.[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 JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.59 OF 2006 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.59 OF 2006 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.59 OF 2006 Kulappa Vithal Teli, ) Age : 69 years, ) Convict Prisoner ) No.C/14502, Yerwada ) Central Prison, ) Pune. ) ..APPELLANT. (Orig.Accused) (Orig.Accused) (Orig.Accused) Versus Versus Versus The State of Maharashtra) .RESPONDENT. . . . Mr.A.G.Toraskar, Adv. appointed for the Appellant. Mr.P.S.Hingorani, APP, for the Respondent-State. . . . CORAM : F.I. REBELLO AND CORAM : F.I. REBELLO AND CORAM : F.I. REBELLO AND SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ. DATED : APRIL 03, 2008. DATED : APRIL 03, 2008. DATED : APRIL 03, 2008. ORAL JUDGMENT (PER SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.) : ORAL JUDGMENT (PER SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.) : ORAL JUDGMENT (PER SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.) : . Through this Appeal, the appellant i.e. original accused has challenged the judgment and order dated 31st August, 2005 passed by the learned 1st Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur in Sessions Case No.79 of 2005. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to R.I. for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-in default R.I. .[2]. for six months. 2. The prosecution case, briefly stated, is as under : . Deceased Rakhmabai was the wife of the appellant. The accused and his wife were residing at Hatture Vasti, District : Solapur. They used to go to the agricultural field of one Sanjay Jamma for grazing their sheep. The appellant was suspecting the character of his wife. On the day of the incident, the appellant and his wife had gone to the agricultural field of Sanjay Jamma for grazing their sheep. PW-4 Mahadeo Deshmukh who is the complainant in the present case used to reside in the agricultural field of Sanjay Jamma. He was present in the field of Sanjay at that time and he had taken the cattle of Sanjay for grazing in the said field. The complainant Mahadeo knew the accused and his wife as they used to come everyday to the agricultural field of Sanjay Jamma for grazing their sheep. On the day of the incident also, the appellant and his wife came to the field of Sanjay Jamma for grazing their sheep. At that .[3]. time, as per his usual practice the appellant was holding a sickle in his hand by which he used to cut branches of trees and shrubs for their sheep, and also for collecting firewood. After some time, the complainant heard the voice of Rakhmabai. She was shouting "Aai Ga, Aai Ga" (in Marathi). On the complainant looking in that direction, he saw that the appellant was assaulting his wife Rakhmabai by sickle on both side of neck and also on other parts of the body. The complainant shouted and ran towards them. On seeing the complainant coming towards them, the accused started running away from the spot. The appellant dropped the sickle at the spot. The complainant immediately caught hold of the appellant. In a short time, police arrived at the spot and the appellant came to be arrested. Thereafter blood stained clothes on the person of the appellant came to be seized. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet came to be filed. In due course, the case was committed to the Court of Session. 3. The charge came to be framed against the .[4]. appellant under Section 302 of IPC. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed to be tried. His defence 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 Mr.Toraskar learned Advocate appointed for the appellant and Mr.Hingorani learned APP for the respondent-State. We have also perused the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge as well as the record in the present case. After carefully considering the matter, we are of the opinion that the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant deserves to be confirmed. 5. The prosecution case is mainly founded on the evidence of the complainant. The complainant PW-4 Mahadeo Deshmukh is an eye witness. He is the sole eye witness in the present case. PW-4 Mahadeo Deshmukh has stated that he was residing .[5]. in the agricultural field of Sanjay Jamma. He was in employment of Sanjay Jamma. He used to take cattle of Sanjay Jamma for grazing in the said field. The complainant knew the accused and his wife Rakhmabai as they used to come everyday to the agricultural field of Sanjay Jamma for grazing sheep. On the day of the incident also PW-4 Mahadeo Deshmukh was in the field of Sanjay Jamma grazing the cattle and the appellant and his wife were also there in the field of Sanjay Jamma grazing their sheep. As per his usual practice the appellant was carrying a sickle with him for cutting branches of trees and shrubs, and also for collecting firewoods. After sometime the complainant PW-4 Mahadeo Deshmukh heard the shouts of Rakhmabai shouting "Aai Ga, Aai Ga" (in Marathi). When the complainant looked in that direction, he saw the appellant assaulting his wife Rakhmabai by sickle on both sides of neck and other parts of the body. The complainant shouted loudly and ran towards them. The complainant chased the accused and warned him to drop the sickle at once otherwise he would give a blow of lathi which was in his hand. Thereupon, the .[6]. appellant immediately dropped the sickle on the spot. Thereafter the complainant caught hold of the appellant. On hearing the shouts of the complainant, PW-11 Basavraj Deshmukh who was nearby came to the spot. Within a short time the police arrived at the spot. 6. Despite lengthy cross-examination of PW-4 Mahadeo Deshmukh, he has not been shaken in his cross-examination. On going through the evidence of this witness (PW-4) we find his evidence to be totally reliable, and hence we have no hesitation in relying on the same. It is the prosecution case that the motive for the appellant to assault his wife Rakhmabai was that he suspected her character. The motive has been brought on record through the evidence of PW-5 Shrishail Dastapure. This witness was residing as a tenant in the house of the son of the appellant. He has stated that since two months prior to the incident, the accused and his wife started residing with their son Bhimashanker who was the landlord of PW-5. PW-5 Shrishail Dastapure has stated that the accused used to suspect character and chastity of .[7]. his wife hence there was frequent quarrels between them. The son of the accused had purchased sheep for the accused so that the accused could remain busy. The accused and his wife Rakhmabai used to take sheep for the purpose of grazing in the agricultural field of Sanjay Jamma. Thus, the prosecution has proved the motive for the offence through the evidence of PW-5 Srishail Dastapure. 7. Besides the evidence of PW-4 Mahadeo Deshmukh who is an eye witness and the evidence of PW-5 Shrishail Dastapure, the prosecution has also relied upon circumstantial evidence which is in the nature of seizure of clothes of the accused person. From the evidence of PW-4 Mahadeo Deshmukh it is seen that immediately after the accused assaulted his wife Rakhmabai, complainant Mahadeo shouted and ran towards them. On seeing the complainant coming towards them, the accused started running away from the spot. The appellant dropped the sickle at the spot. The complainant immediately caught hold of the appellant and thereafter, police arrived at the spot. Till the time that the police arrived on the spot, PW-4 .[8]. Mahadeo continued to hold the accused person. The clothes of the accused were blood stained and said clothes came to be seized by the police. Panch witness PW-2 Chidanand Nad has deposed about the arrest of accused at the spot and seizure of the blood stained clothes which were on the person of the accused. These clothes were sent to the Chemical Analyser and the Chemical Analyser’s report (Exh.38) shows that the clothes Nehru-shirt (article 8) and Dhoti (article 9) of the accused person were having blood stains of "B" group. So also, the sickle which came to be seized from the spot had blood stains of "B" group. The prosecution case is corroborated by the CA report (Exh.38). Looking to the evidence of PW-4 Mahadeo Deshmukh who is an eye witness to the incident and the other evidence on record including the CA report (Exh.38), we are of the opinion that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant. No case for interference is made out. 8. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence recorded by the .[9]. learned 1st Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur in Sessions Case No.79 of 2005 is confirmed. The appellant is in jail. He shall serve out the sentence. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (F.I.REBELLO,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (F.I.REBELLO,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (F.I.REBELLO,J.)