1 Criminal Appeal No.623 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.623 OF 2009 Abhiman S/o.Sahebrao Mali, Age-45 years, Occu-Labourer, R/o.Pimparkhed, Tq.Wadwani, Dist. Beed APPELLANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT Mr.S.J.Salunke, learned counsel for the appellant. Mrs.R.K.Ladda, learned A.P.P. for respondent State. (CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.) DATE : 03/03/2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per A.V.Potdar, J.) 1. The appellant, who stands convicted for an offence punishable u/s. 302 of The IPC and was sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and also convicted u/s. 201 of The IPC in Sessions Case No.17/2009 by Additional Sessions Judge, Majalgaon, by judgment and order dated 29/09/2009, has questioned the correctness of his conviction and sentence in the present appeal. 2. Such of the facts as are necessary for the decision of this 2 Criminal Appeal No.623 of 2009 appeal can be briefly stated as : a) On 28/08/2008, one Bhagwan Sahebrao Mali lodged the report (Exh.54) at about 9.00 a.m. or so, in Wadwani Police Chowki. On the basis of this report, AD was registered vide AD No.27/2008. Accordingly, occurrence report Exh.55 was prepared and forwarded to Dindrud Police Station with Prakash Maruti Khedkar (P.W.No.12). Following to the registration of the AD, u/s. 174 of The Cr.P.C., P.W.No.11 Bapurao Jadhav visited the spot of incident alongwith photographer Digambar Bhagwan Mhaske and police constable Shri. Bhusari. At the spot, photographer snapped the photographs of the dead body, which are placed at Article 1 to 5. The dead body was found hanging with the nylon rope to the rafter in the room. Thereafter the dead body was taken down in the presence of witness Kantabai Pawar and others, and prepared inquest panchnama Exh. 39. The dead body of female was identified by Bhagwan Sahebrao Mali as the dead body of Sojarbai Abhiman Mali, wife of the appellant. Then he prepared panchnama of the scene of the offence Exh.43 in the presence of Mahadeo Dadarao Sable (P.W.No.7) and other panch witnesses. He noticed that the floor of the room was prepared of a cow-dung, which is found in disturbed position. From the place of offence, he seized broken pieces of glass bangles, one nylon rope, 2 empty liquor bottles, one stone, one axe and one quilt of yellow colour saree under the spot panchnama at Exh.43. Thereafter dead body of deceased Sojarbai was referred to Rural 3 Criminal Appeal No.623 of 2009 Hospital, Chinchwan alongwith police constable Shri. Bhusari. b) Dr.Alka Ramrao Idgar (P.W.No.9), Medical Officer attached to Rural Hospital, Chinchwan, conducted autopsy on the dead body of Sojarbai on 28/08/2008. While conducting the autopsy, she noticed following external injuries, 1. One ligature mark is completely encircled the neck 1x1 cm below thyroid cartilage. 2. Second ligature mark over chin extend to both side mastoid process and ends at same posteriorly to first ligature mark 1 x ½ cm. 3. Fracture of Hyoid bond. 4. Fracture of larynx and trached ring. 5. Old scar mark over forehead ½ x ½ cm. 6. Scar mark over nose 1 x ½ cm. 7. Contusion over right side middle part on leg 4 x 4 cm. 8. Contusion just below right side middle part of leg 2 x 2 cm. black colour. 9. Over both eyes, thigh, she had some skin disease. 10.Contusion over occipital region 2 x 2 cm. All the aforesaid injuries are anti-mortem. During internal examination, she noticed that all internal organs of thoracic region and abdomen region were found congested. Heart was found congested with fill-up blood fluid. According to her, probable cause of death is due to asphyxia due to strangulation. 4 Criminal Appeal No.623 of 2009 Accordingly, she prepared post mortem report Exh.48. She has also opined that external injury no.1 to 4 are possible due to forcible press on the neck. She had also issued provisional death certificate Exh. 49. Medical Officer has also collected the blood sample of the deceased for blood grouping purpose. c) While performing autopsy on the dead body of Sojarbai, clothes on her person were removed, which were seized under panchnama Exh.37. On 29/08/2008, Sarjerao Deorao Gavhane (P.W.No.6), father of deceased Sojarbai lodged complaint (Exh.41). On the basis of said complaint, CR No.113/2008 was registered for an offence punishable u/s. 302, 498A, 201, 504 r/w. 34 of IPC against the appellant, his 2 brothers and 2 others. Investigation in the said crime was entrusted to Shri.Chhabu Shankar Sonwane (P.W.No.13). Immediately after registration of an offence, he arrested accused Namdeo. In the morning, he visited spot of incident and recorded statements of 6 witnesses including statement of Rajabhau Shinde (P.W.No.1). Then he arrested accused Bhagwan Mali and Navnath Mali, brother and son of appellant. During investigation, on 13/09/2008, he recorded statement of witnesses from village Limbaganesh. Appellant came to be arrested on 31/10/2008. While in police custody, on showing willingness by the appellant, he was referred to J.M.F.C. Wadwani to record his confessional statement u/s. 164 of The Cr.P.C. on 03/11/2008. His confessional statement was recorded by the learned J.M.F.C. on 05/11/2008. 5 Criminal Appeal No.623 of 2009 During investigation, letter of request was addressed to the revenue authorities to prepare the map/sketch of scene of offence, which was prepared and send to the Investigation Officer. After completion of investigation, charge sheet against the appellant and others was filed in the Court of J.M.F.C. Wadwani. d) On committal of trial to the Court of Sessions, learned Trial Court framed charge against the appellant and others at Exh.22 for an offence punishable u/s. 302 r/w. 34 of IPC, section 201, 498-A and 504 r/w.34 of IPC to which appellant and others pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. It appears that during the trial to prove the charge lavelled against the appellant and others, prosecution have examined total 15 witnesses. Defence of the appellant and others was of total denial. On appreciation of this evidence, learned Trial Court pleased to convict the appellant for an offence punishable u/s. 302, 201 of The IPC, while pleased to acquit the remaining accused for all the offences with which they were charged. The order of conviction of the appellant is challenged by way of present appeal. 3. Admittedly, State have not preferred any appeal against the acquittal of other accused, hence the order of acquittal reaches its finality. 4. The order of conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court 6 Criminal Appeal No.623 of 2009 against the appellant is based on the evidence of parents of deceased Sojarbai as well as the medical evidence, hence for better appreciation of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for appellant and that of learned A.P.P. appearing for the State, it is necessary to advert to the evidence of the material witnesses recorded before the Trial Court on behalf of the prosecution. 5. It is in the evidence of Sarjerao Deorao Gavhane, (P.W.No.6) that deceased Sojarbai was his daughter and was married with appellant Abhiman r/o. Pimparkhed about 15 years back. Accused Kavita is the first wife of appellant. He had stated that after the marriage, deceased Sojarbai was treated well for about 12 years by appellant Abhiman. Thereafter, appellant started illtreating Sojarbai on account of non-fulfillment of his illegal demand of Rs.50,000/- for the construction of house. During visits of Sojarbai to her parental house on 2 to 4 occasions, she had informed about the said demand and illtreatment on account of said demand to her parents. He had further stated that they gave an understanding to her and used to send her back to her matrimonial house. He has further stated that at the time of festival of Rakhipornima, deceased had been to his house house with her children. After she tied rakhi, the holy thread to her brother, she told to pay her Rs.50,000/-, in turn to pay the same to the appellant as she was in trouble. She had also informed that her life was made miserable by the appellant for his demand of Rs.50,000/- She was sent back on the next day. After returning of 7 Criminal Appeal No.623 of 2009 Sojarbai to her matrimonial house, appellant Abhiman came to their house. After he took food, he told to pay Rs.50,000/- within 2 days and threatened him that otherwise they will have to face the consequences. P.W.No.6 Sarjerao further stated that he told appellant that he will pay the amount after 1 or 2 months, to which appellant was not ready to listen. Appellant threatened him to see the consequences after 2 days. Thereafter, appellant left the house of P.W.No.6. He had further stated that on the next day, his son Mahadeo telephoned one Bhagwan to enquire about Sojarbai, to which Bhagwan informed that quarrel was going on in between Sojarbai and appellant. Bhagwan further informed that he had separated the quarrel and requested P.W.No.6 to come on the next day to the house of Sojarbai. After some time, Bhagwan telephoned one Ambadas Pawar, who in turn informed to another son of P.W.No.6 Devba (P.W.No.8) that Sojarbai was expired. On receipt of this message, he alongwith his wife P.W.No.10, son Devba P.W.No.8, Bapurao, Sampat, Vitthalrao, Kantabai proceeded to the house of appellant. He had further stated that they noticed the dead body of Sojarbai in hanging condition to the roof of the house of appellant. Police removed the dead body and drew inquest panchnama on the dead body. In his presence, inquest panchnama was prepared. Then the dead body was sent to Chinchwan Hospital for post mortem. Thereafter, he lodged report Exh.41 in Police Station. In his cross examination, defence had tried to bring on record 8 Criminal Appeal No.623 of 2009 the omissions from his statement recorded before police that he had not stated before police that appellant and other accused were residing jointly. During visit of Sojarbai at the time of festival of Rakhipornima, she had told that her life was made miserable. According to us, these omissions will not shatter the credibility of this witness. Other than the suggestion that appellant has no concern with the demise of Sojarbai, and appellant had not demanded Rs.50,000/- and on that count, gave illtreatment to Sojarbai, nothing was elicited in his cross examination. On the other hand, the statement about receipt of phone call in the earlier evening, about the quarrel between deceased and appellant, not challenged in his cross examination. According to us, evidence given by P.W.No.6 about the illtreatment and the manner in which death occurred, is not at all challenged by the appellant in the cross examination of this witness. 6. It is in the evidence of Devba Sarjerao (P.W.No.8) that the appellant started illtreating deceased after 12 years of marriage on account of demand of Rs.50,000/- to construct the new house, which she had informed to her parents on 2-3 occasions. He had also stated that deceased had been to their house on the occasion of festival of Rakhipornima and at that time informed about illtreatment to her to bring Rs.50,000/- and at that time, P.W.No.6 had given understanding to her and send her back to matrimonial house. He has also stated that on the next day, appellant visited their house 9 Criminal Appeal No.623 of 2009 and demanded Rs.50,000/- from his father. He has further stated that when his father P.W.No.6 shown his inability to instantly pay Rs. 50,000/- to him, the appellant threatened his father to see the consequences within 2 days thereafter. He has further stated that on the next day, his brother Mahadeo informed on telephone to Bhagwan to inquire about Sojarbai, at that time, Bhagwan told him that he had just separated the quarrel between Sojarbai and Abhiman and requested to come at Pimparkhed on the next day. On the next day, they received message that Sojarbai is dead. In his cross examination, only omission was brought on record that he had not stated in his statement before police that Mahadeo telephoned to Bhagwan and Bhagwan told him that he had separated the quarrel between Sojarbai and Abhiman and requested them to come at the earliest on the next day morning. Nothing was shattered in his cross examination about the evidence given by him about the illtreatment given to Sojarbai at the hands of appellant. 7. Evidence of P.W.No.10 Nilwati Sarjerao Gavhane, mother of the deceased is also on the similar line like the evidence of complainant Sarjerao P.W.No.6 and Devba P.W.No.8. The only omission was proved in her cross examination that she had not stated in her statement before police that 2 days after the visit of Sojarbai, appellant came to their residence and threatened to see what will happen within 2 days if his demand of money was not fulfilled. 10 Criminal Appeal No.623 of 2009 Other than this, evidence given by her is also not shakened in her cross examination. 8. It is urged on behalf of the appellant that from the report of A.D. on record at Exh.54, lodged by Bhagwan Mali, one of the acquitted accused and brother of the appellant, that on the earlier day, quarrel took place between appellant and the deceased and due to that appellant herself committed suicide at her residential house. Evidence given by father, mother and brother of the deceased is not corroborated by the independent witness. It is also urged that death of deceased is not a homicidal death but a suicidal death. According to him, the case of the prosecution is rests on the circumstantial evidence. From the evidence on record, prosecution is unable to prove that during the intervening night between 27/08/2008 and 28/08/2008, appellant and deceased were last seen together. Considering this aspect, it is prayed that appeal be allowed and appellant be acquitted from all the charges. He had also urged that the evidence of P.W.No.15 Shri.Abdul Karim Abdul Raheman Shaikh, J.M.F.C.Wadwani, Dist. Beed, who had recorded confessional statement of appellant u/s. 164 of The Cr.P.C. at Exh.73, can not be treated as a confession of the appellant u/s. 164 of The Cr.P.C., and no conviction can be based on the basis of this confession of the appellant at Exh.73. It is also urged that that fact of absconding of appellant soon after the incident, be not considered as a circumstance incriminating against the appellant. 11 Criminal Appeal No.623 of 2009 9. Per contra, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State supports the reasoning recorded by the Trial Court to convict the appellant in the aforesaid crime. 10. We have heard the rival submissions of learned counsel for appellant and of learned A.P.P. appearing for the respondent State. For conviction u/s. 302 of The IPC, it is necessary for the prosecution to prove that the death of the deceased is a homicidal death. In this regard, it is necessary to consider the evidence of P.W.No.9 Dr.Alka Idgar. As discussed earlier, it is opined by P.W.No.9 Dr.Alka in her substantive evidence that death of deceased is an un-natural death and injury no.1 to 4 can be possible if the neck was pressed with force. In this regard, suggestion put to the witness and answer given by this witness in her cross examination plays very vital role wherein she has admitted that, “thyroid cartilage and carotid bone placed differently. It is true that second ligature mark which is mentioned in coloumn no.17 has no concern with the cause of death. Hanging is of two types, complete hanging and partial hanging. If the feet are not touching to the ground and the entire body is in hanging position, then it can be said that it is complete hanging, but if the feet are touching to the ground and body is in reclining position, then it can be said that it is partial hanging.” This cross examination of P.W.No.9 require to be considered in the light of evidence of P.W.No.5 through whom prosecution have proved inquest panchnama at Exh.39. She has 12 Criminal Appeal No.623 of 2009 stated in her evidence about the position of the hanging body of Sojarbai that her head was facing to the sky and her knees were touching to the ground. Bluish greenish injury marks were noticed on her back, forehead, middle nose, chest, neck and on her thighs also, for which there is no challenge in her cross examination. So also, this evidence required to be read in the light of evidence of P.W.No.7 Mahadeo Dadarao Sable through whom prosecution have proved spot panchnama at Exh.43. 11. It is in the evidence of P.W.No.7 Mahadeo Sable that length of the nylon rope from the neck of the deceased till the wooden rafter is of 29 inches while the chin of the deceased is at the height of 48 inches from ground. Both the knees of the deceased were in touching position to the ground. This position itself indicates that it is not a case of suicidal death but it is the case of homicidal death. Injury marks mentioned in the inquest panchnama as well as in the post mortem notes are further clarified from the six photographs placed on record which are not disputed by the appellant that the marks of strangulation were noticed on the neck of the deceased and not at the place where the nylon rope was found around the neck of the deceased and this is to be read in the light of the external injuries noticed by P.W.No.9 Dr.Alka while conducting the autopsy on the dead body. Apart from it, the floor of the room was prepared of cow-dung where signs of resistance, struggle were found. Broken pieces of glass bangles, 2 empty liquor bottles are also found on the 13 Criminal Appeal No.623 of 2009 spot which suggest that deceased was first brutally assaulted, of which signs are also noticed on the dead body of Sojarbai, and all these things show that Sojarbai was first strangulated and then she was hanged. 11. In Chapter 17 of 23rd Edition of Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, chart is given about difference between hanging and strangulation wherein it is noticed that, Hanging Strangulation 7. Ligature mark – Oblique, non- continuous placed high up in the neck between the chin and the larynx, the base of the groove or furrow being hard, yellow and parchment like. 7. Ligature mark – Horizontal or transverse continuous, round the neck, low down in the neck below the thyroid, the base of the groove or furrow being soft and reddish. 11. Carotid arteries, internal coats ruptured in violent cases of a long drop 11. Carotid arteries, internal coats ordinarily ruptured. 12. Fracture of the larynx and trachea – Very rare and that too in judicial hanging 12. Fracture of the larynx and trachea – often found also hyoid bond. 13. Fracture – dislocation of the cervical vertebrae – Common in judicial hanging. 13. Fracture – dislocation of the cervical vertebrae – Rare. On reading of the medical evidence given by P.W.No.9 Alka, coupled with the evidence given by P.W.No.5 panch witness to the inquest panchnama and P.W.No.7 panch witness to the spot panchnama, as well as in the light of the difference between Hanging and 14 Criminal Appeal No.623 of 2009 Strangulation and the injuries noticed on the person of deceased as opined by P.W.No.9, it reveals that death of deceased was caused due to strangulation, which is a homicidal death and not a suicidal death. 12. It is tried to urge that the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence, and prosecution have not bring on record the evidence to prove the circumstance that appellant was seen in the company of deceased i.e. theory of last seen together. As the incident occurred in the intervening night between 27th and 28th of August 2008, it is presumed in Law that husband and wife to stay under one roof during the night hours unless otherwise proved. Appellant has not proved otherwise that he was not present in his house during the night hours, but it is also falsified from his statement recorded by P.W.No.15 Shri.Shaikh, J.M.F.C. Wadwani. On perusal of the evidence of P.W.No.15 Shri Shaikh, it reveals that the statement recorded by him at Exh.73 can not be treated as a confession recorded u/s. 164 of IPC as on reading the evidence of P.W.No.15, in the said statement, he has not made any statement about his guilt, but he has made statement about his presence at his residence, which is an admission u/s. 21 of The Indian Evidence Act and this admission and this statement of the appellant could be used as an admission against him about his presence at his residence. 13. The case of prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence, 15 Criminal Appeal No.623 of 2009 which circumstances are, a) Appellant and deceased are husband and wife, which is not under dispute, b) Soon before the incident, appellant had threatened parents of deceased that if they have not fulfilled his demand of Rs.50,000/-, then they will face the consequences within two days, c) Death of the deceased is a homicidal death, and the dead body of the deceased was found at the house of appellant, which was a residential house of appellant and deceased, and death was occurred in the intervening night between 27th and 28th August 2008. 14. Relation between appellant and deceased is not under dispute. Evidence given by P.W.No.6, 8 and 10 about the earlier incident of demanding money is not shattered in their cross examination. Death of deceased is proved to be a homicidal death, and it is also not under dispute that dead body of the deceased was found in the residential premises of appellant and deceased. In the night of incident, appellant was present at his residential house, which is proved from his admission given u/s. 21 of The Evidence Act, so also presumption u/s. 106 of The Evidence Act lies in favour of prosecution and not rebutted by the appellant as no explanation was offered as to how the death of deceased was occurred while she was in the company of appellant only. Considering the overall effect of 16 Criminal Appeal No.623 of 2009 above discussion, we are of the opinion that the prosecution have proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt that appellant is the only author of the injuries found on the person of the deceased resulted in her death and by creating the scene of hanging, tried to destroy the evidence of murder committed by him and thus also committed an offence punishable u/s. 201 of The IPC. 15. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, we do not find any fault in the judgment of the Trial Court, convicting the appellant for an offence punishable u/s. 302 and u/s. 201 of The IPC and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment accordingly. 16. In the substance, as the appeal is devoid of any merit, stands dismissed accordingly. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) (P.V.HARDAS, J.) khs/MAR. 2011/cri.appeal 623-09