Manohar Keshavrao Khandate vs State of Maharashtra

Tahilramani V.K. (Smt.), J.—This appeal is directed by the appellant - original accused against the judgment and order dated 14.8.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati, in Sessions trial No. 197 of 2006. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant u/s 302 of Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/in default to suffer R.I. for one year. The prosecution case briefly stated is as under :

The accused was married to Ranjana (deceased). They had two children i.e. one daughter P.W. 3 - Deepali and one son Nitin. The accused was addicted to liquor and Ganja, on account of this, there used to be frequent quarrels between the husband and wife. On 20.6.2006, in the night at about 00.45 A.M., the accused assaulted his wife on head with Pata (grinding stone). Deepali was present in the house. She heard some sound and hence she woke up. She saw accused sitting near her mother. Her mother was covered with chaddar. The accused told her that her mother was not feeling well, therefore, he would bring a Doctor. He told her not to remove the chaddar and not to see her mother. Thereafter, the accused ran away from the house. Deepali uncovered the face of her mother and saw bleeding injury on the head of her mother. On seeing this, she went to their landlord - PW 1 Arun, who was residing in the same building. Arun came in the house and saw Ranjana lying on the bed. He found that Ranjana had injury on the head and there were no movements. He immediately left the room. At a little distance, he saw a Police Constable P.W. 2 - Shalindra. Arun told P.W. 2 that accused had killed his wife and ran away. Thereafter P.W. 1 - Arun informed P.S.I. Atram of Police Station Rajapeth on his mobile. Police arrived at the spot immediately. FIR of P.W. 1 - Arun came to be recorded. The body of Ranjana was sent for post mortem. P.W. 4-Dr. Rathi conducted post mortem on the body of Ranjana and found following injuries on her body.

Lacerated wound near right eye 3" x 1/2" x 1/2".

Lacerated wound on right ear pinna, 2" x 1/4" x entire thickness.

Lacerated wound on right frontal area scalp. X" x 1/2" x bone deep.

Abrasion on right side chin 1" x 1/8" x 1/8".

I also found following internal injuries.

Hematoma present under scalp on right fronto parito ocipital area 6" x 3" 1/2".

Depressed fracture right parieto occipital area 3" x 2" x brain deep."

After completion of investigation, 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 accused appellant u/s 302 of IPC. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. His defence is that he had left the house in the night to search his son Nitin. On the way, some 4-5 persons beat him. He went to the Police Station and fell unconscious. Thereafter, police arrested him. According to him, when he left the house, the door was open, so some unknown assailant entered his house and caused the death of his wife. After going through the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated in para 1 above, hence, this appeal.

We have heard Shri Deshpande, learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri Mirza, learned APP for the respondent - State. We have perused the evidence in this case as well as the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. After giving our anxious consideration to the matter, for the reasons stated hereinbelow, we are of the opinion that this appeal deserves to be dismissed.

The prosecution case is mainly based on the evidence of P.W. 3 - Deepali who is the daughter of the deceased and accused. Deepali has stated that she heard some sound, hence, she woke up. She saw accused sitting near her mother. Her mother was covered with chaddar on her person. The accused told her that her mother was not feeling well, therefore, he would bring a Doctor. He told her not to remove the chaddar and not to see her mother. Thereafter, the accused ran away from the house. Deepali uncovered the face of her mother and saw bleeding injury on the head of her mother. On seeing this, she called her landlord - PW 1 Arun, who was residing in the same building. Arun came in the house and saw Ranjana lying on the bed. He found that Ranjana had injury on the head and there were no movements.

The cause of death is shock due to injury to brain. Looking to the evidence on record, we have no manner of doubt that the death is homicidal in nature. Even otherwise it is also not disputed by the appellant that the death is homicidal in nature, but the defence is that it was not the appellant who assaulted Ranjana but as the door of the house was left open till Nitin came home, some unknown assailants came into the house and assaulted Ranjana. As far as this contention is concerned, it is noticed that Deepali had stated that on hearing sound, she woke up and saw her father sitting near her mother. Her father told her that her mother was not feeling well, therefore, he would bring a doctor. He told her not to remove the chaddar and see her mother. Saying so, he ran away. The evidence of Deepali clearly shows that the appellant was very much in the house and conduct of the appellant in telling Deepali not to remove chaddar and thereafter running away on the pretext of calling the doctor, clearly points out to his guilt. We find the conduct of the accused wholly inconsistent with his innocence. Moreover, it is noticed that the incident has taken place in the house where the accused and deceased were residing. Besides, P.W. 3 - Deepali, who is a young child of about 9 years, there was no one else in the house. The evidence of Deepali shows that the accused was very much present in the house and immediately after her mother had sustained serious injuries on the head, the accused ran away from the house. In such circumstances, the burden would fall on the accused to show as to how Ranjana sustained injuries. No doubt, the accused has put forward a defence which we have adverted to earlier but we find that this defence is not substantiated in any manner. We do not find the defence to be probable and on the other hand, the evidence of Deepali shows the involvement of the accused in the crime. Deepali is the daughter of the accused. She would not falsely involve her own father. We find that her evidence inspires confidence, hence we have no hesitation in relying on her testimony.

The evidence of Deepali establishes the presence of the accused in the house. In this connection, we would like to refer to section 106 of the Evidence Act. Section 106 of the Evidence Act is not intended to relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt but the section would apply to cases where prosecution has succeeded in proving the facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding the existence of certain facts, unless the accused by virtue of special knowledge regarding such facts provides some explanation which might drive the Court to draw a different inference. Useful reference can be made to Sucha Singh Vs. State of Punjab, wherein it is observed that:

Learned Senior Counsel contended that section 106 of the Evidence Act is not intended for the purpose of filling up the vacuum in prosecution evidence. He invited our attention to the observations made by the Pnvy Council in (Attygattle Vs. R.)2, 1936 B.C.I. (soft) 30 : AIR 1936 P.C. 289 : 37 Cri. L.J. 963 . In fact the observations contained therein were considered by this Court in an early decision authored by Vivian Bose, J., in Shambu Nath Mehra Vs. The State of Ajmer, The statement of law made by the learned Judge in the aforesaid decision has been extracted by us in (State of W.B. Vs. Mir Mohd. Om(sic) 2000 DGLS (soft) 1325 : 2000 DGLS (Cri.) soft 10 : (2008) 8 S.C.C. 382 : 2000 S.C.C.(Cri 1516. It is useful to extract a further portion of the observations made by us in the aforesaid decision : (SCC p. 392, para 33)

Presumption of fact is an inference as to the existence of one fact from the existence of some other facts, unless the truth of such inference is disproved. Presumption of fact is a rule in law of evidence that a fact otherwise doubtful may be inferred from certain other proved facts. When inferring the existence of a fact from other set of proved facts, the Court exercises a process of reasoning and reaches a logical conclusion as the most probable position. The above principle has gained legislative recognition in India when section 114 is incorporated in the Evidence Act. It empowers the Court to presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened. In that process, the Court shall have regard to the common course of natural events, human conduct etc. in relation to the facts of the case.

We pointed out that section 106 of the Evidence is not intended to relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, but the section would apply to cases where the prosecution has succeeded in proving facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding the existence of certain other facts, unless the accused by virtue of special knowledge regarding such facts failed to offer any explanation which might drive the Court to draw a different inference.

In the present case, though the accused has furnished an explanation, in the facts and circumstances, we do not find it to be probable or plausible. Thus, we are of the opinion that the accused has not discharged the burden u/s 106 of the Evidence Act.

There is another circumstance which connects the appellant with the crime. At the time of arrest, the shirt on the person of the accused was found to be blood stained. It was seized vide panchnama Exh. 37. The said shirt was sent to the Chemical Analyser and as per C.A. Report (Exh. 2), the shirt had blood stains of "A" group i.e. the blood group of the deceased. Considering the evidence on record, we find that the offence has been proved against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. There is no merit in this Appeal, the same is, therefore, dismissed.