(1) CRI.APPLN. 4503.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4503 OF 2010 1. Tanaji @ Govind S/o. Bhimrao Gottamwad 2. Narayan S/o Bhimrao Gottamwad 3. Babu S/o Bhimrao Gottamwad APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT ..... Mr. S.J. Salunke, Advocate for the Applicants. Mr. P.P. More, A.P.P. for the respondent/State. ..... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 3RD DECEMBER, 2010 ORAL ORDER:- 1. By this Application, the applicants are seeking bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The applicants have been arrested in connection with crime no. 47 of 2010 registered at Kandhar Police Station (Dist. Nanded) for offences punishable under section 302 r/w. section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Heard learned Advocate for the applicants and learned A.P.P. for the State. Perused the (2) CRI.APPLN. 4503.2010 investigation papers. Chargesheet is already filed after due investigation. 3. The alleged incident is said to have occurred somewhere in the noon of 2.4.2010 at the residential house of the applicants and their brother by name Bhanudas. The deceased, namely, Laxmibai was wife of said Bhanudas. It appears that she was asking for share in the agricultural land and there was a dispute going on between the applicants on one side and deceased-Laxmibai on the other side regarding cultivation of the family land. 4. It appears from the investigation papers that on 19.3.2010, deceased-Laxmibai indulged in a quarrel with the applicant no.1-Tanaji and his wife and therefore they knocked fists on her face. With the result, her two frontal molars were uprooted. She had gone to reside with her parents for some period. Her husband however fetched her and thereafter she started residing with the husband and the minor son i.e. Hanmant. 5. The investigation papers prima facie show that on 2.4.2010 the quarrels were going on between (3) CRI.APPLN. 4503.2010 deceased-Laxmibai on one hand and the applicants alongwith wife of the applicant no.1 on the other hand. The applicant no.1-Tanaji asked minor son of deceased-Laxmibai, namely Hanmant to go away to the field. He left to the field. His father also reached to the agricultural field after him. The applicants did not however go to the field. It prima facie appears that when Hanmant, aged about 15 years, returned home in the evening then he noticed that the applicants, wife of the applicant no.1 and the paternal aunt were together leaving the premises of the residential house. They did not talk to him. He however noticed that the entrance door of the house was chained from outside. He removed the chain and entered the house because there was no response of his mother to the calls given from outside. He noticed, on going inside the house that mother (Laxmibai) was lying on the ground. She was not speaking and therefore Hanmant was frightened with premonition that something serious had occurred in her context. He immediately darted out of the residential house and started raising alarms. Some of the villagers and neighbours gathered around the (4) CRI.APPLN. 4503.2010 house. The applicant no.2-Narayan lodged a report in the meanwhile, at the Police Station Kandhar alleging that the deceased-Laxmibai had committed suicide by hanging herself. On the next day, the real brother of deceased-Laxmibai took Hanmant in confidence and enquired about the incident. He gathered the information that Laxmibai was done to death inside the residential house. On basis of his report, the Police registered an offence punishable under section 306 r/w. section 34 but after the post mortem report, which indicated that she was strangulated in all probability. The offence was registered under section 302 r/w. section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. On basis of the material gathered during course of investigation the applicants have been so chargesheeted for the commission of culpable homicide of said Laxmibai inside the residential house in the relevant noon. 6. There is no direct evidence about the acts of the applicants and their conjoint act of causing strangulation of deceased-Laxmibai. Still, however, certain circumstances prima facie speak for themselves. They are as below:- (5) CRI.APPLN. 4503.2010 a) That when Hanmant returned home in the evening then he found the residential house chained from outside while the applicants were together leaving from near the house; b) P.W. Hanmant and his father were sent to the agricultural land by the applicant no.1- Tanaji in the noon time when the quarrels were going on between the applicants on one hand and the deceased-Laxmibai on the other hand inside the residential house; which prima facie show presence of the applicants in the company of deceased-Laxmibai just before her death; c) The earlier incident dated 19.3.2010 had caused loss of two frontal molars due to the fist blows given on the face of deceased- Laxmibai by the applicant no.1-Tanaji and his wife; d) That, deceased-Laxmibai was indulging in the squabbles on account of the property dispute notwithstanding the fact that her husband was rather playing with low profile; e) That the death of Laxmibai, as per the post- mortem notes is prima facie of homicidal nature. Inspite of such knowledge, the applicant no.2 gave incorrect report to the Police that he had hang herself in the house; (6) CRI.APPLN. 4503.2010 f) The deceased-Laxmibai was strangulated inside the house and therefore it could not be a handiwork of a single person. 7. The investigation papers do not prima facie show any tangible evidence to infer that Laxmibai, in fact, hang herself at the place of residence inside the house. 8. Apart from the testimony of P.W. Hanmant, the above chain of circumstances, prima facie point out finger towards the applicants as authors of the strangulation of Laxmibai. The conduct of the applicants is also not free from blame. They filed affidavit of Bhanudas i.e. husband of deceased Laxmibai in support of their bail Application filed before the Sessions Court. In other words, even before commencement of the trial, there is a prima facie attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence by silencing or manipulating the version of said Bhanudas. This conduct of the applicants reveal prima facie possibility of their tampering with the evidence of the minor witness i.e. P.W. Hanmant. It also shows unfairness on their part and potential to manipulate the things. (7) CRI.APPLN. 4503.2010 9. Under these circumstances, though the case is based on circumstantial evidence, yet the applicants do not deserve the discretionary relief during pendency of the Sessions Court. The Bail Application is therefore dismissed. The observations made in this order be not considered while deciding the Sessions case on merits thereof. Sd/- [V. R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp