cra645.11 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.645 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.67 OF 2011 Shridhar s/o Bhiwaji Dandekar, R/o-Kharwad, Tq-Kalamnuri, Dist-Hingoli. ...APPLICANT. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra. ...RESPONDENT. ... Shri. D.M. Shinde Advocate for Applicant. Shri. D.V. Tele, A.P.P. for Respondent. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND T.V. NALAWADE, JJ. DATE : 13TH APRIL, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The Applicant was convicted and sentenced cra645.11 2 for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hingoli in Sessions Case No.7 of 2010, by Judgment and order dated 31st January, 2011. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 28th June, 2009 at about 7.00 a.m. wife of the Applicant namely, Wanita had gone to Bhairavnath Temple for taking Darshan. As she did not return till 9 a.m., Applicant proceeded to Bhairavnath Temple for searching his wife but could not find her. He telephoned her parents and relatives. The Applicant thereafter, filed missing report with Police Station Officer, Police Station, Basamba, who registered the same as Missing Report No.5 of 2009 at about 9.30 p.m., on 28th June, 2009. On 29th June, 2009, it is alleged that Applicant Shridhar Dandekar lodged a report with the Police station, Basamba. He stated in the report that on the day of incident, he had asked his wife to wait cra645.11 3 in the house and he proceeded to have bath. It was raining on that day and therefore he advised his wife to wait for sometime and thereafter they would go together. It is the case of the Applicant that he went to take bath and came out after some time, but by that time he found that his wife had left the house. Therefore, he proceeded to Bhairavnath Temple for Darshan. He took Darshan but did not find his wife there. The Applicant submitted in the report that he and Subhash, his cousin brother in law, searched Wanita, but could not find her. It is alleged that Pradeep Dandekar, brother of Applicant informed Applicant that his wife was lying near the temple of Bhairavnath at Kharwad. In response to the same, the Applicant, Police Patil Ramji Kamble and other villagers went to Bhairavnath Temple. They saw that Wanita, wife of Applicant, was lying dead. The spot of incident, according to the Applicant, is part of jungle. cra645.11 4 4. The Police started investigation in the matter and lodged charge sheet against three accused persons, including the Applicant. The trial Court acquitted original accused Nos. 2 and 3. 5. The learned counsel for the Applicant submits that conduct of the Applicant, husband of deceased, shows that he is innocent. There is no direct evidence involving Applicant in connection with the crime. There is no motive for Applicant to commit crime. The Applicant was leading happy married life with the deceased since last fourteen years. The Applicant had two children from the said wed-lock and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the prosecution failed to establish that Applicant committed the said crime. The counsel submitted that reliance placed by the trial Court on the evidence of neighbour - Namdeo Patil, PW-12, is not convincing, as evidence of the said witness is not reliable. cra645.11 5 6. The learned A.P.P. submitted that facts and circumstances brought on record by the prosecution clearly establishes that Applicant must be the culprit. The deceased was badly assaulted and due to those injuries, she died. The story narrated by the Applicant in his report, could not be relied upon. Innocence of Applicant is not reflected from the evidence on record. 7. Original record was called. We have perused the same. We have considered the submissions advanced. We find that there is strong prima facie case against the Applicant. Prima facie assessment of the circumstances brought on record, is against the Applicant. We have perused the statement of the Applicant recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. At this stage, it would not be appropriate to appreciate the evidence on record, more precisely, evidence of PW-12 Namdeo Patil, who was neighbour cra645.11 6 of the Applicant. 8. Perusal of medical evidence shows that the deceased suffered several injuries, including fracture of right side ribs 2 to 7 in numbers and left side fracture of ribs 2 to 6, CLW over posterior lateral left forearm, contusion with abrasion over right elbow, contusion with abrasion over right wrist medial side. According to the medical certificate, all injuries were ante- mortem. The Doctor noticed internal injuries, which are listed below: i) Rupture of right lungs with hemotoma, ii) Rupture of left lung with slight hemorrhage, iii) Rupture of liver, old laceration anteriorly. 9. According to the Doctor, death was caused cra645.11 7 due to hemorrhagic shock with lung and liver rapture with multiple fracture of ribs of both side. 10. Considering all these aspects of the matter, we are not inclined to release the Applicant on bail. The Application is rejected. The Record and Proceedings be sent back forthwith. 11. At this stage, learned counsel for the Applicant prayed for fix date of hearing of the Appeal. This Court is hearing Jail Appeals of the year 2010. We do not find it necessary to consider the request of the counsel. The request stands rejected. [T.V. NALAWADE,J.] [NARESH H. PATIL,J.] asb/APR11/cra645.11