Full Text
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 737 OF 2013
Rajendra Sham Waghele
Age: 51 years, Occ: Nil, R/o Room No. B-38, N.M.C. Building, Kathada, Bhadrakali, Nashik.
At present confned at
Nashik Road Central Prison
Nashik. ...APPELLANT
At the instance of
Bhadrakali Police Station, Nasik. ...RESPONDENT...
Mr. Hitesh Shah for appellant.
Mr. S.S. Hulke APP for State.
…
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal takes an exception to the impugned judgment and order dated 30.11.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-4, Nasik in Sessions Case NO. 30.11.2012. Bhagyawant Punde
2. In the present case the appellant herein has lodged the FIR and stated thus:- That, Sau. Meena Rajendra Waghele (hereinafter referred to as deceased) was his wife, their marriage was solemnized in the year 1986. He has two sons namely Prashant and Ganesh and one married daughter Sau. Komal, who is residing at Upnagar, Nashik. According to the appellant prior to one year back of the incident he took voluntary retirement from the service. After the marriage for few days Meena (deceased) they cohabited, however, according to him, during cohabitation period behaviour of deceased was not proper and frequent quarrels used to held in between them. Ten years back on one occasion deceased on her own accord alongwith son and daughter went at her parents home and stayed there for three months. Thereafter, appellant convinced the deceased and brought her back for cohabitation. According to the appellant, at the time of Diwali in last year quarrel was held with the deceased and at the same time the deceased uttered obscene words as well as blamed him as impotent.
3. It is the case of the appellant that on 13.11.2011 at about
10.00 p.m. he came to home and at that time only the deceased was present in the house. On his reaching home again quarrel took place with the deceased and at that time also the deceased called him as impotent. He stated her that she is at liberty to leave him. On that the deceased pulled his collar and started beating him. At the relevant time he picked up a knife lying in the home and assaulted her by said knife and cut her neck and ultimately killed her.
4. On registration of FIR, investigating machinery was set in motion. The then API Raju Rasede at Bhandrakali Police Station went at the spot and prepared spot panchnama. He also prepared inquest panchnama of dead body of deceased vide Exh. 25. He then forwarded the dead body for postmortem. At the relevant time of preparation of spot panchnama API Rasede seized on broken chain having four beads of yellow metal, one knife having red colour fber shaft, one blue colour Saree, one bed sheet as well as pillow cover having blood stains. The then PI Barvkar formally arrested the accused and prepared arrest panchnama. He then seized clothes of the accused and prepared seizure panchnama vide Exh. 14. During investigation head constable Aswale brought the clothes of deceased from the hospital, thereafter PI Bhadrakali Police Station seized those clothes vide panchnama Exh. 15. He has further collected blood sample of accused from the hospital and prepared its panchnama as well as blood sample of the deceased and prepared its panchmana vide Exh. 16 and 17. PI Bhadrakali Police Station recorded statements of witnesses. During investigation he has further forwarded seized property for chemical analysis by requisition at Exh. 24. He has further got recorded statement of witness Prashant Waghele from the Magistrate. On receiving postmortem report and C.A. report it revealed that suffcient material is available against the accused showing his involvement in commission of offence and hence he forwarded chargesheet against the accused.
5. As the offence under Section 302 of IPC is exclusively triable by Sessions Court, learned Magistrate has committed the matter for trial to the Sessions Court.
6. In the light of prosecution case charge punishable under Section 302 of IPC was framed and the same was read over and explained to the accused vide Exh. 4, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The said plea was recorded at Exh.5. In the light of evidence of prosecution witnesses statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. at Exh. 30 wherein the accused denied his involvement in commission of alleged offence.
7. So as to bring the guilt at home of the accused prosecution has led direct as well as other evidence. In the light of direct evidence and particularly to prove motive, the prosecution has examined Ramesh Sana Teji who is brother of the deceased at Exh. 8 as PW 1. In the same line, the prosecution has further examined Leela Ramesh Rabadiya- neighbourer of the deceased as PW 3 at Exh. 10. So as to prove conduct of the accused as well as circumstance of last seen, the prosecution did examine Jaggu Jagdish Pawar- neighbourer as PW 2 at Exh. 9. In the same line the proseuction has further examined Prashant Rajendra Waghele- son of the deceased at Exh. 18 as PW 5. So as to prove spot panchnama as well as seizure panchnama of the articles, the prosecution examined Sunil Daryasingh Kalyani- panch at Exh. 12 as PW 4. In order to prove cause of death the prosecution has led evidence of Dr. Rajendra Dusane (PW-6) at Exh. 20. The prosecution did examine PI Chandrakant Barvkar at Exh. 21A as PW 7. Part of the investigation was carried out by API Raju Rasede and hence prosecution also examined him at Exh. 24 as PW 8. The prosecution brought on record suffcient evidence but the accused refrained himself from entering into the witness box or led any defence evidence.
8. After a full fedged trial the trial Court convicted the appellant- accused. Hence, this appeal.
9. The prosecution in order to prove whether the death was homicidal, suicidal or accidental examined Dr. Rajendra Dusane (PW[6]), working as a medical offcer, Civil Hospital, Nashik, at the relevant time. In his examination in chief he stated that on 14.11.2011, Bhadrakali Police Station forwarded the dead body of Meena Rajendra Wagile for autopsy at about 9.30 a.m. He commenced the autopsy and complete the same at about 10.00 a.m. The dead body was of female aged about 40 years. On an medical examination he found the following injuries:
He further stated that all the injuries were anti mortem, likely to be caused by any sharp object. On internal examination of thorax, cut throat injury cutting trachea reveals. He has opined that the cause of death of the deceased is hemorrhagic shock due to cut throat injury. Accordingly, he prepared the postmortem report and has verifed his signature at Exh. 21. The injury to the deceased were suffcient to cause her death in ordinary course of nature. He has stated that at the relevant time, the police forwarded inquest panchnama and letter along with the dead body.
10. In his cross examination the medical offcer has stated that the injuries are not self inficted injuries, except on the neck. It is possible that the injury can be self inficted over the neck. Merely because the medical offcer has expressed an opinion that the injury can be self inficted, no plausible conclusion can be reached that the injury on the neck was self inficted. Though, the medical offcer was not in a position to tell the time of death, nevertheless the prosecution has collected other evidence which suggest an approximate time of death. The medical offcer has recorded the defnite fndings that the Meena Waghele- victim died due to homicidal death.
11. The prosecution has examined Ramesh (PW[1]). He is brother of the deceased. According to his evidence, in 1986 marriage of deceased was solemnized with the accused. The deceased then begotten two sons Prashant, Ganesh and one married daughter Komal. Further accused always used to raise quarrel with deceased on monetary demands and subjected her with cruelty. He further stated that in the year 2005 accused severely beat the deceased as well as both the sons by raising quarrel on account of demand of money. At the relevant time deceased and her sons were admitted in Civil hospital, Nashik and on discharge she and the sons went at the home of another sister Asha and stayed there for 15 days. The a marriage was held, the accused assured fair treatment and her sons and executed bond vide Article A. Thereafter Meena (deceased) again resumed cohabitation, but there was no change in the behaviour of the accused.
12. In order to prove guilt of the accused the prosecution has examined neighbour of the appellant namely Jaggu Jagdish Pawar (PW[2]). In his examination in chief he stated that he is the neighbour of the accused. The quarter of the accused is next to his quarter. He stated that he knows family of accused. He further stated that there were frequent quarrels between accused and his wife. They could hear them shouting and quarreling. He also stated that after such quarrels victim used to go to her parental home. He stated that at the relevant day and time of incident he was at home. He had gone out for an outing at about 12 noon. He returned to home at about
5.30 to 6.00 p.m. On that day he was at home till 10.00 p.m. He further stated that between 10.30 and 11.00 p.m, when he went for a walk, he saw the accused closing the door of house. The accused scared after seeing him. The accused was wearing a light green shirt and there were blood stains on his sleeves. The front area of shirt was also had blood stains. He then saw the accused going out after he closed the front door of his house. Thereafter, PW[2] went back to home. After some time, he heard sound of crying. When he came out of house he was Prashant (PW[5]) was crying loudly in front of his house. The front door of the house was opened. He saw dead body of victim through open door. Her throat was cut. One vegetable knife was lying nearly which had a red handle.
13. In his cross examination Jaggu Pawar (PW[2]) stated that the police had called him at the police station for recording his statement. Accordingly, on 16th he had been to the police station. He was not aware that the accused lodged the complaint regarding murder of victim. He stated that at the relevant day and time of the incident he heard the sound of weeping and hence he came out of house. He stated that at the relevant time of incident he saw the accused having blood stains on his shirt, but he still went to his house. He denied the suggestion that had not seen the accused on 13th while proceeding out his house, by wearing blood stained clothes.
14. The prosecution has further examined Leela (PW[3]). According to her evidence, she is neighbourer of accused and infact they have common wall in between their houses. There were frequent quarrels and fghts between accused and deceased. Leela (PW[3]) stated that deceased used to proceed at her parental home frequently whenever she used to get fade up with such quarrels. According to her further evidence, on 13.11.2011 she was present at her home at 7.30 p.m. When she was cooking she heard sound of quarreling from the house of accused and thinking that it was usual quarrel, she had ignored. After some time she heard sound of weeping of the son of deceased, hence she came out to see as to what happened. At the relevant time she had seen the deceased lying in a pool of blood with cut throat injury.
15. Sunil Kalyani (PW[4]) was examined by the prosecution. He is panch witness over spot panchnama Exh. 13, seizure panchnama of the clothes of accused Exh. 14, clothes of deceased Exh. 15 as well as panchnama regarding collecting blood samples at Exh. 16 and Exh. 17. On going through his over all evidence it revals that Sunil is residing in the same area where incident happened and also acquainted with family of accused and the witnesses in the present matter. Sunil (PW[4]) while under examination categorically stated about preparation of above discussed panchnamas in his presence as well as identify concerned property vide Articles A[1] to A11.
16. The star witness of the prosecution is son of the appellant Prashant Wagile (PW 5), who in his examination in chief stated that at the relevant time his family consisted of father Rajendra, mother Meena and elder brother Ganesh. His father was in municipal service and he got voluntary retirement in August,
2010. In the place of his father municipal council provided job to him. His mother used to perform household work. His father during life time of his mother used to quarrel with her, abuse her and it was continued upto the date of the incident. On 13.11.2011 he was on duty from 2.00 p.m upto 10.00 p.m, and hence about 12.30 p.m, he left the home to attend the duty. At about 7.15 hrs, he came at home. He took the dinner and went to take a walk and accordingly informed his mother. At about 11.00 to 11.15 p.m. he returned at home, at that time he found his father hurriedly leaving home and at the relevant time, he noticed blood stains on the clothes of his father. He then opened the door and entered into the home and found his mother lying in a pool of blood and the injury was on her neck. The knife was also lying there. He then raised shouts. The people then came there. He has confrmed that his father killed his mother. The police came and prepared panchnama and forwarded the dead body for postmortem. He learnt from the police that his father himself lodged the complaint to the effect that he killed his wife by causing injury to her neck. He stated that he can identify the knife well as clothes of his father, if shown. He stated that the knife Article A-1 is the same and Article A-6 and A-7 i.e. clothes are the same. He has identifed the accused who is before the Court.
17. He stated in his cross examination that, on the relevant date he came home prior to his duty hours and for that he did not apply for leaving offce before the duty hours. He stated that he did not apply in writing seeking permission to leave offce before duty hours, however, he informed his superior orally that he want to leave offce before working hours are completed. He denied the suggestion that he has falsely narrated that he has seen his father hurriedly leaving home at the relevant time and there were blood stains over his clothes. He also denied the suggestion that he has narrated falsely that his father subjected his mother with ill treatment up-till her death. The evidence of this witness who is son of the appellant is clinching, cogent and directly connects the appellant with the commission of offence. His evidence, so far presence of the accused at home on relevant date and time, gets corroboration from the evidence of Jaggu Pawar (PW[2]).
18. Conjoint reading of evidence of prosecution witnesses it clearly surfaced on record that there used to be frequent quarrels between the accused and Meena (deceased). The accused used to harass and ill-treat her. The evidence of Ramesh (PW[1]) shows that even after arriving at settlement and assurance by the accused that he will not harass or ill-treat Meena (deceased), and to that extent even bond was executed by him, however, he continued ill-treatment to Meena (deceased). The evidence of other witnesses who were residing in nearby vicinity clearly discloses that there were frequent quarrels and on the date of incident such quarrels were heard by them at about 7.30 pm. The evidence of son of the accused namely Prashant clearly shows that at the relevant time the accused was present in the house and when he returned from his work. After dinner Prashant (PW[5]) went for a walk and on returning he found that the accused-appellant hurriedly leaving the house and blood stains were also noticed on his clothes. Aforesaid version of Prashant gets corroboration from the evidence of Jaggu Pawar (PW[2]). Therefore, the evidence brought on record by the prosecution clearly suggested involvement of the appellant in commission of murder of his wife Meena (deceased), beyond reasonable doubt. It is not the case of single injury but the multiple injuries were noticed by the witnesses and also it is evident from the medical evidence that the accused had clear intention to kill Meena (deceased), and therefore, no leniency can be shown to the accused.
19. It is not necessary to elaborate further reasons, suffce it to say that the fndings recorded by the trial Court are in consonance with the evidence brought on record by the prosecution. The trial Court has taken a plausible view and the circumstances and evidence brought on record unequivocally indicate the guilt of the accused.
20. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered view that the judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court deserves no interference. Hence, the appeal stands dismissed.
21. The copy of the judgment shall be sent free of costs by the Registry of this Court to the Superintendent of Nashik Central Prison, where the accused is undergoing his sentence and in turn the Superintendent of Nashik Central Prison Jail shall forthwith serve the copy of the judgment to the appellant-accused. ( S.P. TAVADE, J.) (S. S. SHINDE, J.)