Manik Narayan Dhaygude vs The State of Maharashtra

V.K. Tahilramani, J—This appeal is preferred by the appellant - original accused against the judgment and order dated 26.9.2008 passed by the learned Ad-hoc Sessions Judge-3, Solapur in Sessions Case Nos. 255 of 2007. By the said judgment and order, the learned Session Judge convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default simple imprisonment for one day.

The prosecution case briefly stated, is as under:

(a) Deceased Sangeeta was the wife of the appellant. The appellant along with his wife, children, parents and one aunt were residing at Village Dorale in Taluka Barshi. Mathurabai was the mother of the appellant and Narayan was the father of the appellant. PW 5 Reshma was the daughter of the appellant and Bhairavnath was the son of the appellant.

(b) Reshma was studying in 8th standard when the incident took place and Bhairavnath was studying in 6th standard. The incident took place on 9.8.2007. On that day, Bhairavnath had gone to Village Dhamangaon. On 8.8.2007, as the appellant had headache, his wife Sangeeta took him to the hospital at Barshi. They returned back on the next day i.e on 9.8.2007 at about 7.00 p.m. Thereafter, all the members in the house had dinner. Reshma studied upto 11.00 p.m. and thereafter, she went to sleep. She, her father and mother were sleeping in one room. Her grandmother Mathurabai and aunt Latabai were sleeping in adjoining room and grandfather Narayan was sleeping in veranda of the house. Reshma slept on the cot and her father and mother were sleeping on the ground.

(c) At about 2.00 to 2.30 a.m., Reshma heard a loud noise, hence she got up. She saw her father giving blows with Pata (grinding stone) on the head of her mother. There was blood all over the grinding stone. Her father was sitting on the chest of her mother. Reshma asked her father what is this, he had done. Thereupon, her father told her that he had killed her mother. Reshma saw that her mother was lying in a pool of blood. Her head was completely smashed and she had died on the spot. The grandmother of Reshma raised shouts. Then neighbours gathered. PW 4 Mathurabai lodged F.I.R. Thereafter, investigation commenced. The appellant was arrested. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed. In due course, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.

Charge came to be framed against the appellant under Section 302 of IPC. The appellant-accused pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed to be tried. His defence was that of total denial and false implication. After going through the evidence adduced in this case, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated in paragraph 1 above, hence, this appeal.

We have heard the learned Advocate for the appellant and the learned APP for the State. After giving our anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced by the learned Advocates for the parties, the judgment delivered by the learned Sessions Judge and the evidence on record, for the reasons stated below, we are of the opinion that the appellant assaulted his wife Sangeeta with a grinding stone on the head and caused her death.

PW 4 Mathurabai who is the mother of the appellant has turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution though she has lodged F.I.R. wherein she has stated that her son Manik (appellant) assaulted her daughter-in-law Sangeeta with a grinding stone on the head which caused her death. However, before the Court, she has resiled from her earlier statement. In such case, the prosecution has placed reliance on the evidence of PW 5 Reshma who is the star witness in the present case.

PW 5 Reshma is the daughter of the appellant and deceased Sangeeta. Reshma has stated that on the day of the incident, Bhairavnath (son of the appellant and the deceased) had gone to Village Dhamangaon. On 8.8.2007, as the appellant i.e father of Reshma had headache, her mother Sangeeta took him to the hospital at Barshi. They returned back on the next day i.e on 9.8.2007 at about 7.00 p.m. Thereafter, all the members in the house had dinner. Reshma studied upto 11.00 p.m. and thereafter, she went to sleep. She, her father and mother were sleeping in one room. Her grandmother Mathurabai and aunt Latabai were sleeping in adjoining room and grandfather Narayan was sleeping in veranda of the house. Reshma slept on the cot and her father and mother were sleeping on the ground.

Reshma has further stated that at about 2.00 to 2.30 a.m., she heard a loud noise, hence she got up. She saw her father giving blows with Pata (grinding stone) on the head of her mother. There was blood all over the grinding stone. Her father was sitting on the chest of her mother. Reshma asked her father what is this, he had done. Thereupon, her father told her that he had killed her mother. Reshma saw that her mother was lying in a pool of blood. Her head was completely smashed and she had died on the spot. The grandmother of Reshma raised shouts. Then neighbours gathered. Nothing has been elicited in cross- examination of Reshma so as to cause us to disbelieve her testimony.

Mr. Choudhary, the learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the evidence of PW 5 Reshma cannot be relied upon because she has stated that the police had not recorded her statement. However, on going through the record, we find that this is not factually correct. The statement of Reshma was indeed recorded. The evidence of Reshma shows that her father, mother and she were sleeping in one room and on hearing a loud noise, she got up and she saw her father assaulting her mother on the head with a grinding stone. Besides this, the prosecution is relying on the fact that an extra judicial confession was made by the appellant to his daughter PW 5 Reshma.

It is the prosecution case that the appellant assaulted his wife Sangeeta with a grinding stone on the head and caused her death. This is corroborated by the medical evidence. PW 8 Dr. Bodke conducted the postmortem on the dead body of Sangeeta. He found that all the clothes of Sangeeta were stained with blood. On external examination, he found the following injuries:-

There was fracture over left frontal parietal and temporal bones of length admeasuring 15 x 7 by bone deep;

There was fracture over left mandible;

There was fracture to the nasal bone;

Brain herniation outside skull.

According to Dr. Bodke, all the above injuries were ante-mortem. Dr. Bodke also noticed following internal injuries:

Fracture over left frontal parietal and temporal bones;

Fracture over left mandible;

Fracture over nasal bone;

Brain herniation outside skull.

Dr. Bodke noticed that brain was pale with intra- cerebral hemorrhage and internal injuries were corresponding to external injuries. According to Dr. Bodke, the cause of death was cerebral hemorrhage due to fracture on frontal, parietal and temporal bone on left side with fracture to left mandible due to head injury with brain herniation. According to Dr. Bodke, all injuries were on the vital part of the body and these injuries are sufficient to cause death of human being. Dr. Bodke further opined that all injuries in the P.M. report are possible due to hard and blunt object like stone etc and above injuries can be possible due to hitting of grinding stone on the head. He has further stated that the injuries can be possible due to stone Pata - Article 1. Dr. Bodke has further stated that the face of the deceased was totally smashed and pressed and the above injuries can be possible due to forceful blow by stone like Article 1 over the face while the deceased was lying on the ground facing towards sky.

Mr. Choudhary submitted that Sangeeta was not assaulted by the appellant but in fact the stone which was kept on the tin roof of the house of the appellant fell on the head of Sangeeta which caused her death. In support of this contention, he has placed reliance on the evidence of PW 8 Dr. Bodke. In his cross-examination, Dr. Bodke has stated that the injuries sustained by Sangeeta would be possible due to fall of a stone from the roof of the house while she was sleeping on the ground facing towards sky. It is pertinent to note that the stone with which the appellant assaulted Sangeeta is a grinding stone. This is seen from the spot panchnama Exh. 14 as well as from the evidence of panch witness PW 1 Raosaheb who has stated that there was one grinding stone (Pata) in that room and there were blood stains on the grinding stone. It is not expected that the grinding stone would be kept on the roof of the house and the grinding stone would fall from the roof of the house and cause injuries to Sangeeta who was sleeping inside the house which led to her death. Thus, the defence raised on behalf of the appellant is not worthy of credence.

As stated earlier, Reshma has stated that her father i.e the appellant assaulted her mother on the head with the grinding stone and caused her death. Reshma is the daughter of the appellant. There is no reason for Reshma to falsely implicate the appellant. We find that the testimony of Reshma inspires confidence, hence, we have no hesitation in relying on the same.

On going through the record, we find that there is sufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant committed the murder of his wife Sangeeta by assaulting her on the head with a grinding stone. Thus, we find no merit in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed.