The prosecution also examined PW-1 Suraj - brother of the deceased. Postmortem was performed by PW-2 Dr. More. He gave the details of the postmortem conducted on the deceased. The prosecution also examined PW-3 Prabhakar - the panch witness, who has drawn the scene of offence panchanama. PW-5 is Suresh Poddar, the photographer, who took the photograph of the dead body of the deceased and PW-6 is the Investigating Officer PSI Yogesh More. PW-7 is PSI Balasaheb Hire, who took over the investigation from PW-6 PSI Yogesh More. 6. The defence of the accused was one of denial. He AJN 6 admitted his presence in the outer room of the house, but he stated that he did not know how his wife received stab injuries. According to him, he is falsely implicated. After perusing the evidence on record, learned trial Judge convicted the appellant. 7. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned A.P.P. appearing for the State. With the assistance of learned counsel, we have gone through the evidence and the record. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the prosecution has not led any independent evidence. The prosecution case is based on the interested testimony of PW-4 Dhiraj, the son of the deceased and PW-1 Suraj, brother of the deceased. He submitted that the interested evidence of relatives of the deceased does not inspire confidence. It is risky to base the conviction on such evidence and, hence, the order of conviction and sentence deserves to be set aside. Alternatively, learned counsel AJN 7 submitted that the appellant can, at the most, be convicted for offence under Section 304 Part II of the IPC because the facts of the case do not indicate that he had intention to murder the deceased. Learned A.P.P. on the other hand submitted that there is clinching evidence which establishes the involvement of the appellant in the murder of the deceased. PW-4 Dhiraj's evidence inspires confidence. He has no reason to falsely involve his father. Learned A.P.P. submitted that the appeal be dismissed. 9. PW-2 Dr. More did the postmortem on the deceased on 4/10/2001 at Civil Hospital, Nashik. He found following injuries on the deceased. “1. Stab wound over left side breast 2” lateral to left hipple. 2. Superficial stab wound over (R) thigh length 1” six inches above right knee.” Dr. More has stated that he could find fracture on 5th rib corresponding to injury 1. He has further stated that AJN 8 the above injuries were ante-mortem and could be caused by sharp object. The cause of death was given by Dr. More in the postmortem notes as death due to injury to heart. There can, therefore, be no dispute about the fact that the deceased suffered a homicidal death. We have already narrated gist of the evidence of PW-4 Dhiraj, the son of the deceased. PW-4 has not been cross-examined on the basic version of the prosecution case. His evidence inspires confidence. We have no hesitation in relying on it. PW-4 Dhiraj has stated that the appellant was addicted to drug and he used to beat the deceased and try to extract money from her. He has given vivid account of the manner in which the appellant dealt blow with knife on the chest of the deceased. PW-4 Dhiraj's evidence is consistent with the evidence of PW-2 Dr. More. 10. PW-1 Suraj, the brother of the deceased has also confirmed that the appellant was addicted to drugs and he used to demand money from the deceased. He has stated that his family used to pay Rs.3,000/- to 3,500/- to AJN 9 the deceased because the appellant was not earning any money. Upon receiving information from PW-4 Dhiraj, PW-1 Suraj rushed to Nashik and lodged his FIR at Bhadrakali Police Station, which is at Ex-13. This witness has stood the test of cross-examination. We have no hesitation on relying on his evidence. 11. In our opinion, the trial court has rightly placed reliance on the evidence of PW-4 Dhiraj and convicted the appellant. As already noted by us, though PW-4 Dhiraj is the son of the deceased, his evidence can be relied upon because unless it is really true, he would not like to involve his father in a drastic crime of murder. There is no reason why he would concoct a false story. We are also unable to accept the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant had no intention to kill the deceased. The manner in which the blow was inflicted and the vital part which was chosen to inflict the blow indicate that the appellant had intention to kill the deceased. Learned judge was, therefore, justified in AJN 10 convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC. In our opinion, there is no merit in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed. [MRS. RANJANA DESAI, J.] [MRS. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.]