Criminal Appeal No. 873 of 2009. Case: Sitaram Hiraman Jopale Vs State of Maharashtra. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Criminal Appeal No. 873 of 2009 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Mrs. Nasreen S.K. Ayubi, Adv. and For State: P.S. Hingorani, APP |
| Judges | Mrs. V. K. Tahilramani, J. and P. D. Kode , J. |
| Issue | Evidence Act (1 of 1872) - Section 106; Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) - Sections 84, 300 |
| Citation | 2013 CriLJ 3588 |
| Judgement Date | June 20, 2013 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
Smt. V. K. Tahilramani, J.
-
The Appellant-original accused has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 30th June, 2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik in Sessions Case No. 181 of 2005. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to RI for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default RI for three months.
-
The prosecution case briefly stated, is as under:
Deceased Bharati was daughter of PW2 Palvi. Bharati was married to the appellant about 15 years prior to the incident. They had two daughters and a son. The appellant was doing nothing and was jobless. The appellant had a piece of land but he was not cultivating it. Hence Bharati, wife of the appellant used to call her father PW2 Palvi to help her in cultivation of the land. Bharati used to tell her father PW2 Palvi that her husband used to ill-treat her. He would assault her with shoes and also gave threats to her life.
On 7th July, 2005 PW2 Palvi had been to the house of his daughter Bharati and the appellant as Bharati had called him to assist her in cultivation. On that day, Bharti and PW2 Palvi had taken part in sowing rice in the field. He returned back at about 7.00 p.m. After taking dinner, all of them i.e. Bharati, minor children, appellant and PW2 Palvi slept in one and the same room. PW2 Palvi was sleeping at some distance from the couple.
-
At 4.30 a.m. Mangal, grand-daughter of PW2 cried loudly, therefore, PW2 Palvi got up from sleep. He saw that his daughter Bharati was having bleeding injury on the right side of the neck and a blood stained axe was lying near her. At the same time, PW2 Palvi saw his son-in-law proceeding towards door. PW2 found that his daughter Bharati was dead. Thereafter, he followed the appellant and tried to search for him but he could not find him. PW2 Palvi then went and informed the incident to DW1 Hiraman, who is father of the appellant and to the Police Patil. PW2 Palvi then went to the police station and lodged his FIR Exh.32. Thereafter, the investigation commenced. The dead body was sent for post-mortem. PW7 Dr. Mohandas conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of Bharati. He found following external injuries on the body of Bharati:
i. CLW over the neck on right side laterally extending from mandible middle to lateral end of clavicle oblique direction spindle shape. Edges lacerated 13 cm x 5 cm deep upto vertebra clotted blood present. Muscle cut cartoid and other vessels cut.
ii. Fracture mandible middle region 3 cm x 1 cm upto bone.
iii. Fracture of cervical vertebra present.
In his opinion cause of death was shock due to haemorrhage due to deep injury at neck with cervical vertebra fracture.
After completion of investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed against the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC.
3A. Charge came to be framed against the appellant under section 302 of IPC. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed to be tried. The defence of the appellant is that of total denial and false implication. The appellant has further taken a defence that he was insane at the time of the incident. An alternate defence has also been raised by the appellant that someone else entered the house and murdered Bharati and ran away. After going through the...
To continue reading
Request your trial